Debates of Feb. 26th, 2004

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to talk to the farmers in my riding over the last summer about the fact that there was a definite lack of capacity of processing within the country. That is basically a strategy which has developed over the last decade. If farmers in my riding say anything contrary to a processing plant, and I think they have really been bringing in huge profits in the situation as it exists, when their cattle go into the ring, the buyer steps out for a coffee and the price goes down.

Would the hon. member across the way have any ideas how we could increase processing capacity within Canada and how we would take a look at, for instance the Competition Bureau, the issue of packers gouging farmers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can give a detailed policy response in 60 seconds.

First, I should mention the Conservative Party plan announced today does call for $75 million of federal money to go toward processing capacity, much of which has been shut down in the recent past. Reopening it will not solve all problems, but it is a way of assisting to some degree in dealing with the processing of specialty products. It would relieve some of the pressure on Canadian producers.

I am not an expert on this, but my impression is that the problem does not lie with excess profits taking place at processing plants. The reality is there are certain costs that have been imposed upon them that did not exist previously. We should not forget this.

When a cow is slaughtered, less than 30% is consumed domestically in Canada, which is the use of the middle meats of the cow. Aspects of the cow that could have been ground up and used before, and I am thinking of spinal tissue and the brain, must now be destroyed and treated as hazardous waste. Other products that would have been available for export can no longer be exported, such as tongues, organ meats, the oxtails and so on.

Therefore, we are seeing a number of costs being imposed that did not exist prior. I suggest that probably is an explanation in part as to why we see the consumer prices not going down to reflect the catastrophic drop in sale barn prices.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on a topic that is highly important to our entire agricultural industry, our farmers, cattle farmers, and, especially in Quebec, all the dairy farmers who are suffering tremendous losses with respect to cull.

First I would like to say that I am in daily contact with the farmers in my region because our farmers are very worried about their future if our American friends insist on keeping the border closed. The Government of Canada has taken the bull by the horns, as we say, and gone to great lengths to support cattle farmers and the dairy farmers in Quebec who are having problems getting their cull slaughtered.

The most recent statistics show that 2003 was catastrophic in terms of farm income, especially in Quebec, but also across the country. These statistics on the past year paint a very sad picture. The net income for the entire industry is at an all time low. Not only is this income extremely low, but it has fallen as low as negative $13.4 million. New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta are the hardest hit provinces in terms of cattle farmers. Quebec is also quite affected in terms of cattle farmers, but also with respect to cull.

The worst thing is that most farmers had started out well in 2003, in a generally stable financial situation with a reasonable amount of debt. It was the combination of a number of factors that turned things around the way they did. The sudden and unforeseen growth in our dollar compared to the U.S. dollar is a major factor because it affects not just one, but all sectors industry wide.

Another important element to mention is the great drought that has struck the western provinces. It started in 2002, but continued last year, especially in Saskatchewan. In addition to all that, there is the painful problem of mad cow disease, that is, bovine spongiform encephalopathy. That really was the final blow, even more so because it is not limited to cattle, but is also found in cervids, for which there is a growing demand.

I will not go on at length about the many investigations, inquiries and research projects going on designed not to identify guilty parties, but rather to find the origin of the disease and the means to wipe it out. In fact, we must admit that, in our era of globalization and free-trade agreements, as we open our borders to trade, we also open them to everything that comes with it. Therefore, it is in our collective interest that all of us, all the partners in free trade, unite our efforts in this common cause, in order to maximize the safety of our products.

For the time being, hard reality is setting in. The statistics show this reality, but they do not show the painful consequences suffered by farmers, their families and the rural communities whose economic life is largely dependent on agricultural activity.

The situation is somewhat different in Quebec. A large part of its production is in the dairy sector, where earnings increased by 11% last year. In comparison with the western provinces, beef cattle raising is less significant.

Moreover, producers in Quebec benefit from the provincial agricultural income stabilization program, whose payments increased by 79% last year. Overall, though, the situation is not desperate, far from it, because very early on—based, of course, on foreseeable elements—the government quickly became aware of the situation and, with the cooperation of the provinces, increased the number of assistance programs.

Additionally, the recovery program, specifically for the mad cow crisis, added $520 million in direct assistance. This does not include another $200 million under the cull cattle program. In total, payments to producers under various federal programs increased by 44% last year.

If we add to this the various provincial measures, Canadian producers will have received, overall, a record total of nearly $5 billion in 2003.

That is not all. The famous reserve fund is about to mature. Since producers have accumulated over $4 billion in the fund, they will soon be able to access their money.

Furthermore, there are additional federal measures for 2003. However, given that the payments will only be made this year, they have not yet been included in the official figures. This is true, in particular, for future payments under the new agricultural income stabilization program.

This program ensures both income stabilization and protection in the event of a disaster. Its specific purpose is to protect producers against market fluctuations. We already anticipate that, starting this year, producers will withdraw significant funds.

Unlike other sectors of the economy, the agricultural industry is vulnerable in two ways. Indeed, in addition to having to face, like other industries, increasingly stronger competition, it must also cope with nature, over which we have little, if any control. This is why agriculture needs particular attention, through sound, positive, comprehensive and sustained initiatives.

This is what the Canadian government is doing in various ways, but primarily through its numerous aid packages.

If we look at the situation—and I heard it today in the comments made by parliamentarians in this House—one of the problems with selling our beef products is that hardly any processing is done here, including in Quebec.

For example, in the case of cull cows, there is only one slaughterhouse in Quebec that manages to set its prices. These prices are much lower than those that cull cow producers were getting in the past. So, we have to find a solution to this situation.

While huge investments have been made, they remain insufficient of course, because a government cannot provide 100% support to an industry, particularly agriculture. Despite the huge investments made to support our farmers, cattle ranchers, cull cow producers and dairy producers, there is a critical issue on which we must continue to work on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, namely the reopening of the American border to our beef producers.

Considering that the United States is an important market for Canada, as a major economic partner of ours—with almost 80% of our exports going to the U.S. market—the American government must absolutely reopen its border as quickly as possible, so that our producers can have free access to this market.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about Canadian producers getting $5 billion. How much of that really went to the producers, and how much money did the government spend on the administration of programs?

I would like him to break down how much went directly to grain farmers and grain farm programs, not including research or any of the other Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada programs. How much of it went to grain farmers in Canada?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the Conservative member's question.

What must clearly be understood regarding agriculture is that, when we talk about an investment of over $5 billion, that figure includes all the investments made by the provincial and federal governments through numerous programs.

Today, we are dealing with an issue that specifically affects our cattle ranchers. When I said that the Canadian government is investing in excess of $500 million, this is in addition to programs already in place to help beef producers. Our government is also spending over $200 million to help cull cow producers. So, we are talking about a total amount of more than $700 million. This does not include the contributions made by provincial governments.

In terms of the breakdown of all the investments made by governments, I can say that, in the case of Quebec, a very large part of the programs are under the responsibility of the Quebec government and the agreements are signed with the Government of Canada. Money is transferred through the farm credit corporation, with which farmers can negotiate and so on.

If the hon. member wants more specifics, I will take note of her question and I will get back to her later on, with a more detailed reply.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member opposite talking about amounts of $500 million and $200 million. These figures sound impressive and give the impression that the government is unbelievably generous. However, what is needed for producers, who are not responsible for the losses that they are incurring, to stay alive, to maintain their production and to stop getting discouraged or even committing suicide, as some have? How many hundreds of millions of dollars do these people need? Has the government taken a close look at this?

The amounts that the hon. member mentioned may seem impressive to a person who is not familiar with the situation. However, they are measly in light of the existing needs.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleague from Champlain used the word minimal instead of measly, because measly implies worthless, while minimal means not very much. I am sure that is what he meant to say.

He is totally right, in the sense that government assistance will not resolve the problem. If I look strictly at Quebec, it is currently impossible for government assistance to resolve the cull problem. It is only a small part of the solution. Mr. Speaker, this affects your riding, which is just across from mine, on the other side of the river, where you have dairy farmers.

Two things could be done in the short term. First, for Canada, the border could be opened to allow us to move our goods. That would resolve the problem. Since we have no control over that, something else could be done. For Quebec, and the dairy farmers in my region in particular, the problem is that, even with government assistance, the price at the meat packing plant is so low that the farmer cannot survive financially. That is the problem in Quebec right now. The price at the meat packing plants is almost half what it was before the crisis.

Had the price remained the same, with the current government assistance, our producers could have managed until the borders reopened. That is the problem right now.

There is only one meat packing plant in Quebec, therefore it has a monopoly. Investigations into the price of beef to the consumer have revealed that our producers are receiving less than half of what they used, while the price of beef at the grocery store, at Métro, Loblaws or wherever, has not gone down. This is a major problem.

These are two of the factors. I know that, even in my region, in the riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges, they are trying to reopen a meat plan, which had already been closed, in order to create some competition. This is a major problem for our producers right now.

In terms of all the cattle producers, we could perhaps agree that $520 million is not very much. It is true that farmers are not responsible for this crisis. It is not their fault, but the Canadian government is not to blame either. It is a problem in negotiating with a major partner, a major market for our producers. What can we expect when 80% of our export goes to the U.S.? That is where our market is.

We are finding the same problem in market gardening. Les Jardins de Napierville, one of the largest vegetable producers in Quebec, is located in my riding. The problem is that, every time shipments cross the border into the United States, they have a thousand and one conditions imposed, and trucks full of perishables are kept in storage.

One starts wondering what is happening. Of course, we must lobby strongly with the United States; it is always up to us to negotiate with the Americans.

We are in agreement on that. Mr. Speaker, you also represent a very agricultural riding; farmers need our help. We have made an enormous effort. I know that negotiations are underway about the possibility of providing more money. Still, the solution is to open the borders.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal government is responsible for part of the problem we have on this BSE issue because it agreed to the seven year ban agreement that the international countries agreed to when a country has a single case of BSE. We should have had more foresight on that.

My question is in regard to the cull cow program. Farmers have received absolutely zero and we have to be careful when we are talking about producers. We have feedlot people, packing people and cow-calf people, the actual primary producers. The primary producer or the cow-calf rancher or farmer has not received a penny. The money that is talked about has not gone to those people and there are tens of thousands of them. Could the member comment on that? I guess there is money coming.

With respect to the cull cow program, bulls and animals under 30 months of age are left out of that program. I can go into technical details in regard to those animals if anyone wishes, but it is a problem when we are only being compensated for a portion of our culls in our herds.

The other problem we have is that the government saw fit to treat farmers differently. It said dairy farmers, and more power to them, would be paid for 16% of their herds, whereas beef farmers would only be paid for 8% of their herds. Why was the government so unfair to the beef farmers?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, it depends on what side of the House one is on. On this side, I can say that the government has treated all agricultural producers fairly.

Every time a crisis or a major problem occurs, whether because of a drought, a virus or floods, the government always intervenes to support the victims.

In agriculture, the government has intervened by setting up pretty substantial programs to help all beef and dairy producers with respect to cull cows, a problem that is not unique to Quebec but which also affects Ontario and western Canada to a large extent.

On the other side of the House, they are going to say that we never do enough. Listen, that is your opinion. However, what the Liberal Party of Canada is doing in the field of agriculture is far superior to what you, the Conservatives, are proposing in your platform. You are talking about providing $1 billion, while the Canadian government is putting in five times that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before resuming debate, I would simply like to remind the House that interventions are to be made through the Speaker, and not directly from one member to another.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Perth—Middlesex.

On a serious side, I would like to say a few words regarding the former agriculture minister of Saskatchewan, the hon. Clay Serby. I want to tell Clay and the people of Saskatchewan that our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family as he goes through this serious time in his life. We hope that he will soon be back and very active as the agriculture minister in the Province of Saskatchewan.

I have risen many times in the House to discuss agricultural issues. Being from a farm and being a farm partner, it is very near and dear to my heart. However, it is also the people of my province, and the people right across Canada, in the agriculture industry, who have been forgotten by the Liberal government.

In 1993 I remember the Liberals heckling the former government at every turn with the same refrain. No matter what the government of the day promised in its lead-up to the 1993 election, the Liberals chanted, “You had nine years. You had nine years”.

I am starting to think that we should say the same chant over and over as these Liberals make their election promises, especially for agriculture. I would like to say, “You had 11 years. You had 11 years”.

Whenever I hear a promise on any issue from the government, I ask myself this simple question, “If it has not done it after 11 years with a huge majority government, why should anyone in the agriculture industry believe that it will and can do it in the future?” Quite simply, I do not believe a word these Liberals say these days.

I keep copies of letters in my desk that have had a profound effect on me. In fact, those letters sent me to this place. Once in a while I review them to see if we, in this House, have done anything to help these Canadians. Unfortunately, when it comes to the letters regarding agriculture, I do not see that the Liberal government has done anything.

One letter was written to me by Donna in the lead-up to the last election. She wrote:

It is disheartening to me, as one who loves the land and the way of a 'farmer's life', to feel so discouraged. I have been the eternal optimist, the one with the positive attitude and the persevering nature. But I don't think I can be that person anymore. I weep to think of leaving here, leaving the home we've created for our children, the yard we've cared for, the trees we've planted, the acres we've tilled, and the crops we've harvested. What wonderful memories I have of our silly treks to the slough to catch frogs and the wonderful skating and tobogganing sessions we've had at the dug-out, the hikes through the pasture, and the wiener roasts in the back yard. We love the little spot on earth where we live--now sad to realize that little spot can no longer support us.

The government must realize that agriculture is more than just numbers on a trade balance sheet. It is people.

Agriculture is a way of life, a tradition and a foundation for every rural community right across Canada. When farms suffer, the entire country suffers. When farms die, so does Canada.

What makes me and my communities angry is the waste of money we see under this corrupt Liberal government. We know our tax dollars can be better spent. We know they could go a long way to supporting our farmers and rural communities during this time of crisis. We see hundreds of millions of dollars wasted. Millions of dollars are going to Liberals and their friends in the form of waste, corruption, deceit and disregard.

Then I read that Jack Layton and the NDP want to jump into bed with these corrupt Liberals. Jack Layton wants to fly his own flag of convenience and form a minority government with the Liberals. I cannot believe the NDP would try to sell that idea in my riding of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar. My constituents will not support the idea of an NDP-Liberal government. They will not support the waste and corruption.

The Conservative Party of Canada stands alone in the House of Commons in calling for real reform to our nation's agricultural policies. We stand alone in demanding that farm families come before Liberal donors. We stand alone in defending the responsible spending of our tax dollars. We stand with our farm families.

In another constituent letter from Joan, she wrote:

It isn't just the farm crisis that is getting us down...It isn't only the farm crisis that hurts. It hurts to hear over and over again the same old lies being told. Figures manipulated to confuse and deceive...It's the total destruction of rural areas.

That letter was written five years ago. What has changed? These corrupt Liberals have had 11 years.

The Prime Minister has made a lot of promises and has already broken most of them. Paul Martin said last May 9 in a press release and I quote:

We need to show real support and real respect for our farmers and their families, to show our appreciation for the burden they carry in contributing to Canada's growth and wealth.

A new policy framework is certainly required to help transform Canada's rural economy into a more durable, less vulnerable and more prosperous foundation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the member has probably already sensed what I am going to say. Without any further comment, I will give her an opportunity to make that adjustment.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, down on the farm we have spreaders for that kind of sincerity.

The record of the Prime Minister speaks volumes about what he and his corrupt Liberals really think. The Prime Minister dramatically cut federal government agriculture programs. Rather than supporting farmers, as promised in the 1993 red book, the Liberals have ignored the needs of farmers and imposed additional--

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am reluctant to interject during my colleague's speech. I am not taking exception to the sentiment and the passion she feels for the topic.

However, I am concerned that by referencing text from letters sent to her she is using language and terms that are not parliamentary. I would ask the Chair's guidance in terms of whether or not she is still bound by the rules of the House in terms of what excerpts she can read from those particular pieces of correspondence.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The general policy is that whenever a member is referencing or reading from either a newspaper article or a letter,--and we have to keep this in mind--that in the House we cannot do indirectly what we might not be able to do directly. That is why I rose a few moments ago in terms of a member's name being used.

I understood that it was an omission. Certainly, we have to recognize one another either by the name of the riding or by the portfolio that anyone might carry.

In terms of a word, a text, or an expression being unparliamentary, there is no greater liberty in doing things indirectly than there would be doing directly.

The Chair will continue to be attentive; however, I must confess that in the past few weeks there has been a great latitude. I hope members on both sides of the House will understand and remain judicious when they do have the floor.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister even voted against Canadian farmers in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister and his Liberals voted against providing an additional $400 million in emergency assistance for Canadian farm families. The Prime Minister has worked against farm families for 11 years.

Another constituent, Monica, wrote a long, three page letter to me about the grim situation on her farm. In her letter, she raised an issue that has become one of the greatest concerns for me too. It is the cost of administration. She wrote:

I realize that urban people don't think things are that tough, and in a way, I can't blame them. I put a lot of the blame on the media. They hear on the news that the farmers are getting more money all the time, but they don't realize that administrative costs for these programs eat away a good chunk of these funds. I know. I used to work for them.

This letter is five years old. What has changed? The government has already had 11 years.

We need a change. The Conservative Party introduced its program this morning. It shows Canadians that we do have a plan.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the member's closing remarks and I reject a lot of her allegations.

The government has been there for Canadian farmers in their time of need. We know that the industry is going through a difficult time now with BSE, potatoes and hogs.

However, there is the agricultural policy framework. Yes, more needs to be done and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is doing that. However, she said that the Conservative Party has a plan.

This morning I had the opportunity to meet with some of the supply management groups. The supply management industry is quite healthy. Part of the plan the member is talking about--and I will quote it from the Conservative Party website--suggests that the Conservative Party will shut down supply management. It states:

A Conservative government will ensure that any agreement which impacts supply management gives our producers guaranteed access to foreign markets, and that there will be a significant transition period in any move towards a market-driven environment.

Is the member and her party really willing to shut down the supply management industry and go to the open market in those industries? The supply management industries are the industries that are healthy. We should be promoting more of them, and that party wants to shut them down. That is what is hidden behind that party. We do not need that kind of policy.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the hon. member over there. He has used that whole approach during his whole period in Parliament. It is fearmongering a sector of our agricultural industry. We are not intending to shut down supply managed groups of any kind. The hon. member should be above that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member of the regressive Conservative Party a question regarding the Canadian Wheat Board?

She is from Saskatchewan. She knows how popular the board is in Saskatchewan, how it is supported by the overwhelming majority of producers, and how the NDP and CCF have long supported the Canadian Wheat Board. She knows all of that from her background.

I have been reading with dismay recently about a number of comments from members of the Alliance Party, now the Conservative Party, that used to be the Reform Party, that in Saskatchewan is called the Saskatchewan Party, that used to be called the Mulroney Conservative Party. I know that is kind of confusing.

Where does she stand on the Canadian Wheat Board? A lot of members of that party have been saying that they would like to get rid of the Wheat Board or that they would want dual marketing. Dual marketing is another code for getting rid of the Wheat Board, because it undermines the Wheat Board. Farmers want to know, where does this party of Brian Mulroney, Mike Harris and Grant Devine, stand on the Canadian Wheat Board?

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting when the hon. member gets up and quotes all the parties that we supposedly are, but he is the first one who always talks about the CCF.

As a former Wheat Board permit book holder, I can stand here and say that I used the Wheat Board. I also delivered grain to the free market. I used both. In order to survive, farmers today must use it. I do not think he should be questioning a former Wheat Board permit book holder about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding the supply management issue, from 1993 through to 1995 the Liberal government sold out article 11 at the World Trade Organization talks. It now requires that the very three pillars that support supply management must be negotiated and the tariff protection that was there before it signed the agreement must be reduced in this current round of trade talks.

Who sold out supply management? The former solicitor general from Prince Edward Island sold out supply management.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, agriculture is my passion. It greatly disturbs me to hear comments from members, like the one who questioned me, who have never been involved in the agriculture industry.

If they do not live the life that we are living on the farm right now, they do not fully understand the despair that is happening in rural communities.

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar for allowing me to share my comments today.

I rise to add to the debate concerning the supply day motion put forth by the Conservative Party of Canada. The motion reads:

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.

Farmers in my riding of Perth--Middlesex are seriously concerned about their future. Farming is a billion dollar industry in my riding and it is a huge issue for us.

I have met with many commodity groups from my riding and I have listened to their concerns. They are worried about their future and whether the federal government cares about them. Based on the actions of the government, I cannot say I blame them.

The beef industry is suffering because of BSE. Too often we fail to consider that it is not just the beef industry that has been impacted by the crisis, but agriculture and the agri-food industry have been impacted as well.

I have met with representatives of the Perth County Federation of Agriculture to listen to their concerns. It has been a tough time for our farmers. I must let the House know that supply management was a big part of that. When I was at the WTO talks, we were strong on supply management. It is not something that this side of the House would get rid of.

One issue that has not received much attention from the current government is the state of rural Canada, specifically, its economy, infrastructure, and agriculture. The recent throne speech had very little about rural Canada. It further illustrated the low priority the Liberal government has for rural Canada.

Rural communities are concerned about their long-term survival. Rural residents prefer rural living but are concerned about their jobs and the lack of job prospects. Most youth growing up in rural Canada have no choice but to find work in urban centres.

The new Conservative Party, its caucus, and its candidates, know the importance of rural Canada. We have an action plan that will revitalize our rural communities. The current government has no plan.

Where is the plan to keep our rural communities competitive? Many manufacturing jobs, particularly those in the auto sector of southwestern Ontario, have been lost because of the high Canadian dollar and declining auto sales. The government has done nothing. There was nothing in the throne speech about that important sector of our economy and little on rural development.

The BSE issue has devastated the beef industry and has indirectly impacted our agri-food industries like trucking, seed companies, dead stock removal, farm implement dealers, and replacement heifers to name just a few. Thousands of Canadians work in these businesses and are being laid off because of the downturn. Still the government has taken no notice.

There is a crisis in rural infrastructure. This encompasses several areas, including health care, municipalities, water, sewage, bridges, housing, transit, schools, and rail transportation. Cuts in transfer payments over the years are starting to show. The provinces and rural communities do not have the financial stability to pick up the slack.

Farming and agriculture, in general, have not received the kind of respect and fair treatment that they deserve from the federal government. CAIS is not the answer according to many in the farm community. Many farmers in my riding do not have the money to get into the CAIS program.

Our rural communities suffer when our farmers and their agri-food industries are suffering. The fact that farming received two sentences in the throne speech speaks volumes about the government's priorities. The future of rural Canada depends on a vibrant rural economy, solid infrastructure, and a healthy agricultural sector.

I will refer to an e-mail that I got on Thursday, February 5 about an article entitled “Cattle producers hail mad cow report”. From Regina, it stated:

An international panel of experts reviewing the American discovery of mad cow disease said the U.S. should show leadership by stopping “irrational trade barriers,” a comment welcomed by Canadian cattle producers anxious for trade to resume.

The report, authored by five scientists...says the mad cow case found December 23 in Washington State can't be dismissed as an imported case.

Wildeman said the panel's findings further Canada's position that if a country has adopted adequate disease prevention standards, trade can resume.

“Those people that are prepared for political reasons to stand up and say we shouldn't reopen the border put their credibility at risk...Who do they point to for evidence that trade shouldn't be normalized...[again].

“Therefore the subcommittee recommends that the U.S...encourage the discontinuation of irrational trade barriers when countries identify their first case of BSE.”

The report also recommended the U.S. increase BSE testing, but dismissed the notion that all cattle slaughtered for human consumption should be tested.

Here is something I have been thinking about. I have had various comments from some of my producers and some of the people around this. Part of this might be figured out through the reopening of the mothballed MGI plant in Kitchener, Ontario. I very much hand it to the Gencor people for taking over the plant and working toward rectifying some of the problems with the cull cow market. They intend to open in early April, I think, probably killing 200 to 300 cull cows per week with a total of 1,500 as time goes on. Unbeknownst to me, a lot of the cattle we do export from the country are brought back in as processed meat. We do not have the capacity to process it, so we feel there could be a market there.

One thing has crossed my mind as we keep hearing that the money the government puts out to help agriculture in difficult times does not get to the farm gate. I have to say that when the new Minister of Agriculture took his little junket to Japan to tell the Japanese that our science was safe and that our beef was safe, I think the Japanese said that they test all their cattle. By the time the minister had left and had said our science was good, the Japanese said they test all their cattle.

I feel that what we should do in that particular case, if we do want to get into that market, is test all our cattle that are for export. We should put some finances toward a good testing regime. We do not have to test our domestic market; Canadians have said that. They have increased the amount of their consumption. They know our product is safe. But if we are in a market, bidding for a contract, then we have to comply with the rules of contract.

There is one other thing that is an environmental issue in regard to the fisheries and oceans department. We have a tremendous problem in our area--and I think in the farming community--with fencing of water courses in flood plains. Some of these people have had cattle grazing on flood plains for years. Right now they are being threatened by the environment ministry and by the fisheries and oceans department. They are being told they have to shut down or fence. We cannot fence. It does not make sense. If we till it, we will cause more pollution.

These are some of the various things that the farm community is getting beat on very heavily.

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

Mr. Speaker, those were good comments. The federal government has moved things along on the BSE issue in regard to regulations and working toward getting the borders open, but I know that at this point in the debate I should say that a major part of the credit for the advancement we have made should go to Neil Jahnke, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, his wife Marilyn Jahnke, the president of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers, and Betty Green, president of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, who have been so instrumental in helping to guide the government and tell it what it needs to do in order to get this issue resolved. I would ask the member to reference his cattle representative if possible.

Does the member believe that it is fair on the part of the government to have given some farmers a much higher percentage cull rate of 16% for their herds but other farmers only 8%? Should it not have been 10% across the board so that all farmers would be treated equally and fairly?

[Gary Schellenberger, Progressive Conservative, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that fairness is an attribute and is something that everyone should look at. I have looked at so many things that have come down from the government, like the VIP, the veterans independence program, for veterans' widows. A date was set. I think it was May 20. If a widow's husband passed away on one particular day, she would not get the VIP, but if she was lucky enough that her husband passed away on the day after, she would get this VIP for the rest of the time. I would have given it at that particular time to all veterans' widows, maybe cutting it in half.

As for the member's suggestion of 10% for everyone, yes, in all fairness, a cull cow is a cull cow whether it is a beef cow or whether it is a dairy cow. The member is right on. That is fair.