Debates of Feb. 26th, 2004

Supply

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. It will give me a chance to speak about the agricultural producers in Quebec.

Some 50% of all Canada's milk production is based in Quebec. Every one of those farmers in that 50% is affected by the culled cow situation. In the West, they say they are major beef producers, but dairy farming is concentrated in Quebec. If we talk about dairy farming, we are talking about culled cows.

At present, culled cows are no longer sufficient, in that revenues for dairy farmers are no longer adequate. When cows no longer produce milk, they are sent to the slaughterhouse to become meat, such as hamburger, for instance. This income has enabled farmers to make ends meet. This income, for example, often goes to paying down the mortgage or loans that were taken out to buy farm machinery.

It is very difficult for them. When I toured our ridings with other members from the centre of Quebec, we saw people's despair. Many young people who have taken up farming are now facing bankruptcy. Their despair and impotence in the face of this crisis is very obvious.

We keep telling them that Liberal government officials are travelling to the United States and meeting with the secretaries of state who are managing the embargo imposed on Canada, but our delegations always come back empty-handed, without any solution. What do they do on these trips? What do they talk about? The embargo has yet to be lifted, and our producers are still being punished.

I would also like to point out that the mad cow crisis occurred in Alberta, over 6,000 kilometres away from our region. When the same crisis occurred in England, which is about 100 kilometres from the French border, France was not punished.

The Bloc Quebecois has always asked the federal government to frame this crisis in a regional context. In Quebec, we were the first ones to set up a tracking system. Since 1993, we have had a system which guarantees that, should this kind of problem ever occur, we would be able to track the sick animals within the hour. Therefore, why punish a whole region because of one cow that came from a province located 6,000 kilometres away?

We really need adequate programs now. It is very important to maintain agricultural programs, because farming is the very basis of life. If people can no longer eat, they will die.

In Quebec, we have a system that is recognized throughout the world as being extremely safe—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up. We will continue the debate with the hon. member for Champlain.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Drummond still had a lot to say. I agree with her that, if there is one thing that has been utterly unfair to Quebec, it is the mad cow crisis.

As the member for Drummond said, since 1993, Quebec has taken every precaution to keep track of every animal that is put on the market. This is a measure that did not come into effect nationally until 1997.

Since 1993, we have been aware of the risks, especially, as the member for Drummond said, since 50% of the milk produced in Canada is produced in Quebec. It is a major industry. It is a big part of industry in Quebec. That said, it was necessary to take precautions to avoid a crisis like the one we are in now.

When I was listening to the parliamentary secretary a song popped in my head. I forget who sings it, but it says:

Paroles, paroles, paroles.

Words, words, words. All I have heard since I have been in this House is nothing but words.

[An hon. member]

Was it not Dalida?

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

It may have been.

I was on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for at least two years, and the former minister of agriculture and agri-food promised us the moon. For months he talked about a framework agreement, or a policy framework. It was going to be wonderful and change the world of agriculture. Just this morning, someone mentioned we never had anything like this before in Canada.

In Quebec, we have had something even better for a long time. It is not for nothing that Quebec farmers did not want to sign this agreement. They signed it with a knife to their throats. It does not make sense because our agriculture was better protected before this agreement.

It is terrible to see how much we are losing to a government that protects its friends first, no matter where they come from. We have seen the sponsorship scandal. We can take the administration scandal in general as an example. I swear, with the money that gets wasted in this government, it would be possible, if it were logical and offered not just words but real actions to go with the words, something more than just hot air, the farmers in Quebec or anywhere in Canada would not have the problems they are having now.

My colleague from Drummond said that, especially in her riding—because most of the dairy industry, some 47% of Quebec's production, is concentrated in her riding—there are some farmers in a very sorry state right now.

I have already used the example in this House of a visit I had from a farmer who said he had been a millionaire. “At the age of 59, I was ready to retire. I could have sold and with what I had on my farm I could have paid for my retirement”, he told me. Then he told me, “But now I am not worth anything anymore. My retirement has gone out the window because of the mismanagement of this government”.

At age 59, this farmer will have to keep working to earn a living because he has nothing left. In another region of Quebec, farmers are committing suicide.

This is no joking matter. It is a big deal to individuals. When we talk about industry, it seems like we are talking about machines. But when we talk about the farming industry, 90% of it involves labour and humans. Some people are losing everything, and the government has nothing but words, words, words for them.

It will provide something in the next budget, on the eve of the election. We have seen that before and we will be seeing it again. The government is getting ready. It will announce $1 billion for farmers. However, it will not have time to spend the money because it will be out on the campaign trail. Personally, I hope it never comes back.

People say this government mismanages things. My colleague, the member for Jonquière, asked a question about a highway that was promised but never built. I remember having heard, in this House, the Prime Minister say that he was taking the time to establish good relations with the province so that the money is well spent. If there is one government not qualified to show anyone how to spend money well, it is the Liberal government. This is quite incredible.

To give members an idea, under the current Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, operating costs increased by 39% in five years. This is an average of 9.6% a year, while inflation was 1.9%. Where did the rest go?

The number of federal officials increased by 46,000 in five years. That is a 21% increase. For the same period, the payroll increased by 7.3%, to 41%. In comparison with the government of any province, we can see that not one province is as mismanaged as this government.

Expenditures for legal services have increased by 129%, and, this is quite extraordinary, expenditures for opinion polls have increased by 334%. It started in 1994 before the referendum. They wanted to know how to stop Quebec from moving forward. I already heard the Prime Minister say in the House that they were not using polls to govern. What would it be like if they had to use polls to govern. So, there is a 334% increase, or 66.8% annually, for opinion polls.

Where is this money coming from? It is being taken from those who need it. I am not talking about the sponsorship scandal; we have talked about that enough. My colleague from Drummond talked about what we could have done with the $250 million that was stolen. There is constant talk about helping those who feed this country, who feed Quebec, about those who are building this country, the farmers, but there is never enough time. Hot air is all they are offered, while they work in the fields and suffer as a result of this government's mismanagement.

In passing, I can say that there is another important element. We are suffering from our lack of sovereignty. If Quebec was sovereign, producers would not be experiencing this problem. My colleague from Drummond said that, if a European country experiences a problem, the border is not far. Quebec has taken the necessary measures to prevent a mad cow crisis. Quebec is 6,000 km from the problem, and yet it is the one suffering.

Quebec was also implicated in the sponsorship scandal. Why did Liberal pals invest so much money there? Because they were afraid that Quebec would make the right choice. They wanted to stop Quebec from making a decision. They conducted polls and greased the palm of their Liberal friends saying, “Show us how to stop Quebec from moving forward”. That is what they did with our money. They stole from us three times. They stole our reputation, our money and our country.

I think the federal government is a terrible administrator. No wonder Quebec still hopes to become a sovereign nation.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member when he says that, since 1993 with the Liberal government, agriculture has deteriorated down to the point where we have negative realized net income in the country across the agricultural sectors.

Including Quebec, every province of the country has a lot of dairy. Quebec is the biggest by far. With regard to zoning, the member should know that Quebec has imported hundreds of thousands of head of feeder beef cattle from western Canada over the past few years to put into their feedlots There is a lot of interaction there. I also note that Quebec has sent out a lot of dairy cattle to be killed in the packing plants of Alberta.

There is this interaction and zoning is tough to do when there is that kind of interaction of beef cattle. Quebec is a great exporter of beef on the international scene, exporting 8% of Canada's total. Quebec is very important to the beef industry of Canada.

I would like to ask the member to comment on whether or not this is in fact true, that cattle are moving across the country and that it is difficult to zone one province off from the others?

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. He is completely correct. It is true that with respect to exports out of Quebec or imports into Quebec, it is quite normal, because we are in a time when we talk about the free movement of goods.

I was giving the example of the European countries. Even where countries share a border, even with problems such as we are encountering at present, that does not mean there is no more trade. We can see it with the United States. We are trading with the United States even though the border is currently closed in this sector.

What I wanted to demonstrate earlier involves the immensity of this land. Because this problem could not be regionalized and minimized, that means that the Mauricie, for example, which is some 6,000 kilometres from the region where the problem exists, is also affected. The problem has arrived in Mauricie even though as a region it has less than 1%—really none—of the responsibility for this crisis.

Since 1993, Quebec has taken the necessary steps. If a cow from Quebec is sold to another province, we can trace it. We trace the origins of the animal, and it is the same thing when we get them from elsewhere. We started taking this precaution in 1993 because of the value of our farms and our dairy herds.

Now we are paying because this has not been done elsewhere.That is the situation I wanted to explain. Of course an independent Quebec would be an importing and exporting country just like all others.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague from Champlain for his very passionate and instructive speech. He is currently the member for Champlain, but the future member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain is the one who will properly represent the people of that riding, defend the interests of his riding and not just his own personal interests, as the former representative for Saint-Maurice did, as is now common knowledge.

I want to ask my colleague the following question. With regard to the mad cow crisis and its effect on Quebec, what is the direct impact on producers, particularly dairy producers, even though, as he said, the problem happened 6,000 km from Quebec? In everyday terms, what impact is this having on our producers?

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

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

The current crisis is having a major impact on dairy producers. Cull cows can represent 25% of a dairy producer's net income. When a cow can no longer produce milk, it is sold for meat, and the profits of the sale represent 25% of net income, at times. Sometimes too, we use this money to make our payments.

There are young producers in my riding. One of them called me this morning to ask what he should do to make the payment on his farm. His father would have some money set aside, but this man is just starting out and has nothing. This is an important source of income that allows him to put food on the table and make the payments on his farm.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion before the House today because I believe agriculture is in a real crisis, particularly the livestock industry. The government needs to be more aware of that and it needs to do more than it has done in the past.

I want to focus on the crisis by giving a few numbers that have surprised a lot of people and of which the general population is not aware. I have here the statistics for the cash receipts received by farmers in Canada. If we look at the year 2002, their realized net income, which is the income farmers have after depreciation, after paying all their expenses, after paying bank loans and so on, was exactly $2,744,000,000.

In 2003, the net realized income of farmers in Canada was minus $13.4 million. That is a negative income. To make this even more startling, this is the lowest income Canadian farmers have had since they started keeping statistics in the 1920s. Most Canadians are not aware of the seriousness of the situation. This is a major crisis.

I want to now look at my own province of Saskatchewan. In 2002 the realized net income was $606 million. In 2003 it was minus $465 million. That is a drop of 177% in the farmers' income in one year. We can just imagine the crisis when the net income of a group in our society in the province of Saskatchewan was minus $465 million and nationwide it was minus some $13 million. In Alberta, it was minus $229 million.

I want to talk primarily about the west because I am splitting my time with my friend from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia who will talk about what is happening in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere.

We have a major crisis in agriculture today. The motion before the House today asks that we take some money from the sponsorship programs and the gun registry program and put it into the farm crisis. I could not agree more. The sponsorship programs have been major scandals. We have seen major corporate scandals all the way from Brian Mulroney right through to the present Prime Minister. They were a common thing during the Conservative Party government of Brian Mulroney and they continued through the Chrétien days to the present day. There is not much change except in magnitude. There is the same kind of coziness between the corporate elite and the government of Brian Mulroney and the government of Jean Chrétien.

I also think we should scrap the gun registry. We have now spent about $1 billion on the gun registry. I am proud to say that the NDP governments in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba are opposed to the gun registry and are not co-operating in the implementation of the registry. The NDP government in Saskatchewan is helping the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations in its legal challenge to the registry as it affects its treaty rights to hunt.

We could have taken the $1 billion that was spent over the last while and put it toward the farm crisis. We also have money in the federal surplus which, according to many economists, will be about $6.2 billion, and that is after the $2 billion goes into health care as announced by the Minister of Finance about two weeks ago.

I introduced a motion in the House on Monday of this week saying that because of the crisis in farming, in health care and in education, for this year alone the federal government should agree to send half the surplus to the provinces to help them cope with the farm crisis, health and education. Most provinces are now facing a deficit or are dipping into their fiscal stabilization funds to balance their budgets.

The federal government has the money to help the farmers.

Agriculture in general is in a crisis but the livestock industry is in even more of a crisis because of what the mad cow disease has done to the industry. This has happened through no fault of the farmers. It was discovered that one cow in Canada and one cow in the United States had BSE, or mad cow disease.

The government should take some short term measures and provide immediate financial support in terms of interest free loans that would help the farmers in the immediate sense. It should move to temporarily reduce the cow herd by paying farmers to, unfortunately, slaughter some cows.

Canada has had one cow with mad cow disease and the United States has had one but the Americans have closed their border to our cattle and, consequently, we cannot export live cattle to the United States. What we should be saying to the Americans is that if they do not open their border to our cattle, then we will close our border in eastern Canada to the importation of American beef and start moving western Canadian beef into eastern Canada. The time has come to get tough with the Americans. They close their border to our beef and we keep our border open to their beef.

My final remarks on mad cow are that I believe the federal government should take a look at a challenge to the United States under both NAFTA and the WTO. If we look at chapter 7 of the WTO it talks about the importance of restrictions based on scientific evidence. All the scientific evidence shows that with one case of mad cow there is safety for the Canadian consumer, the American consumer and any consumer anywhere in the world to consume Canadian beef.

What we have been dealt here is a very unfair hand by the United States and I think we have the grounds to consider a challenge under NAFTA and the WTO.

We have to look at the long term stability of agriculture right across the country. The one thing on which I certainly disagree with the new Conservative Party is its stand on orderly marketing.

I come from a small farm near Wynyard, Saskatchewan. I have a lot of farmers and a lot of towns in my riding. I know how important the Canadian Wheat Board is to our farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board is extremely important for the marketing of Canadian grain from western Canada. The board is supported by the overwhelming majority of farmers across the prairies, particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It is important that we have strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board.

However, over the last number of years, many members of the far right, of the Conservative Party, the former Alliance Party and Reform Party, the Saskatchewan Party, the cold porridge party, whatever members want to call it, the Brian Mulroney party, the Grant Devine party, the Eric Berntson party, they have been standing up and talking about an end to the Canadian Wheat Board.

It has always been the Conservatives who have stood on the regressive side of things. They have now changed their name from Progressive Conservatives to Conservatives. They have dropped the progressive. I guess they are now regressive Conservatives. However we know where they stand and it is not on the side of farmers. They do not stand in support of the Canadian Wheat Board in Canada, and the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster knows that. A lot of them are talking about a dual marketing system, where farmers are offered the so-called freedom of choice to market their grain, knowing full well that it would undermine the Canadian Wheat Board which is there to market the grain of all western Canadian farmers.

I can tell members that we on this side of the House stand four-square with western Canadian farmers who have overwhelmingly indicated their strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board as a single desk marketing system to market western Canadian grain.

The Conservative Party is showing its true colours. It does not want the farmers to have this collective right in the marketplace. It wants to get back to a dog eat dog free market where the farmer is up against companies like Cargill grain.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I will speak directly to my relatives and friends in the Wynyard area of Saskatchewan.

There are a lot of beef producers in that area and we have just heard the official NDP policy that it wants to start a major trade battle with the United States and totally prohibit the importation of beef from the United States. The NDP would have Saskatchewan as part of the supply of beef down to Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes.

I would like to inform the member from Saskatchewan that the Saskatchewan beef industry would shrink to zero and the Saskatchewan beef farmer would starve to death under that type of policy. Why do I say that? It is for the simple reason that Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes are quite capable of supplying their own total domestic supply of beef. They do not need any beef from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or B.C.

I want to point out very clearly that the NDP is very wrong in saying that it would close off the border to U.S. beef and that somehow that would help the farmers of Saskatchewan. I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my family and relatives are in Wynyard as well, which is an area that has always supported strong, orderly marketing, the Canadian Wheat Board and very progressive politics over the years. It has rejected the politics of the member across the way. Even in the Diefenbaker years, the Conservative Party did not win the town of Wynyard and the support of the farmers in the surrounding area and it was because the Conservatives in this country have never stood up for the farmers.

The member across the way should know that Atlantic Canada is importing beef from the United States while the Americans have cut off the export of live cattle from our country into the United States. I want the border re-opened but we have to stand up and talk tough to the Americans.

I know the Conservative Party across the way is really the republican party north but if we do not stand up and talk tough and tell the Americans that we want fair trade and a fair deal then of course they will not listen and they will keep their border closed.

I think the people in Wynyard and the beef producers want us to start talking tough. They want us to take a look at challenging the Americans under NAFTA and with the World Trade Organization. What is the member afraid of? They do not hesitate to do it to us. They closed their border. They put huge duties on our forest products. They do not hesitate to ignore the rules under the World Trade Organization or NAFTA so why do we not stand up and talk tough to the Americans as well?

We produce a lot of beef in this country. Some western beef can go into eastern Canada in the meantime. The main thing is to get the border open so we can have the free flow of beef on both sides of the border.

I understand the industry very well. I know it is very highly integrated, but the Americans do not seem to understand that. They are very protectionist. It is the George Bush regime, which is worshipped by the Conservative Party, that is discriminating against Canadian farmers. The Americans are going into an election and it does not look like they will open the border until after the election. I say that it is time for us to talk tough.

I just met with some farmers in Wynyard about three or four weeks ago in a shed in a farmer's yard. They want us to talk tough and stand up for the rights of Canadians.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, regarding expertise in the area of the cattle business, I happen to have run a ranch myself with over 300 head. I came from Estevan, Saskatchewan, which is my home town. My brother, Donald, still ranches in the Estevan area. I can tell members that without the export markets, primarily the United States market, the beef industry in western Canada is totally dead.

I am amazed at the NDP anti-American attitude, that we can somehow beat up on a country that has over 100 million head of cattle while we have only 10 million head, and that somehow we are going to teach them a lesson. That kind of thinking on trade matters is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I hope that the people of Wynyard and Estevan, Saskatchewan are noting this debate today.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly second that hope about those out there watching this debate today, but I ask the member across the way, what is his solution?

The Americans are not playing fair ball. I have not talked to a single farmer in my riding who thinks the Americans are being fair to the Canadian people and yet the member is getting up and worshiping George Bush.

I know that 70% of our beef is exported out of this country and I know we want to export it. I have never said we should not be exporting. The Americans only export about 10% of their production. I think the hon. member across the way knows that.

What we have to do is stand up and tell the Americans that they are not playing fair. They are playing hardball and that member wants to throw a puffball at the Americans. He worships the ground that George Bush walks on. He supported the war in Iraq. The Canadian farmers want us to stand up for Canadians and for Canadian farmers, and not just kowtow to George Bush.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Conservative Party for bringing forward this valuable motion.

Accountability in the House of Commons, in the other place, and for that matter in all provincial and territorial legislatures and municipal legislatures is crucial. It is critical at this time in our history that all politicians of all political stripes be extremely accountable and responsible for the taxpayers' dollars. As we know, there is only one taxpayer. Through the media of television, newsprint and radio we get our message out to them that we must be accountable.

People are very angry and upset about the recent scandal that has hit the Liberal government. They are also very confused. They are also very intelligent about the issue. They know the scandal that has hit the present government is not brand new. This type of scandalous operation in the federal government has been happening since Brian Mulroney hit this place in 1984. There has been over 20 years of unaccountability by majority governments in this country and it has to stop.

The NDP believes that one of the ways to do that is to actually change the way we are voted into this place. We have to bring in a system of proportional representation. It would make us all that much more accountable to the Canadian taxpayers who, right now, are getting their taxes together. Many of them will have to send cheques to the Receiver General for Canada. When they see their tax dollars going out of their wallets to the government, knowing that the government has given hundreds of millions of dollars out the back door to its friends, they will be very upset. I empathize and sympathize with the Canadian taxpayers because it is unacceptable that their dollars are mismanaged in such a callous manner.

I would like to narrow down the debate to Atlantic Canada and the issues that face it.

According to the Auditor General's reports, the gun registry itself has cost close to $1 billion with no end in sight. The previous minister of industry, Mr. Rock, said very clearly that it would only cost the taxpayer around $2 million to implement. How wrong the government was. If the government can mismanage that amount of money, from $2 million to $1 billion, what else is it mismanaging that we are unaware of? Almost $187 billion is spent. The government must be more accountable for what it does.

On a personal note, I say scrap the gun registry, bring lawful gun owners into the debate and come up with a system that is not only fiscally accountable but also is socially responsible. If we were to do that, we would not only be saving the taxpayers a lot of money, we would be inviting citizen participation in this very worthwhile debate.

I also want to thank all the wonderful people in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The recent storm set a record snowfall for our province. There were health care providers who worked around the clock. They did a great job looking after the needs of the citizens in that area. Snowplough operators, including those who came from New Brunswick to assist our Nova Scotia operators, worked around the clock to get the streets cleared.

The great people in Nova Scotia are amazing. A lot of people called my office concerned not about their well-being but about the well-being of the elderly and shut-ins who were not able to shovel their way out or get the supplies they needed. There is story after story about the great neighbourly goodwill of the people of Nova Scotia looking after their neighbours.

That is why I am extremely proud to say that I come from Nova Scotia. I am very proud to be able to stand in this House and represent the people of Nova Scotia. A tip of the hat to all those people who did yeomen's work in alleviating the pressures that the snowfall caused in our area.

On specific notes as to what the government could do with our tax dollars, we believe that the shipbuilding industry in the regional part of Atlantic Canada has been overlooked. It has been neglected for far too long.

Instead of the gun registry and the sponsorship scandal, it easily could have invested in a proper shipbuilding policy so that our Coast Guard vessels, ferries and naval replacement vessels could all be made in Atlantic Canada. For that matter they could be built in Quebec, Port Welland, Ontario, and out on the west coast. That would encourage thousands of highly skilled people to come back to work and earn a very decent living not only in Atlantic Canada but across the country.

We implore the government to take this issue very seriously and to bring in the shipbuilding policy that Mr. Tobin had commissioned, that was done by the industry and labour. Those ships could be built in Atlantic Canada and then people would not have to go down the Trans-Canada Highway to find work. They could stay and work in their own communities in Atlantic Canada and be very proud of a traditional shipbuilding industry, just as we used to have.

There is also the softwood lumber crisis. There is a lot of talk coming from the Minister of Industry and the Minister of International Trade about what is called the pan-Canadian solution to meet the protectionist attitudes of the United States.

We have a serious concern in that if we get into that kind of a solution with a quota system, Atlantic Canada would suffer. In Atlantic Canada almost 80% of our lumber is cut on private land whereas from Quebec to B.C. the opposite is true and most of that lumber is cut on Crown land.

We have always had an exemption on the east coast called the maritime accord. This is what the lumber and mill producers are asking for in Atlantic Canada. We want to make sure that any deal made with the United States takes into very serious account the special circumstances of Atlantic Canada.

We on this side of the House, and all members from Atlantic Canada regardless of party I am sure, take this issue very seriously. We encourage the government to always remember that in the negotiations.

As well we could talk about equalization. The premier of Nova Scotia rightfully asked about the royalties from the natural resources of oil and gas. We should be able to keep more of them for our province. If we did that, people's attitude and impression of Nova Scotia being a have not province would go away.

I reject categorically suggestions by any politician of any political stripe or any commentator that Nova Scotia is a have not province. It is absolute nonsense to say that. We are a have province. We have some of the best natural resources in the country. Some of the finest people in the world live in our province. We are a have province.

Maybe financially we are not as well off as the other provinces but the reality is that if we are given the development dollars that are required and the infrastructure, Nova Scotia would be a fabulous province in terms of economic opportunities and activities. We encourage the federal government to work with the provincial governments of Atlantic Canada to move toward that goal. If we did that, it would go a long way.

I also want to talk about the issues relating to fiscal responsibility toward our military. The government is in discussions with the Americans about some nuclear missile defence shield, ballistic missile defence, what some people call star wars or the weaponization of space.

I represent the Shearwater air base and a very large military base in Nova Scotia in the garrison city of Halifax. I say very clearly to the government that instead of concentrating on some futuristic possibilities, the government should be putting core dollars into our military, the infrastructure, the men and women and their families

Members of our military need to be properly trained and properly equipped. They need to receive the right direction and support from the government. For that matter, they need the support of all members of Parliament. We constantly see stories in the papers about the possible closure of bases, the reduction of the forces themselves and the fact that a lot of armed forces personnel are suffering from burnout. We encourage, especially in the next budget, the government to look at the military in a much more positive light than it has done over the last 10 years.

In conclusion, I again thank the Conservative Party of Canada for bringing the motion forward. It is imperative that all of us ensure that we look after the taxpayers' dollars. Tommy Douglas used to say that he would never spend a farmer's nickel unless he told him where it was going and what benefit it would have to him and his family. We on the east coast agree with that, especially members of our party. We just want to make sure that the government is more accountable for the tax dollars that it spends.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to trade places with you for even just a day or two, you would realize how absolutely devastating the BSE crisis is in my riding. Day after day, producers are calling my office. They have done everything they can to possibly save themselves from the devastating effects of this. They have rationed feed. They have sold animals for next to nothing just to pay a few bills. They have cut back on veterinary visits which is harmful to their cattle. They have begged the banks for loans and the banks have said that they cannot lend them any more money because of the uncertainty of the situation and the fact that the government is not coming forward with some kind of announcement of assistance. There is nothing else that they can do.

Brian Patron is a producer from the Goodeve area in my constituency. He has been told by his bank to give up. He said that the bank told him to go to the Alberta oil patch and work, that there is nothing the bank could do.

Judy Holod of Langenburg is selling cattle for about half as much as she would have received one year ago.

Greg Hemmings from Esterhazy said that the difference between selling cattle in December and February is like night and day. That is a matter of two months. In December Mr. Hemmings sold six head and received $6,000. When he sold six more on February 3, he received $1,801.65. The difference in just a couple of months is absolutely staggering.

We do not realize how the BSE crisis is compounding. On a daily basis it is becoming worse. Producers in Saskatchewan are receiving about half as much for their cattle as they were compared to a year ago.

Would the member agree that this collapse in the agriculture industry is not only affecting the farmers of the country but it is also affecting Atlantic Canada? Do we not have to do something now and quickly?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Saskatchewan for that great question.

The reality is that coming from Atlantic Canada we know exactly what happened in 1992 to the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador when their industry was completely cut out from under them. The farmers on the Prairies especially with BSE concerns are going through the exact same thing.

What has to happen is that with support from this side of the House the federal government needs to ensure that those people are financially stabilized. Perhaps it could be something similar to TAGS on the east coast. We need to ensure that the families especially in rural Canada have dollars coming in to ensure the survival of their enterprises and their families.

At the same time we need to work with the United States and other countries to ensure, as my colleagues from Regina—Qu'Appelle and Palliser said, that we operate on the best science. One cow should not bring down the entire industry. We have to get the message out that our beef in Canada is some of the world's best. I know there is nothing better, except for an Atlantic lobster, than good Alberta beef. Put that surf and turf together and we have a meal.

When we have our dinner tonight we should say a little prayer for the producers and those farmers and their families who sustain us and give us the best quality food in the country.

As well as financial support, we have to work cooperatively, not just separately, and tell the world that our food is the best in the world and that we have nothing to hide. We should show our support for those families so that years from now the kids on those farms can have a livelihood and can provide sustenance for our children in the future.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our problem is not explaining to the world how safe our beef is and the regulations that we have put in place to ensure it is safe. Our problem is having the salesmen who can go to that other country and just like the salesmen of any product, clinch the deal. That is where our agriculture minister and our Prime Minister have failed so miserably. They have not been able to clinch the deal with Japan, Korea, China and the United States. That is my main criticism of the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker. The government should have done what Mr. Chrétien did with the trade missions. He brought with him on the trade missions members of Parliament, members of the Senate, provincial leaders and industry leaders. This issue should have been taken much more seriously.

The government cannot do it by itself. It needs to show that this is a national problem and that we will work on this concern on a national level. The scientists, the industry, the farmers and the political leaders of all stripes need to go to the other countries and prove once and for all that our product is the best in the world.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to join this debate on the agricultural industry across this country. Of course we all have seen the statistics in the last little while. In my home province of Saskatchewan, there has been a $1 billion drop in two seasons. That is a slide that is just about impossible to come back from.

What concerns a lot of us in the House, and my colleagues have alluded to it just in the last couple of minutes, is the respect for our people on the land. It is not there anymore. We are seeing a huge disconnect between people who pick up their groceries off the shelf at the grocery store and the people who actually produce the goods, the ones who put the blood, sweat and tears into the production. We are seeing net farm incomes drop to levels we have not seen since the 1920s, and of course our input costs are in 2004.

The statistics we see are staggering, as is the lack of attention from the government on this file. We have seen some ad hoc moneys tossed around. We have seen agriculture ministers come and go, along with their policy ideas. They come and go. We do not see any long term stability, market certainty or cashflow, all of those things that business requires.

And agriculture is a huge business. Whether one is the guy on the land or the guy raising the cattle, sheep or whatever, it is a huge business in this country. It puts $36 billion annually into our gross domestic product. It is the third largest contributor. There are 250,000 jobs that work off that farm base. It is a huge industry.

Why the government of the day--and for the last decade--cannot come to grips with the importance of the viability of that industry just boggles my mind. I cannot for the life of me understand how the Liberal government cannot address this slide that agriculture has been on, especially for the last 10 years. It has let it get to unprecedented low levels.

Is it a spending priority for the government? No.

We have seen that. We have seen other programs come forward for “friends of”. That is what our motion addresses today: the priorities of the government. We have been seeing a lot of different issues covered in a weekend. Decisions on $100 million jets for the Prime Minister can be arrived at in one or two days. As for backstopping agriculture, we are 11 months into this crisis and we still cannot get the cash off the cabinet table to the kitchen tables.

CFIP is the program that was supposed to be the answer to a lot of this backstopping of agriculture in 2002. The payments are finally going out now with 70% of what people qualify for being paid because the government says the budget has run out.

We have little things around here called the supplementary estimates. You have seen those come and go, Mr. Speaker, and you know what kinds of programs can be topped up and backstopped. Of course agriculture should be and could have been, but the government did not have the political will to do it. I guess that with only 2% of the population being farmers, it is not a big enough voting base to get the government's attention.

However, everybody in this country likes to eat. That safe, secure, quality food that we all enjoy is in peril. It is at risk. We no longer can control the costs if we start going offshore, and there is the processing and all the industries that are built upon that primary industry.

Let us look at the last program on BSE. Let us think of the livestock industry and think of it as a pie. A quarter of it is the cow-calf guy, a quarter of it is the stocker or the backgrounder getting these cattle ready for the third part, which is the feedlots, and then into the processing sector. The government decided it was going to fix the livestock and backstop the BSE thing. What does it do? It pipes the money into the processing level. It does not flow back downhill. If we start putting money in at the farm gate, we could save an industry because it will ratchet up but it will not go backward. We saw that happen in the last little while.

I would like to announce that I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Carleton, so I would appreciate knowing when I am getting close to my boundaries.

We have seen that program happening. In the agricultural committee now, we are spending all of our time looking back at what went wrong when we have farmers out there going broke day by day. Agriculture in this country has always been next year. It always has been, “It will be better next year”. Now I have guys phoning in saying they are not going to make next month.

We have seeding coming up within a couple of months. There is no cashflow. We are still paying off bills from the year before because the government was not there.

Nobody wants the government in their face and we already have too many bureaucrats and consultants running around out there, but there are times when an industry is in crisis. This has been a disaster unparalleled in this country and we are not seeing the government rise to the challenge.

To that end, watching what the Liberals have not done, the Conservative Party on this side of the House has put together a program in the last few days. We announced it this morning in a press release. We are looking at a Conservative government being formed hopefully in the next short while and we are looking at a $1 billion package.

We have seen $1 billion come and go in this place with no impact on society, none at all. The money was just gone. We are talking about $1 billion to backstop agriculture. We are talking about topping up that 2002 CFIP, which the government has not seen fit to do. We are talking about getting the money out there. We are talking about getting 100% of what farmers qualify for out there. That is the least we can do. That has to be done.

Second, our processing capacity in this country has to be increased. There are a tremendous amount of livestock sectors that have no avenue for getting their animals processed. We are still importing because we cannot address it, and yet there is a glut of animals that need to be on the store shelves and cannot get there. That processing has to be increased.

On mature livestock, by industry numbers there are 700,000 mature cattle out there--cull cows, canner bulls and that type of thing--that may be carrying BSE. We do not know. We do not think they are, but there were still glitches after the 1997 feed ban. Those cattle have to disappear. We have to rationalize that herd.

Our herds have gone from an average of 13 million head up to 15 million now. There are going to be another 500,000 calves in the next little while. They are coming out of a lot of those cull cows that were carried over; they are going to drop a calf. That will compound the problem, not help it. Those cattle have to be moved aside and producers paid out for them to help give them a bit of cashflow so they can keep their own industry robust, so they can keep the young stock and get them fed. That is going to be a problem.

The CAIS program, the former minister's answer to everything, the APF, is too little too late. It is a five year program and that is fine. Let us get some long term results out there to farmers. The problem with the CAIS program is that only one-third of the money that is allocated goes to the farm gate. The other two-thirds goes into a wish list of Liberaldom. The Liberals are talking about climate, environment and food safety, and that is all worthwhile stuff, maybe, but it should not come under and at the expense of the farm gate. Without those guys producing the basic product we do not need any of the other stuff. The government has even slipped the Internet in there again. We are already there. We have already done that.

Let us get some real money into the CAIS program, money that will backstop farmers. Let us start talking about rules and regulations for CAIS that will be farmer friendly. Having to top up or put in a cash reserve to qualify for government money is redundant. If I have that kind of cash, I do not need the government and I do not want the government in my face. We have to start looking at the rules and regulations and make them farmer friendly. The bureaucrats under the Liberal regime cannot seem to find that answer, that magic bullet.

We have to talk about interest free cash advances for the cow-calf guys. They are into another cycle and are carrying over calves because it did not pay to sell them. There is feed to buy and pasture to line up. We have to backstop those folks. Interest free cash advances are the way to go.

Of course, we have to show lending institutions that the government is serious about agriculture. As they pull back, the government is going to have to step in. We have to talk about loan guarantees and covering off the interest. We have the vehicle in the Farm Credit Corporation if we want to get loan guarantees out to the backgrounders in the feedlots to keep the cycle vibrant and working.

That, in a nutshell, is our program. Those are the short term solutions. In the mid term, we have to look at ramping up testing in conjunction with our major importers. The customer is always right: If they are demanding more testing then we had better be there with them. We must also have some government direction on the protocols on rendering and SRM handling, handling of the specific risk materials that are part of this problem.

To that end, I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding:

By implementing the Conservative Party of Canada's one billion dollar plan.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will take the suggested amendment under advisement and I will get back to the House.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a member of Parliament from the province of Ontario. I want to address this debate and draw the attention of the House to the fact that Ontario frequently gets missed in media discussions of the situation in rural Canada and particularly the BSE crisis. This is not simply a western Canadian problem. This is in fact a problem that is nationwide. We have cattle production across the country from coast to coast.

In particular, it is very much an Ontario problem. To make this point, I just want to give a few statistics. I do not know if people are aware that Ontario is the third largest beef producing province in the country. Beef is very much a large proportion of agricultural production in Ontario. Almost 40% of farms in Ontario are classified as being at least partly dairy or beef farms and sometimes both.

In eastern Ontario, the part of the province that I come from, the proportion would be closer to 50% of farms having either a beef or dairy component. In my own constituency of Lanark--Carleton, that proportion rises to over 60%. Over 60% of the farms in my constituency in Lanark county and the rural west end of the city of Ottawa have either a beef or a dairy component. That is true of the surrounding counties as well. In Frontenac county or Leeds and Grenville county, we see the same kind of pattern. And of course farmers are being affected every bit as much on those Ontario beef farms as they are on beef farms in the western part of the country.

What has happened with the BSE crisis is that it has been the capstone or, alternatively, the straw that may break the camel's back, on top of a whole series of other crises that are being imposed. They are sometimes being imposed by the government itself and sometimes by other circumstances upon our farmers and upon our rural people. As a rural member of Parliament, I am excruciatingly, painfully aware of this.

Let me give some examples of how the crisis is playing out in rural Ontario and some of the factors in it. Right now, rural eastern Ontario is being hit by the reclassification by the provincial Liberal government of maple syrup producers as being industrial as opposed to agricultural, on the theory that the processing of maple syrup on site constitutes an industrial activity. If one were to try transporting maple sap, which has such a small sugar content that it tastes like water, one would realize the enormous impracticalities of trying to ship it anywhere. Plus, it goes bad so it has to be boiled down on site. There is no alternative.

Nevertheless, the provincial government decided that this agricultural activity is in fact an industrial activity. The resultant tax load increase can be as much as 15, 16 and, in one case I have heard of, 18 times the initial tax load for maple syrup producers.

There is also the attack on small sawmill owners, who have been producing perfectly safely in our rural areas for years and years. The accusation has now been made that sawdust on their sites represents an environmental hazard and a hazard to the water supply. I was in Jonquière in Quebec, in Chicoutimi, a couple of years ago, and I went and stood on top of a heap of sawdust that is over 100 years old. This stuff is so inert that it has been sitting there for 100 years. There is actually a sign on it that says if people can figure out a way of getting rid of this stuff for them, let them know. Now the Ontario government has decided that this represents an environmental hazard and a hazard to the water supply.

We have in Ontario the unreasonable requirements for nutrient management that are being imposed upon livestock producers, livestock producers who have been no threat to anybody for years and have established practices that are completely safe. We know this because of the fact that their neighbours are not and have not been affected in any way by operations that have existed for, in some cases, over a century. Now they are being told they must change their nutrient management practices. For those who are urban people, what we are talking about here is how they deal with manure.

I have one farmer, who has a cattle operation in my constituency just outside of Pakenham. He told me that to comply with the nutrient management regulations, he would have to spend a quarter of a million dollars to install a giant concrete holding vat. That is a quarter of a million dollars which he cannot get unless he sells part of his herd, a herd which is greatly reduced in value at the sale barn, meaning that he cannot put in the holding vat for his manure unless he gets rid of the producers of manure, thereby eliminating any need for the holding vat.

The provincial government could deal with this intelligently. It could suspend these regulations, or get rid of them, until the end of the BSE crisis, but it shows no inclination to do that. As we can imagine, this alone will put some of our producers out of business.

When I was at an agricultural society dinner in Lanark highlands, someone from the provincial ministry of agriculture was explaining how the Nutrient Management Act would work for livestock producers. The first question he received from a local farmer was “What do you want us to do once we get out of farming?”

We see that with the Species at Risk Act. This is a federal law that affects rural areas. There is no compensation for the restrictions placed on the use of property, which in some cases render the property or parts of it useless. We were promised this by the government, but it has not been delivered. That again is unnecessary.

Then of course we have the costs and other impositions imposed by the firearms registry, which is now at $2 billion. Thank goodness it is not farmers who have to carry the entire cost of that. Certainly, when we see our taxes going toward that kind of boondoggle with no practical impact whatsoever, with no lives saved or ever saved and, notwithstanding the hon. member who spoke earlier, no stolen weapons returned to their owners, there is a sense in rural Canada that perhaps the government has some misplaced priorities.

What is the appropriate response to the BSE crisis? If we think about it and if we take the cattle and the prions out of it and look at it from a financial point of view, the real point of the BSE crisis is a cash flow problem. Agriculture, by its nature, is an industry in which producers are rich in assets, which potentially have a high value, and foreign cash. By freezing their ability to take their product to the market at a reasonable price, the problem of farmers being cash poor has been exacerbated and has been made far worse than it has to be.

The government's response ought to be to try to, first, ensure that we can do what we can to raise the price of cattle wherever possible. There are a variety of actions, which my hon. colleague has pointed out in the new Conservative Party plan that would deal with this. Second, we have to provide some form of compensation in the short run to ensure that the cash flow crisis does not force many of our producers out of business. That is significant.

Canadian cattle producers are not subsidized. They are independent producers. They do not receive the kinds of subsidies we see being applied to many agricultural sectors in the European Union and in the United States. They function on their own and they stand on their own two feet. However, for goodness sake, if we do not get them through this crisis, many of them will be out of business and it will not matter that they were able to make it on their own under normal circumstances. This is not the thin edge of the wedge toward some sort of widespread and ongoing subsidy program. This is simply helping them get through the current crisis. The government seems to have no interest in doing anything about it.

For almost a year we have seen endless and meaningless hand-wringing from the other side of the House, with no attempt to do anything, and there are so many things that could be done.

Local farmers in my constituency, in particular Pat O'Rourke who came up the idea, and I helped them with this, started producing bumper stickers and lawn signs to remind people to buy Canadian beef. This was back at the beginning of the crisis when there were many imports of beef from the United States. People did not know to look to see if the product they were buying was Canadian. People just assume that everything they buy in Canada must be Canadian since we produce so much beef here at home. We have put up thousands of these signs at this point and distributed thousands of bumper stickers. That has had some impact on raising the awareness of Canadians.

We now find Canadians are aware that they have to think about looking for Canadian product. We now need to increase the production and processing capacity. The Conservative Party plan calls for this. We need to provide compensation.

I hope the members on the government side of the House are listening and that they will take some of the actions that we have proposed today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before I proceed to questions and comments, the Chair has had the time to review the text of the amendment provided and is satisfied that it is in order.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a fine speech and it brings into play the situation we see in eastern Ontario.

The federal government is responsible for trade issues. We have heard different comments here to the effect that we should get tough with the Americans.

I would like the member to comment on this. The position I see is that Canada, this Liberal government, when it came to BSE in other countries such as Denmark, where it had one case, banned all its beef in essence forever. We banned beef from Brazil, even though it did not have an official case. We have never opened our border to anybody for any meat.

When we had our first case, the United States initially banned our beef. However, being the good neighbours and friends that they are, they partially opened up the border so we could get some exports moving. That has really saved the beef industry in Canada, the total herd. We still want them to open the border fully.

Could the member comment about the importance of trade to us and the importance of good relations with our neighbours, given the fact they are our biggest customers?

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers are not stupid. Earlier on there were comments from the New Democrats, who of course are opposed to free trade. They suggested that the appropriate response was to start slamming shut the border to goodness knows what, but certainly to American product.

I have a petition with several thousand signatures of people from eastern Ontario. Some of them are farmers and some are not. It calls upon Parliament, and I will read from the petition, “Your petitioners request that Parliament instruct the Minister of International Trade to renegotiate Canada's international trade treaties to ensure that Canadian beef and other Canadian agricultural exports can never again be excluded from foreign markets after their safety has been demonstrated”.

That is the point. The problem we currently have with international trade treaties is that they are designed in part to ensure the rapid shutdown of borders, without countervailing sanctions, when there is legitimate or the perception of a threat to health. However, they do not call for the mandatory reopening of borders, either piecemeal or all at once, when it is demonstrated that the risk does not exist.

Our government has taken advantage of this in the past to hide its own protectionist actions. Now we are reaping the whirlwind which we have sowed. It is not just the Americans that are looking at us. All our trade partners are. They see one rule that applies when it comes to our exports and another rule that applies to our imports, and they are not impressed. Not only do the Americans feel that way, all our trade partners feel that way. We have to be a bit respectful of our trade partners.

With regard to the United States, we cannot play hardball on this kind of thing and think we will come out winning. Remember Pierre Trudeau's famous observation that, “Being beside the Americans is like sleeping beside an elephant”. We should not get in fist fight with elephants. The reality is the United States is able to withstand trade wars because it is a country which is not really dependent on international trade, much more than any of its trade partners, especially us. If we get into a fist fight with them, we will come out the losers. This is not the way to help our farmers.

In the long term I would suggest the way to help our farmers is to work as the petitioners suggest, by causing those treaties to be changed. It will not solve this crisis this year or next year. It will prevent this kind of crisis from occurring in the future, whether for beef or any other sector of our agriculture.