Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2004

Supply

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have made lots of specific proposals, still more in our speeches today. We made proposals throughout the campaign. They now have only 21 members in Quebec because they are too arrogant.

I will point out to his colleague that he has just demonstrated something: he is as much of a hypocrite and a coward as the minister. Indeed, the minister was scheduled to speak at 9 o'clock this morning in Quebec City. He would have had time to speak, board a plane and would arrive as we are speaking to make his speech. That is nothing but lies, nothing else.

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

Madam Speaker, may I suggest that the hon. leader may want to stay and hear the alternative perspective rather than scooting out of the House. He does not want anything to do with the House of Commons. He wants nothing to do with debate. He wants nothing to do with people having an opportunity in this place and at this--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Order, please. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-St-Jean and Bloc Québécois House leader would remind the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that he is not allowed to refer to the whereabouts of the members inside this House, their comings and goings, whether they are present or absent. Comments of that kind have always been contrary to all the rules. The minister should seek advice from the hon. member sitting next to him, since she used to chair the proceedings of the House of Commons. She could probably give him some good advice.

I invite him to return to order, to give his speech and to explain to this House why he could not find a way to travel to Quebec City--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. member is correct. I will ask the minister to continue the debate.

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

Madam Speaker. Excuse me for not following the rules. I apologize.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate this supply motion. It gives us an opportunity to have a debate about the issue, particularly in respect of cull animals, but more broadly about BSE and the impact that it has had on the border.

As was mentioned in one of the questions, we have had an opportunity to have a take note debate in the House, which I had an opportunity to participate in. I am pleased that we have a chance to talk about the issue again today.

This is a significant issue for producers. I should make the point that, as important as it is for producers in Quebec, it is a national issue with ramifications for producers in all of the provinces.

It is really critical as we approach this particular set of challenges that we understand the importance of looking for solutions in the short term. We need to deal and address the issues that producers are facing on the ground on a daily basis, as well as looking at medium term solutions, and dealing with some of the longer term solutions.

We need to remember, and it is important to bring this up at this time, that it is not just simply cattle producers. There are other ruminants that are affected by what is taking place with the border closing. It is imperative for all members to know that because we have those types of producers in our ridings as well. We must remember the importance of dealing with their issues as well.

In essence, dealing specifically with cull animals, it is important to exactly understand the scope of the problem and what is occurring here. First of all, obviously, there is the issue of the closed border. That has had a very direct impact because it has impaired the ability, as was happening prior to May 2003, of producers to ship their older cull animals into the United States for slaughter. The border closure has obviously curtailed their ability to do that.

The problem is a little bit more complex than that. In addition to the inability to move live animals and because of the rules that were put in place surrounding the movement of boxed beef into the United States, it has changed the rules in respect of how slaughtering can take place. There is a provision in those rules that does not allow for the commingling of younger and older animals going to slaughter. That in itself has also created additional problems in that the cull animals have less places where they can be processed.

There are two different sets of producers that are affected by this. In both cases it represents a portion of their income. It does not represent all of their income, but it certainly represents a portion of their income.

In respect of dairy producers, the vast majority of their income comes from the production of milk. That income stream continues. However, they do have the necessity of culling their herd. It is those animals and the price they are receiving for those animals that is a challenge and one that needs to be dealt with.

The same thing is true for cow calf operators. Their income is derived in a large part from selling calves, but they also have cull animals. Again, the same situation faces them where a portion of their business and their cow calf operation has also been impacted by BSE.

It is important to remember, and I think all members recognize this, that even though on the cull animal issue we may be only talking about a portion of producers' income, it is an important portion of their income. It is something that is an important part of their overall operation and something that really needs to be addressed.

Specifically, the motion before us suggests that the government has taken inadequate measures. I reject that. The government has aggressively been dealing with the BSE issue and the drop in farm income. The hon. member across asked a question about farm income and he is quite right. The year 2003 has been a very difficult year for farm income.

The point is that the government did not turn its back on producers when they faced that kind of situation. In fact, there have been record payments made by the government to producers, reflecting the types of income situations that they faced. As I have said, considerable payments were made in 2003 and those trends will continue in 2004.

In addition to that, we have had a number of specific initiatives designed to deal with the BSE issue. We have had the BSE recovery program, which was put in place shortly after the border closed. It was there for the specific purpose of getting the market to re-engage, to allow animals to flow through the market and to ensure that the animals were continuing to be slaughtered and brought to market. The program was successful in accomplishing that.

We had a cull animal program which was put in place to deal with the issue of cull animals, and that program delivered support to producers.

We have had the TIS program, the last payments of which just went out last month. That program has disbursed well over $900 million to producers.

Last September 10 we announced the BSE repositioning program which has a multifaceted approach and is designed to assist in repositioning the industry so it can return to profitability with or without a border opening. I should mention that one of the primary objectives of that program was to take measures that would allow producers to gain much more benefit from the marketplace. Through the initiative, particularly in the fed and feeder set-aside programs, we have seen a substantial recovery in the price for fed cattle and for feeder cattle. The prices are still not to the levels that we would like to see them but they are way beyond where they had fallen to in mid-summer when fed cattle was around 65¢. I believe it reached 85¢ last week. It has dropped back a bit since then as it fluctuates with the marketplace, but it is very good progress.

Despite what the hon. leader of the Bloc has said, there has been substantial investments made in Quebec, both through the programs that I enunciated, as well as through our business risk management programs. However that is not to suggest that there is not and continues to be an issue with cull animals for dairy producers. There does. That is true for dairy producers in Quebec, but I should also mention that although the dairy industry is large in Quebec, it is not exclusively contained in Quebec. Other parts of the country have a dairy industry. As we address the issue of cull animals, it is absolutely essential, as the federal Minister of Agriculture, that we take a position and a perspective that will be inclusive of all producers, regardless of where they are operating in Canada, and to ensure we have programs that address all producers. We are certainly about trying to do that.

I should mention that, particularly in our business risk management programming this year under CAISP, some $450 million already has been advanced to producers, a portion of that in respect of the 2003 year and a portion of that both in terms of advances in 2004, as well as our special advance program which we announced as part of September 10. Those advances are very critical because they are designed to put cash into the hands of producers in the current year at the time when the need for that cash is necessary.

The reality is that over the next while, and this is particularly true in terms of the dairy industry, there will be some changes taking place that will have an impact on the processes and the way that we want to move forward.

Some time in December, taking effect at the beginning of the next year, the Canadian Dairy Commission will be establishing a new price for milk. That is important, particularly in the cull animal situation, because part of the calculation that the commission has to undertake in establishing the price is to evaluate what it calls the salvage value of the cows and to determine that value. If the value has decreased, and certainly it has decreased, that is to be factored into any price increase that may be considered. That is an important variable and we will have an opportunity to see how that plays out over the next short while.

However that is not to suggest that, in and by itself, is the whole solution to the problem, but it is an important ingredient. I believe it is critical that we understand that and, as we move forward with our medium and long term solutions, we take it into account.

We also need to understand how changes in the status of the border may affect cull animals. It is not just the issue of what age of live animals may be permitted with a rule change in the United States. It also has to do with the issue of allowing for the commingling of slaughter. If that rule is changed it will certainly add to the capacity to process older animals. If there is an increased capacity to slaughter older animals, that will certainly lend itself to a more competitive environment and allow for a price recovery. That is important for us to take a look at.

However, even with those things, and I have said this in the House on many occasions, a number of ways are being considered to see what, in addition, may need to be done in terms of assisting producers, both dairy and beef, with respect to the cull animals. We have been in vigorous discussions with the producers and with our provincial colleagues in Quebec to determine the best approach that we would want to take. In this respect I do agree with the motion that states that we should be taking additional actions and we should be doing it as quickly as possible. However I reject categorically that no action has been taken to date.

It is also important to understand what the long term solution needs to be in terms of cull animals. Quite frankly, that is to make sure there is sufficient slaughter capacity for the number of animals that exist in a competitive environment. It is the marketplace, when it is able to operate in a rational way, that will set the price of animals. The challenge right now, because of the distortions being caused by the closed border and by the rule that does not allow for the commingling within slaughter plants, the marketplace is not operating in a rational way.

When we made our announcement on September 10 and put forward initiatives to help increase slaughter capacity, both in terms of providing increased resources to our regulatory agency, as well as providing a low loss reserve, that has to be a long term solution. It is something we need to pursue and work on. That is one way of bringing the increased slaughter capacity on line. The rule change, as I said, may bring additional slaughter capacity on line. We need to take a look at exactly what that may be.

What should not be forgotten is the importance of expanding our markets so they go beyond the United States.

It is disappointing to listen to the leader of the Bloc because he continually talks about closing in, isolating, moving and pushing everything away, when what we ought to be doing is increasing our marketplace, making it more international and ensuring we have additional markets, which is what we have been doing in Japan, for instance, and we were pleased to see the changes that it was making in its domestic policy which will allow it to change its import policy.

We are hosting technicians from Taiwan who are taking a serious look at and making recommendations on our ability to export there. Specifically on the dairy side, we signed an agreement with China that will allow us to export genetic material, both embryos and semen, into that market. Just this past week I was pleased to hear that Japan would be reopening its market to meat from animals under 30 months.

The member from the Bloc says that there has been no progress. Well this is progress. In terms of the United States, the While House's office of management and budget now has the rule change up for review with a specific timeline that is placed on it. It must complete that review within 90 days.

When the President of the United States was here yesterday and the day before he said that it was his intention and desire to have his officials move that as expeditiously as possible. That is progress and that is progress which we will continue to urge the Americans to move on expeditiously.

We should not for a second have any doubt that our producers have faced a very difficult and challenging time. They have been dealing with this BSE crisis for almost 20 months and have done so through a great deal of hard work and with fortitude. We must remember that our producers, both on the beef side and on the dairy side, have built strong industries in this country, second to none in the world. Our job, as a government and what we have been undertaking in those 19 months, is to support those producers in terms of financial support. I have mentioned the programs that we have set up because it is essential that we work in partnership with our producers. At the same time we must also deal with some of the structural issues, such as working to build increased slaughter capacity and to increase the markets that we have.

We should not forget, and this applies to the dairy industry as well, that there are other issues other than cull animals that we need to deal with. There is the whole issue of how we deal with the heifers. That has been a loss of a market for our producers as well. It is important that, as we try to find an overall solution, we remember that particular component.

We have to make sure that we protect the genetics of our herds. We are the best in the world and, therefore, in looking for solutions and at a way forward, we cannot allow ourselves to forget that.

We also have to look at the over-inventory and the oversize of the herd. That is why we have had to deal with something like having and putting forward a managing older animals program as part of our September 10 announcement.

All these programs are important. All of these issues are critical. Our work with the industry has been important. In fact, the events of September 10 and the program that we put in place was built working in conjunction with the industry and the provinces. I can say that we are working and will continue to work with producers in Quebec and in the rest of the country. We will continue to look for the solutions, both specifically for cull animals and in the broader issue, in respect of all of the impacts of BSE.

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

Madam Speaker, I am extremely surprised because we have heard those words before from the minister. On October 5, at the beginning of the session, the House held a take note debate where the minister told us that there were solutions out there. He urged us to come up with some temporary solutions that he could use until the border is reopened.

We recommended that a floor price be set. I clearly remember the minister telling us that he was indeed considering the issue and would be coming back to the House in a few weeks with something very similar to a floor price. It has been almost two months now, and what has he done? That is my first question.

Second, does the minister read the French media? For more than 13 months, all the media have been reporting disasters on a daily basis. I am going to give him two examples today.

Quebec newspapers are talking about a national crisis today, which explains the Bloc's proposal.

Lastly, I want to draw the minister's attention to a huge problem. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, we had found a temporary solution thanks to a slaughterhouse located in North Bay. However, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which reports to the minister, just put a stop to any transactions between Quebec, northern Quebec, Abitibi-Témiscamingue to be precise and northern Ontario, insofar as the slaughtering of our animals is concerned.

I do not know if the minister has heard about this, but I would like him to tell the House that such agreements are always an option until a solution can be found.

So, here is my question: What happened to the proposals made in this House last October about a floor price?

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

Madam Speaker, a number of things have happened on the overall BSE issue since October. In increased slaughter capacity, we have licensed a new federal plant in British Columbia and it is now in operation. We have had the first of the test kills in the Atlantic Canada plant, and we would expect that plant to come online.

The fed auctions have begun, and we see a recovery in the price for fed animals. The sign ups have begun on the feeder program. In fact, at the request of the government of Quebec on both of those programs, we have seen a willingness and flexibility to allow it to be delivered, using the Quebec instruments for delivering such projects. That has taken place as well.

We have also seen progress in our external markets. I mentioned the agreement that we signed in China. I mentioned the opening of the border in Hong Kong. These are all very positive things.

Over this past weekend we worked with producers and their representatives in Quebec and suggested a number of very specific solutions that could be employed. At this moment, we have been unable to get a consensus on exactly how to move forward on that, but we are making progress.

On one specific point, as the hon. member knows, some abattoirs are federally regulated and others are provincially regulated. The plant in North Bay, if it wants to deal with interprovincial trade, can apply to be a federally regulated plant. We will ensure that the CFIA will give it all due attention and effort so that it can be federally regulated. It needs to make an application for that and, we will work with it.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of specific questions I would like to ask the minister. Has he seen the proposed rule change that the USDA has come up with, which is now in the office of the OMB? If he has not, when will he? Exactly what is in it that will affect the way the industry in Canada operates or will have to operate after the rule changes are implemented?

The minister talked about the low loss reserve as being the government's plan to increase slaughter capacity in Canada. How exactly will the low loss reserve, I believe it is in the $30 million range, help increase capacity in the country when the estimates that have come in for a plant of a size that would have any value for the industry is in the $140 million range? How will that low loss reserve get the capacity on the ground under construction, which we so badly need? What is in the proposed rule change with which the USDA has come up.?

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

Madam Speaker, I will answer my colleague's questions in reverse order.

With regard to slaughter capacity, it is a $38 million plan and the idea is to lever additional private sector investments. Investments between $140 million and $150 million could be triggered.

I believe the hon. member was with the member for Newmarket--Aurora, the trade critic. She made some very straightforward comments. She said that farmers did not want government handouts to do this. She said that they wanted loan guarantees and a loan loss reserve. I agree with the member in this instance. That is the program we put forward. If we need to tweak it or if we need to make some changes to it to make it more effective, we certainly will take a look at that.

The process in the OMB is we see the rule as it went to USDA. When it comes out of the OMB, we only see any changes to it. We are anxious to see the particulars of that. We will react quickly to the specifics of what the changes may be.

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

Madam Speaker, from the beginning the minister has been concerned with the day to day crises with regard to this issue. I wonder if he would think a bit about the sustainability of the industry when these things are behind us, such as the abattoir capacity for all ruminants, including sheep and bison, in my area of Peterborough or about the matter of traceability. I know the federal government supports research into DNA traceability.

Does the member have any thoughts about the future of the industry and the things we should plan for when the tragedy is behind us?

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

Madam Speaker, those are two good points.

In terms of increasing slaughter capacity, in my view, that needs to apply to all ruminants, not just cattle. It needs to apply to bison and sheep. We need to have the capacity. There are regional issues on how to develop that capacity. The loan loss reserve is available for that. As I mentioned to the hon. member across the way, if we need to tweak that to make it work better, particularly for producer-owned operations, which we may conceivably see in other ruminants as well as in beef, then we will do that.

In terms of traceability, as part of the announcement we made on September 10, as well as our previous announcement, providing and investing in traceability is a key and critical component. Part of having access to foreign markets is to ensure that we have a strong traceability system so we can demonstrate to foreign markets that our animals are safe. We are undertaking that major initiative in conjunction with the industry. We will have the best in the world.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister has now made his speech. It is 11.35. I am offering to drive him to the airport. He can be in Quebec City in one hour to meet Quebec producers, who are furious. But in fact, the minister is behaving like a coward. Instead of going to tell them he had nothing to offer to get them out of the slump in which he put them, he has preferred to use the motion as a pretext to say he was detained in the House.

I ask the minister the following question. Will he stop behaving like a coward and take the plane to meet Quebec producers and tell them the truth about his inaction?

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

Madam Speaker, how duplicitous. What cowards. The cowardliness is putting a motion before the House criticizing the government specifically for agriculture and then asking the minister responsible to flee the House so they can talk about this issue without the minister present.

The reality is this. I had been the minister for only four weeks when I travelled to the headquarters of the UPA in Quebec. At my request and at my volition, I met with the head of the UPA and we discussed those issues. We have been interchanging with the UPA on an ongoing basis since that time.

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

Madam Speaker, there has been consultation between the parties, and I would like to move the following 48 hour notice motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Orders or Special Order, for the Supply period ending December 10, forty-eight hours' written notice shall be given of motions to concur in main estimates, supplementary estimates (A), to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates and to oppose any items in the main and supplementary estimates.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resimed consideration of the motion.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I also want to thank the Bloc, the member for Montcalm and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for bringing forward this opportunity today to debate in the House the ongoing crisis in the cattle industry in Canada.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that this does not only deal with cattle; it deals with all the other ruminants in the country and certainly it deals with the people who supply the feed and the services to the industry. It is a far-reaching problem that stretches out from the cattle industry and moves right across the economy, certainly in my riding. Feedlot alley is right in my riding. When this crisis hit, of the 950,000 head of cattle on feed in Canada over 600,000 of them were in my riding, so this is an issue that is very dear to my heart.

The Bloc is calling for specific programs to be implemented to deal with cattle producers who are being hurt, whether they have young cattle or mature cattle, and are suffering from the effects of BSE. It is a good motion.

I respectfully disagree with some of the ideas that the leader of the Bloc came up with as far as separating the country into regions and hiving off certain parts of it. To say that if Quebec was not part of Canada it would not be affected by this is basically not the way it would play out, because even in the U.S., which is still taking our beef, the price of beef to the consumer in that country has gone up considerably. The fact of that close association, regardless of whether Quebec is part of this country or not, would still have an effect on its cattle industry.

I want to get to some specifics later about one particular area I want to key in on, which is the increased slaughter capacity in Canada. I believe that is one of the critical issues we need to face.

I want to get back to a comment made by the foreign affairs minister last week before the President of the United States came to Canada. In that comment, he indicated that there would be a definitive timeline to end this crisis. The President came to Canada and left and that was not given.

The unfortunate part of that, and I think we have all learned this over the last 18 to 20 months, is that any time anybody in authority puts out a false message, it sends a ripple through the industry. The industry is so looking for good news that anything sent its way gets a reaction in the price that is paid for feeder cattle, for fat cattle, for cull animals, or whatever it is.

Therefore, we have to be very cautious about how we put forward these ideas. Certainly, if the foreign affairs minister did not have a serious or definite indication that something would be left behind by the President of the U.S.A., he should not have gone there. I think that is a very unfortunate issue. It just brings about false hope and creates further turmoil in the industry.

The process in the U.S. has started now. I think the minister has commented on it many times. The rule change has gone from the USDA into the OMB and there is a 90 day period. After that, there is a 60 day period, so we are looking at 150 days.

I would like to read out some news headlines that have come out of the U.S. in recent days in regard to cattle. One is from the agriculture digest of the Billings Gazette . The cattle groups sent a letter to Ann Veneman, the secretary of agriculture, asking her to quit using the term “North American beef industry”. They want her to start saying “the United States beef industry”. That may not sound very crucial, but it is, because what the beef producers in the U.S. are telling their secretary of agriculture is to forget about a North America market. They are telling her they want to concentrate on the U.S. market.

Those kinds of signals that get sent out to the public are not good and do not bode well for the border opening quickly after all these rule changes and all the technical processes are put in place.

I have another story from a U.S. organization called R-CALF, which has been put together to fight Canadian cattle coming into the United States in all avenues. This was in a publication called Lean Trimmings : “R-CALF is preparing to fight in court to stop USDA from lifting its 18-month ban on Canadian cattle”. Lean Trimmings continues:

The article states that R-CALF's Chief Executive, Bill Bullard, “said the group will act swiftly as soon as the government moves to allow Canadian cattle across the border”.

The 150 days may very well not be the end of this crisis.

To keep sending that message, I believe, would be very unwise of the government, the minister or the foreign affairs minister. We have to be very practical in this regard.

I believe there is an opportunity presented to Canada to build a stronger, better and bigger industry. It is an opportunity that has to be handled very carefully or it is something that will get away from us.

In regard to today's motion, I think many Canadians do not understand that there are different classes of cattle. We have cattle under 30 months and I think there is an almost worldwide acceptance that cattle under 30 months of age do not have BSE, are not susceptible to it and never will have it. They are a special class. The Japanese might be talking about 21 months. Perhaps the minister could comment on this later.

Younger cattle have been accepted. We are shipping out of this country to the United States in boxes all the young beef that can possibly be slaughtered. That is an issue which probably will be the first to be solved. Live cattle under 30 months also will be part of that.

However, the older animals are ours to deal with in Canada. If they are over 30 months of age they are going to have to be dealt with by us. No other country is going to come to our aid.

How do we go about doing that? Last February, the Conservative Party of Canada put forward our action plan on BSE and agriculture. In it, we had a huge amount of money to deal with the overpopulation of the herd in Canada. To me, and it may not be the most politically correct way to go about this, a lot of these animals are not going to find room on anyone's table. They are going to have to be taken out of the stream in order to keep up the value of what is left.

I think we have to look at that, but certainly as a last ditch procedure. When everything else has been considered and nothing else will work, then possibly we have to look at that happening. It has to be on people's minds that it may in effect be the only way to get out of this.

The government has put forward programs to set aside cattle. We have a calf set-aside program to take the younger animals out of the stream and hold them back for a year. We have the fat cattle set-aside, which is a reverse auction bid. The farmer can say, “If the government will give me $1.50 a day to feed my cattle, I will put so many aside”. This is to reduce the numbers, to increase demand and to increase the price.

So far, it seems to be working to a certain degree. However, the only way that it will be of any value is if the slaughter capacity in Canada is increased to eventually take those cattle being held back, so that when they come to market age we can market them or we can slaughter them. If that does not happen, we are going to have numbers of cattle coming forward, which will just drop the price. Any advantage that has been gained through the programs will be lost. The price will absolutely fall right through the floor.

There is another issue we have to keep in mind. Lobbying in the U.S. is an important aspect of what we need to be doing to educate the Americans about the fact that they are paying more for milk and more for their beef, quite a substantial amount more, the reason being that the their government has the border closed to Canadian cattle based on nothing. There is no scientific proof to keep the border closed. It is politics. The American people should get the pressure on the right people and get the border open. We have to be very cognizant of the fact that we need to be educating the people south of the border. I would like to see the government put more effort into that.

We also have to find the markets around the world to take the cattle when we do increase the slaughter capacity. I asked the minister earlier how the $38 million loan loss reserve would increase capacity. The numbers I have are that it is going to take about $190 million to build a 2,000 head per day single shift plant or a 4,000 head per day double shift plant that can compete in the market with the plants that already exist. We are talking those kinds of dollars.

The producers and the people who are ready to go need direction from the government on how to access that money and how to turn that $38 million into $150 million to $190 million so they can get started. We have to get some concrete in the ground. We have start building to send a message to the U.S. that we are serious about finding new markets and going past them. They will have to find their beef somewhere else because we are going to have markets elsewhere. We have an opportunity, but if we do not handle it carefully we are going to lose it.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have chatted with the member opposite on a number of occasions. He has the largest feedlot sector in Canada within his riding. He really has been hit hard by the beef dispute. A member of his constituency has led off on a chapter 11 challenge to the U.S. government on the inadequacies of the U.S. response to our BSE crisis, I guess that would be the basis of it, and how they have held us out of their marketplace.

I was wondering if the member has chatted with Mr. Pascal on that issue and what Mr. Pascal's thoughts are on what he would like the government to do. There are things such as a chapter 20 that governments can do and so on. Does Mr. Pascal feel that he is out there all by himself leading this challenge? Would he like some support from his federal government?

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly that is part of what is going on. Some of the producers got together. They felt that the government was not representing them properly. They felt that a chapter 11 challenge was the way to go about this. We can have all kinds of debate on whether it is right or wrong, but they have started this. It is an expensive process.

One of the other issues that needs to be addressed is whether a chapter 20 government to government challenge should be started. Some people say no, we have to hold back, but what if we are not using all the levers? When a country the size of Canada is dealing with a country 10 times our size like the U.S., the only protection we have is strong, rules based trade. If the rules that are put in place to protect us are not maximized to the benefit of producers in this country, then we are not doing our job as a country.

I would ask the government to consider possibly helping these guys with their chapter 11 challenge and looking at a chapter 20 government to government challenge. The comment I kept hearing from many of the producers is that they just did not feel their government was representing them or listening to them. Through me as their representative they kept pushing.

Certainly in the House at every opportunity where I am able I have brought forward the issue that this is such a serious thing that the message has to get through to the people who control the chequebooks and the regulations in this country. The message is that we have to really look at all the angles to bring this crisis to an end.

There are people in the industry who have gone to extraordinary lengths. Last summer they loaded up semi-trailer loads of hamburger and delivered them all over the country. They sold it out of the backs of trucks, whether it was in Ontario, B.C., Alberta or Saskatchewan, trying to bring attention to the issues. There has been a lot of effort on behalf of the people involved in the industry to bring attention to the industry. At times, they felt they were out there alone.

I think it is important for us to look at all the tools and all the levers we have to support the industry, whether that is through trade actions or the rules of NAFTA or whatever. We must explore these tools and levers. We must have a look at them to see if they are viable.

Also, it is very important for us to educate United States consumers, to tell them that they are paying far too much for their beef and far too much for their milk because the actions of their government are based not on science but on pure politics.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. member specifically on the development of slaughter capacity. The numbers are in that $150 million to $190 million range as the estimate of investment necessary.

I am interested in the hon. member's opinion. From our perspective, we see government being a part of that, but we see that the role of government is to trigger private sector investment so that the plants put in place are subject to financial due diligence. This is so they are sustainable, they have sound business plans and they will be sustainable with or without a border opening. That is the sort of approach the government has tried to take.

Does the member see an alternative approach or does he have some specific comments on how we should tweak what is being done? I would appreciate hearing his comments.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the numbers that I have been given this morning to create a slaughter capacity of 4,000 head a day on a two-ship plant are $111 million to build the plant, $30 million to get the inventory flowing through it, and another $10 million for start-up.

The people who are proposing this particular plant have done a lot of background work and are ready to go, but they need some direction. They are looking at loans, not grants, from the government, to be repaid when the plant is operational.

This size of plant will be competitive with the ones that presently exist. We are looking at $1 put up by our producers to $4 matched by the government, or somewhere in that range. If that leverage can be used, the money that the producers can put forward on a loan from the government, this would start the construction that we need in this country, hopefully a big plant in the east and another one in the west, to deal with the issue.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the farmers in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I would like to thank the hon. member for Montcalm for putting forward this motion today.

There is no doubt that for those farmers who have been affected by the BSE border crisis, there is a crisis. It is only by continually bringing forward motions like this one to draw attention to the plight of Canadian farmers can we even hope for any action.

On Saturday, November 20 I held an information meeting for farmers at the Cobden agricultural hall. It was the second such meeting to be held in Cobden. The first was held in July 2003 and was the first such meeting of any in Ontario.

That first meeting was the largest meeting of farmers in Renfrew County's history. As the second largest cow calf producing county in Ontario, farmers in my riding have been particularly hard hit by the border crisis created by a single case of BSE.

I thank Mr. Jim Wheeler, assistant deputy minister of agriculture for the Province of Ontario, and Mr. John Ross, assistant director of the red meat section for the federal agriculture department, for taking the time to come out to the meeting in Cobden on that Saturday morning.

Both officials updated farmers on the latest assistance programs. They provided any news available as to when the farmers might see some relief to the current farm crisis.

I also thank provincial MLA John Yakabuski who participated in the information meeting, and Wilson Rae of the Renfrew County Cattlemen's Association.

I also would like to give a big thanks to the Whitewater Region Ministerial Association for hosting a free beef barbecue after our meeting. Together with the Cobden Civitan Club, led by President Keith Sparling, the members of the ministerial association cooked up a creative way of showing support for our farmers in their time of need.

Once again our community came out for a well-attended show of support. Special thanks are extended to all the people who took the time to come out and support our farmers.

I want to be clear that the meeting I held in November was advertised and conducted as an information meeting. Unlike the last time when the federal officials were gratefully invited to participate in our farmer information meeting, no questions asked, this time a staff member of the Minister of Agriculture phoned my office to screen the request for a federal bureaucrat to attend the November 20 meeting. In the end, Mr. Ross was permitted to come. However, I have to ask, why the third degree?

One cannot help but think that the call from the minister's office was prompted by fear on the part of the federal government. The fact is that regardless of the bravado shown in question period, whenever the federal Minister of Agriculture is asked a question about the BSE crisis, he knows the assistance programs are not working. It would seem that the fear of facing farmers outweighs the need to provide timely information to them.

When this crisis first hit, there were immediate suggestions for individual animal testing and from people like beef farmer Howard Boland, who lives out near Eganville, for the need to increase Canadian slaughter capacity.

Unfortunately for our beef farmers, those are longer term solutions.

The government has always been wedded to the idea of a short term fix and prays that the problem will solve itself. In the meantime, the provincial government has moved to stop barnyard kills. Therefore, the little bit of relief farmers had in being able to feed themselves has gone too.

That approach is not working and the government knows it. This approach reminds me of the way government operates with the equipment crisis in Canada's armed forces. Rather than bite the bullet and buy the necessary modern equipment to have a fully functioning, combat capable Canadian military, the government squanders millions, if not billions, of dollars buying second-hand castoffs from other countries, or spends millions of dollars trying to repair 50-year-old aircraft.

The so-called assistance programs are no more than a band-aid approach to an industry that needs a long term solution, not a short term political fix. Government aid programs are a cruel joke on our farmers by a Liberal government that is happy to have cheap food at the farmers' expense.

Designed to beat the financial soul out of a lifetime of work on a family farm, that endangered species, program criteria make it very difficult to qualify. If farmers even qualify for any assistance, they are not seeing anything meaningful. Thirty-fours dollars an animal.

A government bureaucrat at our farm meeting told farmers that they did not want to be on the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, CAIS, because it meant that their current year was worse than their average and being on the program meant that things were getting worse. Once on the program, it would be tougher to re-qualify because year after year the averages declined. The short term fix has become a prescription for bankruptcy.

Interesting points were made at our information meeting such as the fact that part time beef farmers were left out of any programs and that will not change. Forget the fact that farmers have been forced to find off farm employment because prices are so low. They would not be part time farmers if they could make a full time living by being farmers.

While the farmers in my riding listened very carefully and patiently to what was said, they had a message of their own that they wanted me to deliver here in Ottawa: The current programs are not working well, nor is the handling by the government of the BSE situation working very well either.

This is what Trudy Desjardins of Westmeath had to say: “At some point, someone is going to have to take real leadership...until we get rid of cows that are creating the surplus there is no real solution”.

Preston Cull of Douglas, Ontario was more blunt: “We are sick and tired of all these meetings. People in this room have been losing thousands and thousands of dollars...you guys are going to have to quit talking and start doing stuff”.

Early on it was recognized in Renfrew County that we need to get the border open to live cattle. It was also recognized in a resolution at Renfrew County council that we do not build goodwill by calling others names.

I am proud to recognize the leadership in Renfrew County council when former reeve Gordon White, seconded by reeve Jack Wilson of the township of Laurentian Valley made the following motion:

THAT the Warden, in conjunction with Renfrew County staff, send a letter directed to Mr. Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, regarding the article of Thursday, February 27, 2003, Federal M.P. on Americans: “I HATE THOSE BASTARDS”, as stated by Liberal M.P....on February 26, 2003, M.P. of Mississauga Centre re: This type of comment toward American neighbours is totally irresponsible, despicable and not acceptable in the fostering of ongoing public relations with our trading partners south of the border. A copy of the letter be sent to M.P. for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

It is my privilege to publicly acknowledge the following mayors and reeves who were on Renfrew County council and who endorsed this motion: reeve Janice Bush, Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards; reeve Bill Croshaw, Head, Clara and Maria; reeve John Doering, Horton; reeve Arlene Felhaber, Bonnechere Valley; reeve Audrey Green, Renfrew; mayor Russ Havelin, McNab Braeside; reeve Norm Lentz, Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglin; reeve John Frost, Greater Madawaska; warden of Renfrew County and mayor of Madawaska Valley Bill Schweig; mayor Bob Sweet, Petawawa; reeve Harold Weckworth, North Algona Wilberforce; reeve Gordon White, Whitewater Region; and reeve Jack Wilson, Laurentian Valley.

It is interesting to note that of the three county councillors who voted against the motion condoning the anti-American remarks in the process, two no longer hold office. The Renfrew County councillors who voted for this motion were smart enough to understand the economic importance of American markets.

The U.S. is, in the words of former reeve Gordon White, our lifeline when it comes to selling agricultural and lumber products as well as attracting tourists.

Canadians can only ask, would the border be open today if the Prime Minister had provided some leadership sooner in curbing the rantings of his party against our closest ally and our largest trading partner?

It is time for the government to listen to farmers. As Cobden farmer Bruce Burwell put in a letter he sent to the Prime Minister, “We have wasted enough time at the expense of the farming industry. We are sick and tired of hearing all the B.S.”.

On behalf of all our farmers, what we are doing is not enough. We need to do more. It is time to think outside the box, and we had better do it quickly because time is running out for our beef farmers.