House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.

Topics

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB

moved:

That the government reallocate its resources from wasteful and unnecessary programs such as the sponsorship program, or badly managed programs such as the gun registry, to address the agricultural crisis at the farm gate across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, for those watching parliamentary proceedings today, an opposition day is when opposition parties put forward a particular proposition and debate it. The Conservative Party of Canada, as the foremost party in relation to support for rural Canada, has taken that opportunity today. I have 20 minutes to speak on a topic that I could probably spend 20 hours on.

The fact that there is an agricultural crisis in our country is not news to the families who live in rural Canada. I represent a riding that is predominantly rural. The folks in my riding tell me so plainly that this is not news to ranchers. Some of them are being forced into bankruptcy, watching decades of hard work go down the drain, largely because the U.S. border is closed to traffic for their products.

It is not news to sheep farmers as they watch their lambs fatten into less marketable sheep with every passing day. They do not even have the option of sending their culled ewes and rams to eager buyers in Mexico because the U.S. border remains closed.

Thousands of farm families across Canada face financial ruin, if they have not already been forced into bankruptcy.

Imagine for a moment those farmers or ranchers. Through no fault of their own, they will lose their farm--a business that has probably been in the family for generations. They held on for 10 long months since the U.S. border was closed. They looked to the federal government for assistance to save the farm--some help for the individual producer. They looked for a sign that Liberal Ottawa recognizes that a multi-billion dollar industry is about to collapse.

What do we see? We see Canada's new Prime Minister, fresh from his coronation by the Liberal Party, failing to even mention the phrase BSE in the throne speech. We hear rhetoric from the Prime Minister, telling Canadian food inspection agency officials at a photo op in Edmonton that re-establishing international markets for Canadian beef is a national priority.

What are the actions? Where is the emergency aid to help producers get through this crisis? Where are the cash advances for individual livestock producers?

I guess that Haldimand County dairy farmers in the agriculture minister's riding, or farm families near Sedley, Saskatchewan in Wascana, the finance minister's riding, need to be as well connected as B.C. Liberal Jamie Kelley in order to get money from the federal treasury. That is sad.

Then there is the Prime Minister going around the country claiming that he is as mad as Hades that millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was wasted in what one of the Minister of the Environment's assistants called a secret Liberal slush fund.

Watching all this bluster, farm families must wonder: where is the Prime Minister's moral indignation and anger over the fact that thousands of Canadian farm families may have to leave the rural life because of the BSE crisis, years of drought, or ever-thinning profit margins; and what happened to the commitment the Prime Minister made last May when he said that we must show real support and respect for our farmers and their families, and show our appreciation for the burden they carry in contributing to Canada's growth and wealth?

A good place for the Prime Minister to start would be for him to train his eye on the motley collection of poorly designed agricultural programs that the Liberals have foisted on farmers, ranchers and fruit growers year after year.

Here are a few helpful suggestions for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

First, direct the bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to listen to what farmers and industry representatives have to say so that federal farm programs function in a way that helps rural Canadians as they grow our food and contribute to the wealth of our nation.

Second, do not seek the input of the agricultural industry and then turn around and give lip service to its concerns while a program is being developed behind closed doors back in Ottawa. Seeking input from farmers should be more than just a public relations exercise.

These common sense ideas should have already been part of the real respect that the Prime Minister promised his new Liberal government would show farmers. He made this promise last May, days before BSE was discovered in just one animal on May 20.

While I am on the subject of BSE and agriculture policy, I would like to remind my friends across the way that it does not exhibit good governance when the Liberals use a national crisis like BSE to blackmail the provinces into signing the agricultural policy framework.

Canadian Federation of Agriculture President Bob Friesen summed it up during an interview last June with the Western Producer when he stated:

It is beyond imagination that the minister would tie a program he cannot sell to farmers and provinces to the BSE crisis to win more support.

That is so sad.

In light of the sponsorship scandal, where false invoices and contracts, and in many cases no contracts, were used to funnel $100 million of taxpayers' money into a secret Liberal slush fund, the term “beyond imagination” will never again be adequate enough to describe the corrupt practices of the Liberal government.

Hon. members on this side of the House will continue to point out where $100 million in taxes could have been better spent. At the very least, all that money should have been used for the benefit of all Canadians, not just the buddies of the Liberals.

Opposition MPs have constantly criticized the Liberal government for years about wasting taxes--money, I remind everyone, that farmers, fellow small business owners and millions of other Canadians have worked very hard to earn.

Here is a litany of Liberal waste that sadly illustrates government contempt for the taxpayer: the HRDC boondoggle; the fuel rebate program that sent cheques to prisoners and the deceased while low income Canadians received nothing; and the continuing saga of the gun registry, making criminals out of duck hunters who are honest individuals.

Is it any wonder that when the finance minister was asked recently about the upcoming government budget he was reported in the Toronto Star as saying that money is fairly tight; however, not for programs and not for friends.

With regard to the supply day motion before the House today, it is obvious that the Liberals should have taken better care of the money in their charge. These funds could well have been spent on agriculture programs. Agriculture programs, by the way, that are better designed than the federal government's recent initiatives, like those to compensate producers for the severe effect that BSE has had on the livestock industry.

Let us take the $120 million federal cull cow and bull program, for example. This program was not announced until international borders had already shut out Canadian livestock producers for six months.

When the borders slammed shut, a huge backlog of slaughtered cows was created. To make matters worse, the federal cull cow and bull program was so badly developed that British Columbia and Alberta, two of the largest provinces when it comes to ranching, refused to join up. Industry representatives roundly criticized the federal cull program as well.

Poorly designed national agriculture programs are not solely a product of the BSE crisis. The agriculture industry across Canada is getting used to cumbersome, underfunded farm programs being put forward by the Liberal government.

Instead of focusing on getting federal assistance to the farm gate, the Liberals seem driven to introduce a whole range of anti-rural policies that are designed to harass farmers, not help them.

For example, $630,000 was budgeted in the supplementary estimates for 2003-04 under Environment Canada to implement the Species at Risk Act. However, the federal government still will not guarantee compensation to landowners whose land is taken out of production in order to protect wildlife habitat.

The Liberal government will also not provide any assurance that farmers will not carry the majority of the burden regarding environmental issues relating to the Kyoto accord. The question is still out as to whether the government will reintroduce new animal cruelty legislation that may leave farmers at the mercy of litigant hungry animal rights extremists because they practise time honoured animal husbandry practices.

Why have the Liberals not made agriculture spending a higher priority during their decade in power? Could it be that they do not represent very many of the agricultural ridings in this country?

Let us start by looking at the agricultural policy framework, the flawed flagship of Liberal farm policy, better known as the APF.

When the former Prime Minister and the former agriculture minister, the member for Prince Edward—Hastings, announced a five year $5.2 billion investment in agriculture at an eastern Ontario farm in June 2002, there was quite a bit of fanfare until it was recognized that this funding was actually a reduced funding commitment from the prior funding.

I can go through the figures; however, because time is relatively tight in this debate I will not go through all the figures.

Why is this issue such a blind spot for the Liberal government and its bureaucrats? Why did the Liberals fail to provide compensation to the grain and oilseed producers who bear the burden of trade injury--trade injury, of course, because of issues offshore that our farmers have absolutely no control over?

It is the Liberal government that has dropped the ball on the international trade file. Trade is a federal responsibility. Provinces should not be asked to pay for trade injury compensation.

Ottawa must break out of the mindset that says grain and oilseed farmers should fight other countries' agricultural subsidies by growing commodities that are not impacted by foreign governments.

When the member for Wascana was the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, he told farmers who looked to the federal government for assistance that they would just have to diversify their operations.

Farmers did exactly that, not because of his advice, but because they are wise enough to know that is the way to go. The growers and processors of pulse crops built up a vibrant industry. Six years ago Canada's crop was only 10% as large as that of the U.S. In 2003 that number has risen to 28%.

However, the inclusion of peas, lentils and chickpeas in American subsidy programs introduced in 2002 means that Canadian farmers have to contend again with the impact of the U.S. treasury subsidizing another set of commodity prices.

Our farmers and the thousands of secondary businesses that depend on a strong agriculture industry do not have an infinite capacity to deal with factors beyond their control. They are factors such as the continuing closure of the border because of a case of BSE in the State of Washington, years of drought, and the effect of those foreign subsidies.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada economists state that, for the first time since records were kept in the 1920s, realized net farm income across Canada will be in the red. What a tragedy in this country.

One of Canada's prominent agriculture journalists put it this way “The farm economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan are awash in red ink”.

This is also true for Quebec. Indeed, that province is experiencing the same problems as the other provinces of Canada.

Alberta's loss in realized net farm income amounted to $230 million in 2003. In Saskatchewan farmers were $465 million in the red last year. Realized net farm income in Ontario was also in the negative, to the tune of $44 million. The farm income losses on the Prairies last year were worse than the statistics during the great depression in the 1930s.

The Prime Minister and his cabinet simply must place a higher priority on farm issues, and on rural Canada in general.

My colleagues who will be following me will go through the positive suggestions that the Conservative Party of Canada brings to this important debate.

I will be spending a few minutes talking about one of the saddest components of this debate. We did note in the heading for the debate that there were programs that were completely inappropriate, money wasted. I will be spending a little time on the firearm registry, the long gun registry and the duck hunter registry.

This program, which was touted by the Liberal government as being a means to control crime, a means to control suicides and a means to control the inappropriate use of firearms, targeted those individuals in our society, the rural people, who use these firearms as tools. They have tools that they must use.

I am a very keen, active outdoorsman and a hunter myself. I do not use a firearm any longer. I hunt mostly with a bow and arrow as a sporting gesture, but I have hunted all my life.

During the debate, I pointed out to the Liberal government three major problems with the firearm registry. First, compliance would never be 100%, even for law-abiding citizens. Of course crooks and bank robbers would never comply. Second, the criminal misuse of firearms would never be impacted by a registry. Third, the costs would be enormous.

I had the then justice minister cross the floor, sit down beside me and say that those were good, intellectual arguments, but that the new computer systems would make the last point of my argument moot, that the new computers would make it so easy for people to register that the second part of my argument would also be moot and that would force the crooks in society to be obvious, when they did not register that they were crooks.

Over the years of this registry, it has been sad to watch those predictions come true. The waste of money on that program, supported by individuals who quite frankly do not understand the rural use of firearms, the hunters' use of firearms, the sporting use of firearms, has put a block between rural individuals in Canada and those in government.

It would be so easy to alter this. It would so easy to explain that a mistake was made, that this process was not effective, that it would not get full compliance, that it would not prevent crime and that it cost too much.

This is now my advice to the Prime Minister. Stop the firearm registry. Take the funds that are being poured into that registry and put them into programs that Canadians desire. Rural Canadians, in this case, would benefit from that.

As I said, my colleagues who will follow will have an opportunity to lay out the positive things now. I have talked simply about the issue, the crisis and the major problems in rural Canada.

It has been an honour to represent a rural riding in this House. The riding of Macleod, from the south boundary of Calgary down almost to the U.S. border, has some of the finest ranching in this world. It has historically been buffalo range, with the long flowing grass. Some of the famous buffalo jumps in Canada are in my riding.

These farmers and ranchers are the most self-sufficient individuals on earth. They ask for little, and they want little from government. They want to be left alone. However, when there is a crisis outside their control, they look for the taxpayer to help. They need that help today and they need it in very specific ways.

As I say, it has been an honour to represent them and it is an honour to lead this debate on rural issues today.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to ask a question of our interim leader, our answer to Robin Hood and William Tell in the House. However, besides being able to use a bow and arrow, he can certainly also use his knowledge and experience to educate us as to how we should deal with some of the problems in our country.

One thing we always try to do is to ensure that the people of the country benefit from government. We always talk about lowering taxes and so on, to put more money into the hands of people. Another way we can put more money into the hands of people is to ensure that the price of the goods, in particular the food they consume, is reasonable.

When the fishery failed on the east coast, many of our young people left the industry. They not only left the industry, they left the province. What will happen with agriculture, through a time of crisis, if government does not step in and help stabilize these people so they can remain on the farms? They will not to stay around. If we cannot produce the food people need, undoubtedly we will pay a heavy price down the road.

Would my colleague comment on the long term effect on Canada if we neglect the basic industries that are the breadbasket of this great country of ours?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, I see the effects of this process in my own riding. When I started in Parliament in 1993, one of the small communities I represented had a post office, a bank, the grain elevator and a small school. The community was vibrant, alive, vigorous and thriving. Through the last few years, particularly last year, this small community has lost its elevators, its bank and the school has shut down. It is literally a ghost town.

Where did the people who lived in this little community supporting the rural area go? Some of them have left and gone to the city. They were doing double duty in their jobs at that point of time; some driving the school bus, some welding for the communities around and some went into the oil industry. However, their homes are sitting there empty. The only people still there are the senior citizens who have some friends who visit the seniors' lodge.

I had an opportunity to reflect on this when one of the owners of a large farm in the area went to Brazil. He has sold his farm, abandoned our country and has gone to Brazil where he has fresh opportunities. The saddest part of all this is that we will end up without the family farm, as we have lost so many of our fishers from that industry. We will end up with large industrial farms that really provide very little to the local communities. The other sad part is that the rural farm lives, which have undergone huge changes, equipment changes, and which are able to survive with normal economic circumstances, will die unless we look after them, prepare them well and make certain that international issues are dealt with to their benefit.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a lot of interest to the speech of the member across the way. I know the parliamentary secretary will be speaking very shortly on agricultural policy, so I will not ask him any questions on that.

I am a gun owner too, and I also live in rural Canada. I look at the registration system in a different way than the member across. I look at it as the insurance program whereby if my guns are stolen, I have a good chance of getting them back.

The member across the way said that criminals will not register, and he is absolutely right. However, I would like him to comment on this. The legal way of doing things is, if an RCMP officer pulls somebody off to the side of the road, under the system now, he will ask that individual to see his licence and registration. If the shotgun, which has been stolen from me for instance, is in the back of that individual's car, it is not registered. That is one way we get at criminals because criminals do not register. I would like him to comment on that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

February 26th, 2004 / 10:45 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, first, 4,000 guns that have been registered in the registry have been stolen, but they have not been picked up.

Second, let me tell members the experience of one rancher in my community. As this fellow left his farm, he saw a hitchhiker nearby. He rolled down his window and asked him if he wanted a ride anywhere. The fellow said, “No thanks, I'm going a different way”.

Off he went to his fields and the hitchhiker broke into his home, broke into his locked gun cabinet and stole his pistol. He was subsequently caught by the police with the stolen pistol. For stealing the pistol and the subsequent chase in which he crashed the guy's motorcycle which he had stolen as well, he received six months in prison.

The gun owner, the fellow who had his home broken into, was charged for unsafe storage of a firearm. Remember, the firearm was in his locked home, in his locked cabinet, and what penalty did he receive? He received a greater penalty than the thief.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

An hon. member

You're kidding.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB

I am not kidding.

I say to the member opposite, the firearm registry is targeting the wrong individuals. There is a mechanism, a positive way, to look after firearm control and that positive way should have been followed. My point is that if we continue to pour money into the registry, an ineffective registry, we are wasting taxpayers dollars.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Leader of the Opposition is on farm policy. I first commend him for presenting the motion. I will be supporting the motion before the House today, and I support his stand on the gun registry.

I note that he mentioned it does not include a bow and arrow that he owns. That is all fine and good--

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Brian Fitzpatrick Canadian Alliance Prince Albert, SK

It's only a matter of time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

An hon. member

It probably will.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

The member from Manitoba said that it probably will.

I support what he has said on the registry and on the sponsorship program.

I come from a small farm in Wynyard, Saskatchewan. I grew up there. It is in my riding of Regina—Qu'Appelle where we have a lot of farmers. For us, the support of the Canadian Wheat Board has always been paramount. Farmers strongly support the Canadian Wheat Board. It gives them a chance to collectively, as an entity, bargain to sell their wheat at a greater price on the world market.

I have noted over the past that some of the members of the Canadian Alliance have been critical of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like know where the Leader of the Opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, stands on that issue.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my colleague that it is not a Canadian Wheat Board, although that is what it is called. It is the western Canadian wheat board.

The Canadian Wheat Board does not operate east of the Manitoba boundary. I am very interested in why that is. If the Canadian Wheat Board is so good for the west, why is it not a pan-Canadian program?

My position on the issue is that farmers should have a choice. They should be able to market through the Canadian Wheat Board if they choose. They should not be forced. I am actually one who believes the Canadian Wheat Board is not the only way to market, but it has merit. However, based upon a very simple premise, if the Canadian Wheat Board is so good, it will survive and survive with vigour. If, as some individuals say, it is not so good, it will wither on the vine.

Farmers need choice. An NDP individual who does not believe in choice for marketing is in my mind a difficult process for me to understand.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Sydney—Victoria Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mark Eyking LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agri-Food)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members opposite for keeping the agriculture sector at the forefront of discussion because that is where it belongs.

I had the pleasure in the last few months, after taking on this job, of getting out to the west. I met with farm groups in Regina. I also met with quite a few farmers; I think there were 1,000 at a meeting in Edmonton. It is a great area out there for growing crops.

We had a take note debate three weeks ago and I am pleased that we are concentrating on agriculture once again this morning. Agriculture should be in the headlines every day because it is one of Canada's most important economic drivers. It generates more than 8% of Canada's GDP. It creates jobs for thousands of Canadians and it puts food on our tables. It is vital to the health and well-being of Canadians.

Over the last two and a half months the minister has been making every effort to visit with farmers across this country to hear their concerns and discuss with them the best way to meet the immediate and long term challenges. In fact this morning he is meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which represents 200,000 farm families across this country. As he will tell them, the government is committed to agriculture. The government is committed to getting agriculture through its current difficulties, to seize the opportunities that are out there.

There is no question that agriculture is under a lot of pressure right now. In 2003 the Canadian farm income was at its lowest level ever. Commodity prices for beef, of course, as well as for pork and potatoes are down. There are a number of factors to blame on this situation. BSE is first and foremost. There is the strong Canadian dollar, the ongoing effects of the drought situation, and our import costs which have become higher.

The federal and provincial governments responded to the income drop of 2003. We had record payouts of up to $5 billion. This included $3 billion for crop insurance. We have NISA and CFIP, and an additional $800 million for the BSE recovery program.

Despite these record payouts, the situation still is not good. Many farm families continue to suffer serious cash flow difficulties. The government has brought forward some specific measures to address this situation but we still have to do more.

First and foremost, the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program is now operational. It is also known as the CAIS program and this year it is expected to make significant payouts. There is also the cull cow program which is going to be rolling out soon. I will talk a little more about some ways we are working with the industry to make these programs as responsive as possible to the financial pressures that are on farm families. The government is working on a number of fronts to secure a strong future in this industry.

The minister just returned from Costa Rica and he was not laying in the sun. He was meeting with the Cairns Group, which is comprised of trading nations like Canada that share the same common interests. We are exporting nations of agricultural products and we are trying to improve the trading conditions for our export products on which our sectors rely for growth.

Canadian farms can compete with the best. All they need is a level playing field for the minister to build broader support for fair and more market driven agricultural trade. While he was there he also talked to the CFA and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. He took advantage of the opportunity to meet with other ministers, update them on the BSE situation, and press for the reopening of markets for cattle and beef.

At Cairns he had productive discussions on the WTO process. He met with WTO officials. The minister stressed to them Canada's position that a balanced, rules based approach to negotiations is the best way to move forward. He also pressed for more movement on the question of cuts to trade-distorting domestic subsidies. He insisted that the United States and the European Union need to send clearer signals that they are willing to move forward on this front.

Canada is committed to working with Canadian farm leadership to achieve a deal that is in the best interests of our farmers. At this time Canada continues to stand four square behind supply management sectors and the right of producers to choose how they market their products. This includes the Canadian Wheat Board which was just raised.

The Government of Canada has consistently defended practices of the Wheat Board and will continue to do so. I was delighted earlier this month that the WTO panel ruled that the board in fact does conduct its business in accordance with WTO rules.

The most pressing trade issue facing the industry is BSE. The focus of government and industry efforts has been, and remains, to open borders to cattle and other affected animals. This affects more than cattle. It affects sheep. It also affects deer, llamas, alpacas and many other different animals in the same category.

Our efforts are bearing fruit. I have to commend some of the opposition members for helping us with that, going on trade missions and whatnot. Since last May a number of countries have moved to rescind some or all of the temporary measures. Clearly, more must be done and we are committed to getting there.

As to getting cattle moving into the United States, the rule for live animals is expected to be opened up for a 30 day public comment period. We will push for trade of all live cattle regardless of age, including breeding cattle and cattle over 30 months old, as well as products derived from them. We are also pressing for a full resumption of trade in other ruminants, as I said before, sheep, goats and others.

Once the review of the comments received is complete--and this is a process which has to take place; we have no choice--the Americans will look at that information. I am confident, as this is scientific based, that they will move toward opening the borders to live animals as they have already done with the beef cuts. It is hoped that a growing number of trading partners will follow suit.

Why am I optimistic? Because there is a strong argument that Canada has put forward in favour of opening the border to live animals; because the BSE risk in Canada is exactly the same as in the United States; and finally, because both countries have taken equivalent measures to mitigate the risk for human and animal health. It is a transparent border.

When will it be? As I have said, I hope it is sooner rather than later. We have cattle on our farms ourselves and we are waiting for that day to come. One thing I do know is that the Government of Canada takes this very seriously. The minister is working tirelessly on this issue, as is the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is deeply engaged in this issue as well. It was the top issue he brought up with President Bush. Both the Prime Minister and I have been out, as I said before, to western Canada to discuss the situation with producers. The minister has raised this matter with the U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci. He is also in regular contact with American Secretary of Agriculture Veneman and with Secretary Thompson on the health side.

While work continues on the trade front, the government is fully aware of the pressures on Canadian farm families. Governments have responded to these pressures above and beyond existing safety net programs, with $520 million in the BSE recovery program and up to $200 million going out to the cull animal program.

In response to concerns from industry, we have removed the sale for slaughter requirement from the cull program. This will allow producers to access funds even sooner. It will ensure equal access across Canada and it will help with feed costs until more slaughter space is available. This will help a lot of dairy farmers also. Often people think that only the beef farmers are hit, but it is the dairy producers also. This is a good program for them. A comparable program is being offered to producers of other ruminants affected by the border closure.

Farmers are also receiving money through the second portion of the $1.2 billion in transition funding. Already cheques for more than $450 million have gone out. As I mentioned, Canadian agricultural income stabilization is now operational and payments are expected to start flowing within weeks. I think $15 million already went out in January.

With CAIS, for the first time ever, Canadian farmers will have permanent funding for disaster coverage. Without going into too much detail, the program protects a producer's margin, which is the average of revenues over the last many years minus variable expenses such as farm inputs. When the producer's current year margin drops below the reference margin, money kicks in for him.

The key point is that the coverage will be based on need. In other words, as the loss gets bigger, the government supports it more. This allows farmers to know in advance what the support will be to better plan for the future.

CAIS is a good program but at the same time we are working with the industry to make it better. A few weeks ago the minister announced the government was giving some breathing room for producers in rolling back the deposit deadline to December 31 of this year. Farmers also have until April 30 to select a protection level for both the 2003 and 2004 production years.

These changes apply only to those provisions where CAIS is delivered federally. Some provinces deliver their own program. They are made on the expectation that the remaining provinces will sign on with new features that we are going to be proposing to CAIS, namely, and which many are looking for, coverage of negative margins--if a producer goes below that margin, it will kick in--as well as higher caps and a more simplified deposit.

Beyond the intermediate term the minister is fully committed to ensuring that CAIS and all programs under our policy framework continue to fulfill the needs of farmers. To that end we are in the process of putting together the structure of an annual review to look at the business risk management program with all facets of the APF. We are constantly working with the industry, revising the program, revisiting it, but I think right now we have a good one in the process. Apart from business risk management, work continues around the other chapters of the APF.

In closing, I want to assure the House that we are committed heart and soul to do what it takes to help this industry get through this difficult time so we can capture the opportunities that are out there.

There are opportunities such as ethanol. Two weeks ago the minister joined with the Minister of Natural Resources to announce approval of seven new ethanol projects across Canada under the ethanol expansion program. These projects will allow Canadian ethanol production to grow roughly one billion litres of fuel ethanol within two years. That means adding value to farm crops. It means new markets for farmers, new jobs for rural Canada and it means a cleaner and greener future for all Canadians.

That is the kind of opportunity that is out there for Canadian agriculture. That is why it is so urgent that we get this sector back on track right where it was and right where it belongs.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I remind the parliamentary secretary that until those borders are opened up, it does not matter how many government programs there are. Cattle producers are going to be losing money, the ones who are primarily in the beef industry.

My question for the member is with regard to the cull program. The cull program that was brought out applies only to animals over 30 months of age. Many of the bred heifers that are 24 to 30 months of age and which will be calving in the next few weeks will have to be culled but there is no program for them. The bulls were not included in the cull program. They should have been because every ranch of a commercial size has between 10 and 30 bulls.

There is another thing that the beef industry did not fare very well on. The dairy lobby did a very good job of getting a 16% cull rate applied to the dairy herds. The parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Agriculture have said to the beef industry that it only gets an 8% cull. As a result we end up with the beef producer whose income relies 100% on the sale of beef getting an 8% cull rate and the dairy industry getting 16%.

I am not speaking against the dairy industry. I am saying that the government screwed the beef farmer.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, those were pretty strong comments by the member opposite.

There is no doubt that the border is the main issue. Farmers do not really like to get subsidies. They like to have free market and free access to markets. That is of key importance.

We are bringing all the scientific information to the panel in Washington. We are looking at other countries that have closed their borders. Some members opposite have worked with us on this. That is the way we have to do it. We have to keep politics out of this. We have to work together to open the border.

On the cull cow program, we are working in conjunction with the provinces on that. At the present time they are taking inventories on all the cattle that need to be culled. Maybe there are animals that should be brought into the program. We are talking to the provinces, looking at the inventories to see how it can have an impact on that industry. We are going to continue to work on this program.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is absolutely right that farmers indeed do not like the subsidies, but there is a unique need here, as he has pointed out. To keep the farm industry viable, subsidies will be forthcoming and they should be sufficient to keep the industry alive.

Many from the farm community that I was born and raised in have a real problem, as do I, with the way government does business, even when there is a unique need in front of it. There is a real lack of trust. Farmers see the scandal on the other side of the coin with money being thrown out and used to feather the nests of friends and business acquaintances of the government, and they have questions about where they fit in as hard-working, honest, tax paying people. They zero in on the politicians.

Let us look at the Auditor General's report on the sponsorship scandal. She found that payments were made “using false invoices and contracts or no written contracts at all”, apparently in order “to provide commissions to communications agencies, while hiding the source of funds and the true nature of the transactions”.

There is not an honest, hard-working taxpayer who is not going to look at that and question the government's motives. There is not a farmer around who is not going to look at that and say--

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will try to address the hon. member's comments. The main topic this morning is agriculture. To comment on individuals who have done wrong with Canadian taxpayers' money, they should be held accountable and our government is taking that into consideration.

Let us talk about the beef industry. I will talk about trust. The Canadian cattlemen are working with us. They are giving us kudos on the job we have been doing with them. They are encouraging all of us to work together. That is where trust is. They are putting their trust in us to go to the United States and work with them. They are travelling on missions with us. That is what trust is.

The cattlemen's objective is to have us open up the border. Their objective is to work with us to get dollars out to farmers right across the country. That is what trust is all about. I think they have the trust in us to do so. Many in the farming community even want to be on this team. They want to be part of our party and are running in elections. That is where there is trust. There is trust in this government.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting comment from the member that people in the beef industry are working with the government and actually running as Liberals in the next election.

Mr. Ted Haney, president of the Beef Export Federation, is running for the Liberals and is campaigning right now in the city of Calgary. He is hoping to get elected in the next election.

How is it that this man, who is supposed to be working for the beef industry, who is supposed to be getting our markets opened up and who is supposed to be selling beef, is running around the city of Calgary trying to get elected to the House of Commons while the beef industry is neglected by the Beef Export Federation? That includes the chairman, Mr. Ben Thorlakson, who is allowing this individual, who is being paid by check-off dollars, to run around and play politics instead of working for farmers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping this conversation would not go this way. I knew the hon. member would get excited about it. He was excited about it in the agriculture committee the other day. We have to keep this away. We have to keep politics away from this situation. That is what the beef farmers want us to do. They want us to work together. Many opposition members live in deep cattle country. They live right next door to cattle operations. They live close to the border. They have to jump on side with us. They should talk with the governors of the states close to them. They should work with us and never mind this nitpicking.

We have a great party and people want to belong to it. Let us not bring up all of that. Let us forget about that and work together and get this industry going. That is what we are here to do.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member opposite. Does he feel that some of these many dollars that have been squandered off, amounting at some point to $2 billion, could have been better spent in terms of help for and assistance to agricultural producers across the country?

Successive governments have neglected agriculture and I think it has mounted to some considerable costs. Instead of spending money on a gun registry boondoggle, HRDC and sponsorship scandals and so on, would those dollars not have been better invested in farm support programs for our producers across the country?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, and in many ridings across the country I am sure, for every dollar a constituent spends on taxes, whether it is income tax or at the gas pumps, they want those dollars taken care of. They want every cent taken care of.

Whether it is agriculture or health care, more money is needed. More money is needed in health care and more is needed for defence. There is a broad range of issues and departments out there that need more money. Agriculture is important, and it is truly important to me because I am a farmer, but every department needs more money.

The issue is not whether there should be more money for agriculture. Sure, we would all love to have more, but when we deal with this we have to be very careful on how we spend money on agriculture. We are in a trade zone in the world where we have to be careful about what programs we put out there. If we are not careful, we could end up having problems with the WTO.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Champlain.

I am pleased to take part in this debate. The motion before us today brings out two realities. The first is the government's loss of control over certain spending. The second concerns what could be done with this money to help people face all the crises in the agricultural sector.

In her report, the Auditor General revealed a whole series of irregularities in the management of certain programs, such as the sponsorship program, where $252 million went to meet the Liberal government's needs for visibility in Quebec. In the same report, we find that the Liberal-connected communications firms received commissions worth around $100 million, often just for moving a cheque from one hand to the other. This was done by circumventing all Treasury Board rules.

I must also say something about poor management at the Royal Canadian Mint, which went from a profit of $23.1 million in 1999 to an operating loss of $6.6 million in 2002. During that same period, the salaries of senior managers rose by 45%. That happened without any annual reports to Parliament ever mentioning these increases, which were certainly substantial.

There was also the strange disappearance of $3 million paid out in another visibility-enhancing operation, in which Groupaction and Groupe Polygone were apparently involved. Where did that money go?

Let us now look at federal propaganda, for which there seem to be two criteria: the excessive quantity of money involved and the concentration of such spending in Quebec. Let us look at some estimates for one year, say 2001-02: government advertising, $270 million; Canada Day, $5 million; Queen's Jubilee secretariat, $11 million; Communication Canada, about $50 million; and $43 million for propaganda related to the sponsorship program.

These expenditures total $379 million. To this amount, we should add various initiatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage relating to multiculturalism and grants by the Privy Council to organizations such as the Council for Canadian Unity. I think we are getting up near the billions of dollars.

With respect to advertising, according to data from the Nielson Advertising firm, quoted in Robert Bernier's latest book, entitled Un siècle de propagande au Canada , in 1999, the Government of Canada was the number three advertiser in the country, behind General Motors and BCE, with advertising expenses of $97.1 million for the year.

According to information obtained through a question on the Order Paper, the federal government spent $270 million on advertising in 2001-02. Add to that its huge investments in other communications activities for establishing its legitimacy. In 2001-02, advertising and communications expenses were approximately $422 million.

Between 1993 and 2002, the budget for organizing Canada Day increased dramatically, from $2.4 million to $6.8 million. Year in year out, Quebec receives $5 million for its celebrations, or 70% of the federal budget. That is what comes of the insatiable Liberal obsession with visibility.

During that time, farmers are going through a very difficult situation and need help. In 2003, farm incomes dropped to the lowest level in three years. Cattle farmers have seen their income drop by more than one-third. Cull sells today at 30% of last year's price. Yet, the government is taking a long time providing farmers with the help they need.

The program for cattle farmers ended on December 31, 2003.

Under the cull cow program, producers are not getting any compensation for 35% of their cows. While this is going on, Ottawa is looking forward to a huge surplus of $7 billion to $8 billion, it is spending money on useless propaganda as though there were no tomorrow, and it is mismanaging everything that it gets its hands on.

Rather than putting the public service at the service of its friends, the government should adequately fulfil its responsibilities towards farmers. This is why I support the motion of the Conservative Party.

I would like to remind hon. members and the public that the Bloc Quebecois played a key role in uncovering this scandal. If Quebec had only been represented by Liberal members, this scandal would never have surfaced. Since May 2000, the Bloc Quebecois has asked over 450 questions on this issue. My colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, raised it on May 12, 2000, with a question on the use of front men at Communication Canada.

There is another example of mismanagement. I am referring to the gun registry program. The gun control legislation was passed in 1995, despite the reservations of several provinces.

Quebeckers, who were marked by the tragedy that occurred at École polytechnique, in 1989, still strongly support the program. Incidentally, the Bloc Quebecois supported the bill when it was passed.

However, the Canadian Firearms Program has seen many technical and budgetary excesses. According to the December 2002 report of the Auditor General, the implementation costs of the program, which were originally estimated at $2 million—the program was supposed to be self-funding through the collection of licence and registration fees—will be in excess of $1 billion by 2004-05, or 500 times more than the original estimate. We are talking about cost overruns that may now be at over $2 billion.

The Bloc Quebecois feels that the management of this program is a total fiasco. Still, we should not compromise the objective of protecting the public by making cuts to this program. It is clear, however, that it must be better managed.

Finally, there are too many useless expenditures in Ottawa. The federal government is very rich, too rich. With so much money, it could easily fulfil its responsibilities, but it prefers to spend uselessly.

The Léonard committee set up by the Bloc Quebecois to examine government spending estimated that it would be possible for the federal government to save $5.7 billion per year, without—and I emphasize this point—cutting services or transfers to the public.

At a time when agricultural producers are starving to death, the provinces cannot make ends meet and the health system is subject to incredible pressure, the wasteful ways of the Liberal Party are scandalous.

A minority government could not take such liberties with taxpayers' money. It is up to the voters to decide if they want these wasteful ways to continue. Recent polls indicate that voters are tired of the Liberals' lax attitude.

The mad cow crisis continues, and the assistance programs are insufficient. Despite the partial reopening of the American border to beef imports from all parts of Canada on August 8, the majority of Canadian beef production is still subject to an embargo. In addition to rising costs and problems selling their cattle, producers are getting one-third less for their animals than last year.

The federal assistance package for cattle producers expired on December 31, 2003, and the government is slow in making an announcement, even with a significant surplus.

Producers of cull cows, an industry mainly in Quebec since the ridings in central Quebec represent 47% of all dairy production, have seen prices for their animals drop yet again. Last week, cows were selling for 18¢ per pound at auction, 70% less compared to last year. However, the federal cull cow program compensates these producers for 65% of their cattle only. They have to absorb the remaining 35%. That is what they are being told.

The money needed from Ottawa to provide cattle producers with temporary emergency assistance is approximately $300 million. This is more or less equivalent to the funds invested in absolutely nothing through the sponsorship program.

If the government has the money to satisfy its hunger for visibility, it can find the money to help our producers through the crisis affecting this important industry.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for Drummond, who made an excellent speech, by the way. I would like her to tell the House more about the consequences for producers, specifically those in Quebec, of the federal government's poor management of this crisis.

Obviously, people all across Canada are affected, as well as those in Quebec. I know that she has met with some Quebec farmers, especially the rather desperate ones in her riding who have been calling her, because this crisis affects their daily life and daily wages.

I would ask her to refresh our memory a bit on this point.