Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2004

Business of the House

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to return to the tabling of documents.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to the tabling of documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Canada's Performance 2004

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, as part of an effort to provide parliamentarians and Canadians with a comprehensive perspective of the government's performance, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report entitled “Canada's Performance 2004”, the annual report to Parliament by the President of the Treasury Board.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the remarks made by the member for Fundy Royal and his research. At the end of the day, I agree with the member that there is a farmer, a farm family and a community at the bottom line on this BSE crisis. There is indeed financial hardship out there and we recognize that. We have come forward with many programs to deal with it. Ultimately, the solution is to get the U.S. border open to live cattle from Canada. Earlier the minister mentioned some of the progress we were making in that area.

We are dealing with a motion from the Bloc Quebecois. Its members gave a lot of rhetoric but no substance earlier today. They said in the motion that they want the government to implement specific measures as soon as possible. Of course, we do not get any specifics from the Bloc Quebecois members. We only get rhetoric.

Does the member for Fundy Royal or his party have any specifics to lay on the table in terms of what they are recommending the government should do in terms of dealing with the cull cow issue as it relates to BSE?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated here today, the number one measure that has to be taken is to open the border. That is the only way that we are going to have a long term solution to the crisis that is affecting Canadian farmers.

In talking with farmers throughout my riding, if we are to have a program, it must be accessible. I mentioned the CAIS program where farmers had to go to their accountant or their lawyer to fill out the forms. I do not think that is right. I do not think that farmers who are in a dire financial position and obviously very busy trying to keep things afloat, trying to provide for their family, and trying to provide fuel for their equipment and feed for their animals, should then pay $100 or $50 an hour for an accountant to help them fill out a form to access aid under this program.

That is a specific measure. We must streamline these measures. We must make programs such as this accessible. Obviously, all of these are stopgap measures until the border is opened. It has been my opinion that we have not done enough to get that border open and open up that market that our producers rely on.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Fundy Royal for a very compelling address on this important subject. The points raised by the hon. member are important. I come from an urban, downtown city riding, but one that has a real interest and empathy for our agriculture producers. Calgarians have a long and abiding respect for our ranchers, for their determination, perseverance, and for their strong tradition of going it alone.

Despite this proud history of prospering through tough times and the demonstrated self-reliance of our ranchers, the remarks of the hon. member for Fundy Royal caused me concern. The BSE crisis is causing great concern for our ranchers.

Where are we headed in these tough times? We have heard that these are the lowest revenues in many years. What is the solution? What can we do here?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, to touch on some of those issues, it is eye opening to travel in the rural parts of my riding. The member mentioned Calgary. I have some suburban parts of my riding where one would not think that farming is such a big issue, but Canadians are smart enough to realize that we need to have a farming community and a community that supports farmers and supports the supply of our food. That is in danger right now.

The number one issue is to get that border open. The government and the leadership must do all it can to ensure that our farmers have a demand for their product. It is only by opening the border that we are going to achieve that.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for d'Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I am pleased to be taking part in today's debate, which is of major significance for the survival of agriculture in Quebec and in a number of provinces, too. I am happy with the motion which has been tabled by the member for Montcalm and 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.

The current state of agriculture in Quebec is a scandal.This is due for the most part to the federal government and to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, not necessarily the current one, because things began before him.

I can address this in full knowledge of the facts, as I worked for a good forty years with agricultural organizations in Quebec. I worked for large businesses, which provided feed for cattle and for farms in general. I was sales manager for similar businesses. Later, I worked in the area of agricultural trade unions.

At least since 1965 and 1970, I was very involved. Being myself the son of a farmer, I know a little what I am talking about. When we see where agriculture was in the 1960s and the giant step that producers made in Quebec, they certainly did not deserve to have the federal government pull a fast one on them.

The work that had to be done to ensure that all Quebeckers would be proud of agriculture in Quebec was incredible. I heard my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin say how, as a city dweller and a consumer, he is proud of Quebec, of producers and the food consumed in Quebec, because this is part of our success. When we talk about a Quebec plan, agriculture comes first.

I also had the opportunity to work with one of the then ministers of agriculture, who did a lot to further improve Quebec's agriculture and put it on the map. Quebec was the envy not only of the other provinces, but also of European countries and many other countries in the world.

I remember when Jean Garon was the minister of agriculture and I was chairing the agricultural caucus we made giant strides. We managed to control and maintain green space through the act to preserve agricultural land. Despite this act, the federal government managed to steal Mirabel, which was practically the nicest garden in Quebec. It settled there and expropriated nice land. Despite that, we managed to make agriculture extremely viable and enviable in all sectors in Quebec.

We had to deal with the mad cow disease 5,000 kilometres away from home, when, for the last four years, we had all the traceability measures to follow our animals from birth to the plate. We had everything to do it right and be protected, and we had to deal with the mad cow disease some 5,000 kilometres away from home, where there no contact between Quebec and western Canada. Transportation is not in the East West corridor, but in the North South corridor instead.

The government refused to get involved in the region. Since Quebec farmers are mostly dairy producers, they end up with a lot of cull cows. We produce 50% of Canada's milk. The cull cow issue strikes at the very heart of Quebec farming.

Given the federal government's lack of compassion, for the past three years, ever since the infamous mad cow was discovered, Quebec has been paying while it was previously way ahead of everybody else in terms of protection and quality of farms and herds. Under the supply management agency, we were ahead of everyone else and were making not only Quebeckers but all Canadians very proud.

I was first elected here in 2000 and have always sat on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. When stakeholders from across Canada came to testify before the committee, we talked about the management plans in force in Quebec, the herds in Quebec and the quality of our agriculture. I remember one person from Alberta in particular who told us that Quebec was ahead of his own province.

I put a question to the former minister of agriculture to find out why he wanted to implement his agricultural support program, standardize agriculture from sea to sea, when we did not need it, because we already had our own plans. He acknowledged that Quebec was a bit ahead of everyone else but gave the province three years for things to stabilize and start to slow down, which would bring Quebec to everybody else's level. I must say they were very successful with the mad cow disease. They threw a major roadblock in the path of Quebec producers. Former professionals, they now have to manage, without any help, a crisis not of their own doing.

The government says it has given a certain amount of money. Let us see the results in the fields and for those who have been deprived and are forced to sell a cow for 7¢. The hon. member for Montcalm has with him a cheque for 55¢; this is the sale price of a cow which had been worth $1,000. Imagine the situation of farmer, who should normally be able to retire. His pension fund, which was invested in the stables and in the fields, has become worthless.

When asked to show a little more sensitivity, the government answers that things are going well and that it has given a lot of money. We should look at all the money that farmers have lost because of the government. This is what should be taken into consideration in terms of helping farmers out of their present situation.

They are in dire straits. The government will do anything. Even today, members will recall the lame excuse given by the minister for not meeting producers in Quebec. My own leader offered the minister the use of his plane this morning to go and meet producers in Quebec, so that they could try to make him aware of their problems.

Producers are a group we are very proud of, a group which has worked wonders and which, for the last 50 years, has been a model of development, competence and professionalism. Today, these producers are discouraged, so much so that some of them have committed suicide. Meanwhile, the minister refuses to move and he is afraid to meet producers. This is a sad situation. I can understand why my colleague from Montcalm is asking the House to try to make the government sensitive to the situation.

There is enough money. We have to overcome a crisis which is affecting Quebec and other provinces. I talk mainly about Quebec because that is where an overwhelming majority of dairy producers are found. It is not by remaining seated and laughing at our speeches that the government will help Quebec's producers and others across the country who are facing this problem.

Finally, I would ask the minister to show some sensitivity to all the work which has been done. Today, if we have producers whom we are all very proud of, we should help them to stay alive and overcome this situation. We should try to help them as it is our responsibility to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and some sympathy to what my colleague had to say. However I wish the Bloc members would not keep referring to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is here. It is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture, in an opposition day debate on agriculture, to be here. The irresponsible one is the opposition leader who, after leading off the debate, then walked out.

Our minister in recent times has been in Quebec, as he has been in every region of the country, and has met with the farmers. However, today, for the sake of the farmers, he should be here to hear what all the parties have to say. I have a question for my colleague.

I want to say that the member's pride in Quebec agriculture is justified. In many ways it is a great example to the rest of the country. Every region has its strengths but to give an example compared with my farmers in Ontario, under the Conservative government, for every federal dollar that came into Ontario, the previous Conservative government only added 49¢. I congratulate my colleague on the fact that for every federal dollar, and a lot of federal dollars went in, the Quebec government gave $2.22. I congratulate the member on that and on the way the different commodity groups are organized.

Billions of federal dollars have now been flowed for this crisis. How many billions does he want? What does he think the price of milk should be raised to, because I support raising it in order to deal with the cull cow crisis?

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been badly misunderstood. I do not condemn the minister for not being here but rather for being here at this time. I condemn him for not having taken three hours of his time today to go and meet the producers in Quebec City. It was his duty to go there today. And he could have been back here on time.

I was my party's agriculture critic under the former agriculture minister, and I remember going with him to meet producers in Montreal, and we were back on time for question period. This minister could have done that, but he was too afraid to go to Quebec City. He has disappointed the farmers, and they will certainly not forget.

How much is the farm industry worth? Is it possible to put a dollar value on an industry that is feeding the Canadian people? We should help this industry in a time of crisis. It is a good investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I suspect producers will remember is a party that said there has been a crisis for 18 months, which is 480 or so days, and that many of those have been sitting days.

The Bloc could have brought in this motion on numerous occasions during that period of time. It had several opposition day motions over that year and a half but it chose today. It was not the government. It was nobody on this side. The Bloc chose to bring this motion into the House at this time knowing full well what else was going on. For the Bloc to suggest that it will bring forward a motion critical of the government's agricultural policy and not believe that the Minister of Agriculture will be in the House to debate that motion is ridiculous.

I have a very specific question for the hon. member. He spoke about wanting to regionalize the health and safety issues. At the same time, he and members of his party indicated that there was a problem with slaughter capacity in Quebec, in that there was not enough of it. If he creates a separate region and does not allow for any interprovincial movement of animals, does that not limit the possibilities of where these animals can be slaughtered and therefore limit the possibility to have more of a competitive environment for the slaughter of older animals?

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, but I can tell him immediately that, at this time, producers need $241 million to be able to weather the crisis. In the best of cases, it will probably take six months before the borders reopen. It seems that we are in no hurry to have the borders reopen. Mr. Bush was quick to pick up our invitation. But we were not in such a hurry to ask him to solve the problem concerning the opening of the American border to our beef exports.

In the last few years, we have asked many questions about the crisis with mad cow disease, but you have yet to find a solution to this problem.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this BQ opposition motion to discuss the problems facing producers.

First, I want to mention the number of producers in the Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel riding who are affected by the mad cow crisis. Some 233 dairy producers and 254 beef cattle producers are affected. These dairy producers represent about two-thirds of all such producers in the Outaouais-Laurentides region, and are located in the Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel riding. Cull cows are clearly a serious problem for these dairy farmers. As for beef cattle producers, nearly one-fourth of beef cattle production in the entire Outaouais-Laurentides region comes from the Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel area.

It must be noted that many dairy producers are also beef cattle producers. The minister was unaware of this aspect of the whole problem. He recently admitted, within the past few days, that there was a problem in Quebec.

There is obvious pressure too from producers. We know that today and over the next few days in Quebec City, all Quebec producers are attending a convention. My colleague from Champlain mentioned this earlier, and this is the purpose of the motion introduced by my colleague from Montcalm. These producers would have liked to hear from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Time was set aside on the agenda for him to speak.

It suits the minister to have a Bloc Quebecois opposition day today, because it meant he did not have to go to Quebec City. That is the result. There is no other way to interpret it. It takes an hour to get there by plane. This morning, our leader offered the plane he had reserved to go to Quebec City. He did not want to take it. There would have been enough time for him to return to the House to make his own speech. Clearly, the minister did not want to face the producers, because there is unrest.

The fact is that families are losing substantial income. They could lose their farms, and some farmers are even contemplating suicide. Obviously, these are terribly difficult human situations, and the federal government is part of the problem. In the past 18 months, it has not been part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.

Let me explain why the government is part of the problem.

Since 1993, when the current Prime Minister became the Minister of Finance, assistance to producers was cut in half by the federal government. This means 50% less farm assistance under the Prime Minister, when he served as the Minister of Finance. Already, it was clear that it would not take much of a crisis at all to destabilize the whole agricultural system.

That is what happened. There was this lack of assistance and support for agriculture. Then came a crisis, a single cow in Alberta, and the whole dairy and beef production industry in Quebec was disrupted.

We can tell ourselves, first, that, as part of the problem, the federal government failed to convince the Americans to reopen their borders as soon as possible.

Solutions have been put forward. From the outset, the Bloc Québécois suggested in this House that the principle of regionalization should be applied. I have a hard time understanding how the minister can tell us today, “Look, this is hard. We cannot do it”. It has been done. It was even done to us by the Americans. It was done in the chicken crisis. Instead of penalizing the entire U.S. industry when a case of avian disease was reported, adjoining states on the American side were penalized. As a result, four states were affected by the Canadian embargo, not all of the United States. That was done. The problem is that the government refuses to regionalize.

We have to understand. Geographically, Quebec is 5,000 kilometres from Alberta. Quebec is further from Alberta than Mexico is; yet Mexico was not the least affected by this crisis which some viewed as a North-American crisis. At least, that is what we have been told by the Americans. But Mexico was not affected, while all of Canada, including Quebec, was. That is right. Quebec was affected in spite of the fact that it is geographically further than Mexico from Alberta.

This is where the difficulty lies in such a large country. The government wants to find Canada-wide solutions, but is not ready to admit that, when one territory is hit, the others should not necessarily be, because the trade relations are much more north-south than east-west oriented, especially in the beef industry.

Thus, if there was one case in Alberta, they should have been able to make the restrictions apply to the Alberta province and leave the rest of Canada to do business with the Americans. This would also have considerably lowered the costs for Canada, because, if there was a problem in one industry, in one province, we could have used all the money on the table to invest it in that province only. This is what regionalization would have permitted us to do.

The farmers in that province would have been compensated for all their losses until the problems were settled and business could resume with the United States, for Alberta in this case. The money to do it would have been available.

The problem we have today is that the whole country is penalized, and the government says that it spent billions and billions of dollars. We did not come up with these numbers. They come from the Union des producteurs agricoles, which says that of the $366 million announced by the minister for Quebec, only $90 million found its way into the farmers coffers.

It is all very well to serve up fine speeches to us in the House, but we have some good examples of federal government waste. One need look no further than the gun registry, and how good it is at wasting money on administration.

What happened between the time there was $366 million and when the farmers got $90 million? That will no doubt require an Auditor General's investigation. Nonetheless, only $90 million got to the industry in Quebec. Today, as we speak, that means $241 million the industry lost.

If the federal government wanted to be fair, it would therefore announce an investment of $241 million in Quebec to compensate for what has been lost so far, along with a program to fully compensate for losses until such time as the problem with the Americans can be solved and the borders reopened.

That will take six months at best. There are time limits, negotiations, appeal processes, and according to the debate my esteemed colleagues have held in this House, it will be six months, minimum. That does not mean that the Americans will accept what is proposed to them. So when the process is begun, it will take six months to get an answer, but this does not mean the answer will be yes. This is why the government needs to immediately put compensation in place for the producers, until such time as the U.S. market is fully reopened.

Obviously this is likely what has spooked the minister today, the fear of not being able to tell Quebec producers that they would be getting full compensation for losses sustained to date and to announce an assistance package until the U.S. borders are fully open again.

This leaves us, of course, with a minister taking refuge here in Ottawa so as not to have to go and face the farmers of Quebec, and try to solve their problems. That would be too hard to do.

It is difficult for the people watching us debating this issue. It is also difficult for the farmers who have dedicated their whole life to their farm. You know them, of course. Last year, the majority of milk and cattle producers suffered humongous losses. They are now going under. It is not easy. Agricultural revenues have never been lower in the past 25 years.

That is what the minister wants to talk to us about. He is proud to have contributed to the fact that farmers, men and women who gave all their time to the agricultural production of Quebec and Canada, lived through the worst year, had the lowest revenues last year, in 2003, of the past 25 years. Is this what the minister is so proud of? For my part, I am not proud of the minister and I am not proud of the Liberal government.

I hope they will understand once and for all that these surpluses belong to the public. The public needs them today. All we ask of the Liberals is that they introduce a true compensation program for the farmers of Canada.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the Bloc for initiating the debate today on this very serious crisis, and I will make a couple of comments.

I think all of us in this assembly can agree on a couple of points. First, the impact of the BSE crisis on all our producers across Canada has been devastating. Second, although perhaps some of the government members do not agree with this, most members would agree that the CAIS program is at best fundamentally flawed, and perhaps more accurately, fatally flawed.

The problem is money is required by producers, but money is not reaching the farm gate. I do not want to oversimplify things because I know on many levels this is a complex problem. The question of opening the border will take perhaps months and months to come. However, there is a separate element, which is delivering cash to the farm gate as quickly as possible.

I have found, as in most things in life, that answers to complex problems many times are very simple. The answer to the question of getting money to the farm gate is simple, and it boils down to two words: political will. I believe if the government had the political will to deal with this problem, to properly get money to the farmers, those who are desperately in need of cash, it would be done.

We have seen the choices the government has made when it comes down to that. We have seen the choice it made with the national gun registry, where it pumped $2 billion into a program, which is the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars that we have seen in the last 30 or 40 years.

Does the hon. member agree with me that the solution can be simple if the government had the political will to get the money to the farmers when they need it? That time is now.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

He is right. Until the borders reopen, the real problem is the farmers' losses. We should help them with this, because they will incur losses until the borders reopen.

The government should show some political will. It is not as if it did not have any money. If, as happens in Quebec, it says it will spend $366 million and only $90 million ends up in producers' pockets, we have a big management and administration problem on our hands.

The hon. member is right. As I said in my remarks, this government cannot hold itself up as a model. It wasted billions of dollars administering the gun registry. It can also do it with the farm producers.

What we want is a direct assistance program for farmers, we want them to get a cheque to cover the losses they have incurred up to now and those they will incur until the American border reopens.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this has been mentioned several times today, but I think it must be repeated until the minister understands well. If he had really wanted to meet producers in Quebec City, he could have gone there. He could have gone there last night, during the day yesterday, this morning; he could leave right now and get there before supper time to meet these producers. However, the minister is hiding in the House. This is too often a reflex of this government. When it is time to answer questions in the House, they are not here. Today, it was time to go and meet producers and, this time, he hid in the House.

Since the minister did not go to Quebec City, I doubt very much that he went to Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. I would like my colleague to tell us a little about the situation in his riding. The minister must understand how the situation is serious for our producers.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, whole families are being affected. In addition, the d'Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel riding is involved in large-scale farming in order to sell food products to farmers. This is a domino effect. When farms struggle, so do the sale of large-scale farming products and all that. More than just dairy and cattle farms are affected; the whole industry is affected. That is what makes it difficult.

My colleague is absolutely right when he mentions that he minister is hiding today. He can say that he gave $366 million to farmers, but we know, because farmers told us, that they received only $90 million. I can understand why he does not want to go and meet with farmers in Quebec City and tell them he gave them $366 million. The simple fact is he will not stay long with them. It is as simple as that. But reality is quite different from the speeches he makes in the House. Therein lies the minister's problem: he would rather use that soothing rhetoric to put us to sleep, whereas there is no way he will put farmers to sleep with the truth and the reality he does not talk about with them.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate because this is a very important subject. I thank the hon. member for Montcalm who brought this issue before the House, even though his timing was very bad.

Why do I have the nerve to say his timing was bad? I think it is obvious. First, to the great surprise and perhaps disappointment of the hon. members opposite, we find ourselves today in the presence of a minister who listens attentively to everything that is going on in this House, and in his field of responsibility. He speaks up in the debate. He is participating fully. He listens to what all the hon. members have to say.

When I was government House leader, I would have loved to see two dozen ministers acting that way every day, listening to the debates about what was going on in their departments. This minister not only is doing so today, but he does this every time his issues are before the House. Therefore, we ought to congratulate the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, because he takes part in all the debates and because he listens carefully to the MPs' complaints. He has been almost all over Canada to listen to the farmers.

Just a few moments ago I talked to the minister, who said he would come to meet the farmers in the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, which I have the honour to represent. He also travelled recently to the riding of Nipissing and to Peterborough and pretty much everywhere. The minister does his homework.

Some members opposite, acting out of unacceptable partisanship, have dared to say that the minister was hiding from national television, from the House of Commons in Ottawa, while Parliament is sitting. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such nonsense? It is the sacred duty of the minister to do his job. He does not have to apologize for anything.

Those who chose to ask for this debate today have known for a long time—it was public knowledge—that the minister was supposed to speak to the UPA today. So they said, “We will have the debate on the same day. Then we can say that the minister was not present for the debate because he was in Quebec City.” And when the minister came back to Ottawa, they said, “He is not in Quebec City because he is in Ottawa.”

Today, some people were caught in their own trap. They wanted to trap the minister but it did not work. The minister did his duty. Of course, he will go to the various regions of the country, as he always does. He is known for constantly doing that and that is what he will do again.

I now want to talk about aid to the beef and cull cattle producers. My colleagues from Quebec are well aware of how this supply management system works. Relative to fluid milk, approximately 48% of the production is from Quebec, that is close to twice its population, therefore, most probably twice its consumption. This means that if a region is in dire straights with cull stock, the problem will be especially acute in regions where milk production is greater. That goes without saying.

In my riding, cattle production is much lower than milk production, and therefore, at the end of the cycle come the cull cows.

I am a member of the rural caucus of our party and also a member of what is called the “milk caucus”. There is a meeting with the Dairy Farmers of Canada almost every second week. They come to share with us on all sorts of issues. They told us that they would like to see an amendment to the cost-of-production formula. I am convinced that the Department of Agriculture and the federal-provincial committee and other stakeholders are working on those issues.

It goes without saying. All those things are happening.

Now people are saying that the government is not helping enough. This is what they claim. There is hardly any slaughter capacity left in Canada for cull cows. There is just over two dozens slaughterhouses left. The marketing strategy of the industry, which is totally integrated in North America, was to have cull cows slaughtered in the U.S. It is no secret. Everybody knows that. With the border being closed and having lost our slaughter capacity over the decades because the market was better on the other side of the border, we do not have any left now. It is not like a tap you can turn on and start slaughtering again. And once the animals are slaughtered, where is the market for them?

Recently the minister announced a program to increase our slaughter capacity, and I congratulate him for that. In the past few days, I heard that to date there are two applications from the industry to increase our slaughter capacity, and they are going ahead.

Not too long ago, a new slaughterhouse started operating in my riding or nearby. With the boundary changes, it is now located in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. Recently the minister organized a briefing for members of all parties by officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They came to talk about the applications they had received and any other issue. I did not see too many members from across the way at that briefing. Anyhow, I asked a question regarding a slaughterhouse in my riding which has been closed for several years. A buyer has come forward but the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has not received an application yet.

It goes without saying that the minister and his staff cannot approve an application that has not been made. We all know that. The applications are coming in. They will be dealt with of course in compliance with every safety standard and others. It is essential. This is how our slaughter capacity will increase.

In the meantime, people claim that Canada produces over double our beef consumption and that it closed overnight. As we all know, the Canadian public could not absorb this quantity of product overnight. In the beginning, several programs were adopted and this continues. There is only one solution to this problem and we all know it. The solution is for the border to be opened up again as it should be.

I remember that sad day in 2003. I think it was May 20, if I am not mistaken. I was at a conference in London, England when it happened. I was at a meeting when I was notified about what had just happened in Alberta. An animal had apparently been diagnosed with so-called mad cow disease.

We knew what had happened in Europe a few years earlier. In Europe, government authorities may not have taken the necessary precautions. Consumer confidence had disappeared. To date, European countries that have experienced the same problem have been unable to reopen their borders to any export whatsoever.

What happened in Canada?

As soon as the incident happened, herds were segregated and the necessary slaughter occurred. All precautionary measures were taken.

What happened to consumer confidence in Canada? It went up at the time. Canadian consumers did not abandon our producers in this country. Perhaps some people forget this because it suits them to. The governments took the necessary measures right from the start and consumer confidence was maintained. For a while there were indications that beef consumption had gone up. Eventually, of course, this levelled off. We cannot completely change our eating habits and maintain that change for a long time. Nonetheless, consumer confidence did not drop.

What happened next? International inspectors gave us a very favourable rating indicating that we had done everything possible and that there was no contamination in Canada. The minister will tell us the name of the agency, but essentially it was the world health agency for animals. It gave us this assurance. Once again, this reassured Canadian consumers.

Once more, we were able to start discussions. Little by little, for certain cuts, the borders were opened. Of course, it was not enough because the only satisfying solution is to reopen the Canada-U.S. border some 90 or 100 kilometres south of this Parliament. In the meantime, measures were put in place. We must recognize that the real solution is to reopen the border.

Now, we must not forget the initiatives taken by the government. When the minister announced the $995 million program for Canadian farmers, I remember that everybody was happy and that they were all saying that the minister had done the right thing. Then, after people forgot about it, they claim that such an announcement was never made. It is not true. The minister took steps.

Some people say they did not get all the money. With respect to the money for the slaughterhouses, it is certainly not the farmers who will get it. The money for increasing the food inspection capacity, for example, will not be used for something else either. The same thing applies to the other plans that were implemented. Naturally, the program has not wound up. By definition, this is the case.

For the rest of the day, I would like members to tell us exactly what part of the program did not work out well. Was it because of red tape, unreasonable delays, demands producers should not have made under this program or anything else?

We could work with the minister to improve things if need be. We could have a less partisan debate. Instead of saying that the minister is hiding in the House of Commons--as was heard previously--we could take this opportunity here, with the minister in the Chamber, to try to enhance the program.

I also have constituents who are hurting. Many of them. I saw how frustrated they are. I saw it during the last election campaign. I saw it in their eyes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, as we will see later on, it is all true. We see it every day. However, what we see mostly is friends and neighbours losing income. No one likes to hear that, for an animal that used to sell for $1,000, producers are only paid around $49.52 these days, once the transportation fees and everything else have been taken in. No one can be happy in a situation like this. We will only be pleased once the border is completely reopened.

I went to Taiwan a few months ago. This is a topic that I raised in the course of my visit in order to have this border reopened as well. Indeed, Taiwan is a country that used to import Canadian beef, and it is our market that had the highest growth rate. It was not our most important market, that being the United States of course, but it was a sector that was gaining in importance at the time of the closing of the border. It has not been reopened yet.

We have just heard interesting news, not long ago, about Hong Kong. I know that some parliamentarians will be going to Taiwan soon. I hope that the next delegation will raise this issue again and that Canadian interests will continue to be defended and new markets found. We all share this responsibility.

Today, the Prime Minister was reminding us in the House that he has personally asked our embassy in Washington to open an office to enable Canadian parliamentarians to have exchanges with their American counterparts. We must all use that forum to get across to members of the American Congress, in particular those representing urban ridings, that they are being had. This matter is not all that amusing for the United States either.

Like most of us, I have relatives in the United States, who pay ridiculously high prices for their beef. However, they do not really know why. They do not really know that their border with Canada has been closed. This measure may have been justified at the beginning, on a temporary basis, but not in the long run. Keeping the border closed benefits a small group in the United States, in particular the so-called R-CALF USA, and others. They have put up obstacles every time Canada has tried to have the border with the United States reopened.

This week we had the visit of the President of the United States of America. I for one was pleased to hear the President insist that he would do some of the things required to reopen the border. We know that executive order does not open the border tomorrow, but as we head toward that date, as we send a positive message and together we try to open other borders, the price, particularly for beef cattle, which has started to rise, we hope will continue to improve.

In the matter of cull cows, it is obviously quite different because cull cows are not crossing the border at all, whereas for cut meats, particularly of younger product, the border has at least started to open up. I want to work with my colleagues to make this better.

I want to say that I am glad the minister is here to listen to what all of us have to say. I hope we spend the rest of the day giving the minister advice on how to make his programs better, to weather this storm and to give a better life to Canadians living in rural areas.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a recommendation to give to the minister to make things right.

People from the Canadian Sheep Federation developed a national border closure recovery strategy for their sector. They presented it to the minister for his consideration. They want to know why the minister has ignored that request. The ruminant sectors have been affected unfairly and unduly penalized as a result of this crisis.

I have two letters from elk growers in Saskatchewan. They say that something must be done immediately to bring support to this industry. Farmers are in dire straits and need assistance in this crisis. The farmers do not know why they are being penalized.

Government agencies are not acting fast enough on getting our borders open to the U.S.A. and the Asian countries so that the farmers can once again return to normal trade with these countries. The elk industry has been blocked out by the U.S. because of BSE and elk have nothing to do with BSE.

Perhaps you could give that message to the minister because you said--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will allow the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to answer, but members must continue to address their comments through the Chair.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the elk industry. As she knows, I have met with representatives of that industry. We have held events jointly for this group when they came to Ottawa.

She is quite correct in saying that it is a little hard to understand some of the judgment of the United States government in closing the border to an animal where, as far as I know, there has never been a recorded case of that disease in history. It actually does not make sense at all. On the other hand, keeping the border closed for a time that is totally unnecessary is not reasonable for beef either. Therefore, both of these propositions are unreasonable.

The member will know as well that for some of our oriental market for elk, there is also the matter of another disease. That disease is alleged to have been the reason particularly for some difficulties that we have for shipping certain products, particularly to Korea at the present time.

I for one happen to believe that those particular concerns were largely unfounded as well. They affect the constituency that I represent. I believe the allegation had to do with chronic wasting disease. The hon. member knows about that. That allegation was unfounded as well.

I do share some of the concerns that the hon. member has raised with the fact that not only was the border closed initially for health reasons, but it even went beyond what was supposed to have been the original target. Then that particular target, if it was reasonable at all to begin with, for health reasons stayed way too long and is still there for those sectors that are not yet reopened.