Debates of Feb. 26th, 2004

Supply

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped the hon. member would have told those young people that the surplus was not $7 billion. It is nowhere near that. I also would have hoped the hon. member would have told them about the response the Government of Canada has had to this issue.

We heard the hon. member say that $100 million or so has been stolen. We heard that about the $1 billion boondoggle. The opposition members claimed that at the end of the day a $1 billion went missing. Does anyone know how much went missing? It was $6,500. I could not believe it myself.

Day after day we sit in the House and listen to the responses that come from the hon. members and they have absolutely nothing to add to the debate, except to sit there and scream and yell and call into shame the names of hon. members. These members say absolutely nothing. They have no new evidence. All they do is call Liberals and hon. members names.

I hope the hon. member told these young Canadian farmers that what they were hearing from the opposition was not true.

I also hope he told those young Canadian farmers that through the agricultural policy framework, the Canadian government has recognized that we need to do more to encourage young people to get into farming.

If we were to look at the age group that is farming today, we would see that it has been rising over the last number of years. Young people are not getting into farming. We must do more to encourage young Canadians to take up farming or at the end of the day we will have no more farmers.

I would ask all members in the House to let all Canadians know that the Government of Canada has responded to the needs of young Canadian farmers.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of young Canadian farmers, four young farmers from P.E.I. are waiting outside to see the minister and have a quick chat with him.

I am pleased with the minister's remarks, especially the fact that he has recognized that there is a serious problem out there, and that he emphasized that the government is willing to work as a whole to address the immediate shortcomings of the current farm crisis. I am pleased that the minister is willing to seriously look at the crisis.

However, in terms of today's motion, what the Conservative Party, the former Canadian Alliance, has put forward is that it is complaining about money. However what the Conservatives do not tell Canadians is their long term vision for agriculture. When we go to their policy statement we find that they want to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management. These are industries that are stable. Reluctantly, the Conservatives do not tell Canadians that information.

Where does the minister stand, relative to the $6 billion farm cash receipts that is in supply management, in terms of that industry and its future, and where does he stand with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board from this side of the House?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the Government of Canada is in full support of the Canadian Wheat Board, particularly after the changes we made to ensure that the Wheat Board was controlled by Canadian farmers and not government.

It is important for all hon. members to recognize that the decisions being taken by the Wheat Board are decisions taken by farmers themselves. It is critical, in terms of marketing of wheat in Canada, that farmers themselves have control on how they market their wheat.

The hon. member knows that I have just returned from the Cairns Group of meetings regarding supply management. This is a group of countries that probably does not have the same ideas of the importance of supply management as does the Government of Canada. I made it very clear to the Cairns Group, to the head of the WTO and to the head of the agriculture committee at the WTO that the Government of Canada was committed to keeping our system of supply management as we worked through these international negotiations.

We feel that countries, such as Canada, that have sensitive industries, should be protected and should continue to be able to protect them within their programs with regard to their commitments at the WTO.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative Party member, one certainly needs to respond to some of those spurious allegations across the way from the former agriculture minister. Maybe that is why he is no longer in that role. He needs to get his facts straight on a few things because we do have some very concrete proposals and policies.

We are in support of supply management. We think we can actually strengthen the Wheat Board, or at least make the provision for it to be strengthened by way of our approach on this whole matter.

We do need income support programs for farmers. Our party does support the use of safety net programs to assist producers struggling with conditions outside their control. For things they do not have any control over at all, we certainly want to stand by them in those times of need.

We would have those measures in place to assist people across our country, whatever agriculture production capacity they are in, but in a way that it would not distort trade. It would need to be consistent with Canada's international trading obligations. We have something very specific. The members across the way should be here to take careful notes so they do not make those false allegations in the future.

In respect of the Canadian Wheat Board, we have said that we are on the side of farmers. We want to support farmers. We want to have a strong Wheat Board but our priority obviously in all of this is for the good of farmers.

A Conservative government would give farmers the freedom of choice to make their own marketing and transportation decisions and also to direct, to structure and to voluntarily involve themselves in those producer organizations. That is for the good of farmers and it can be for the good of the Canadian Wheat Board as well, as they adjust, as they flex, as they are in sync with the various things in our international markets.

In respect to supply management, we have said, going back to our former Canadian Alliance days, those of us from that particular side, but confirm these days as the new Conservative Party, that we believe it is in the very best interests of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative government would support the goal of supply management to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producers.

Reading that particular statement, without question, we have no problems with support of supply. In fact it is very crucial. These are the only farmers, in my neck of the woods, in my constituency, who do not have some of the other pressing issues that agricultural producers have had in the last number of years. However they are in hard times now because of the BSE crisis.

I want to interject, Mr. Speaker, to say that I want to split my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

The Minister of Agriculture mentioned that we have to go beyond the motion today. We agree with that and are quite prepared to do that as the new Conservative Party with some very specific and concrete proposals. They are very explicit, not like some of the nebulous stuff that there is which is not helpful in the long term to farmers, at least not when they have to hire accountants and lawyers to figure out how to fill out the forms for the various programs that are dreamed up by the government.

Without question we must go beyond this. This is the starting point but we certainly need a government in place that would reallocate the resources and get away from the wasteful and unnecessary programs, and all the spending. We need to get away from the scams that we have had in Quebec, the sponsorship scandals, the billion dollar HRDC boondoggle, the almost $2 billion and mounting gun registry, and so on. We need to get away from that waste so that we can address the agricultural crisis at the farm gate with specific and concrete proposals and specific dollar amounts. I want to spend my remaining time by addressing them very specifically.

It has been unveiled and is on the public record, our commitment, our word, upon forming a government in 2004. The Conservative Party of Canada has very specific and concrete good news for farmers. It would be an improvement of things for them, if we were given the mandate to implement the Conservative Party plan of action for agriculture.

In the short term at least $900 million would need to come in by way of topping up the 2002 Canadian farm income program from the current 60% right up to payouts to the full 100% coverage. It would take approximately $75 million, I understand from the calculations, for that to occur.

There is the matter of increasing the processing capacity for mature cattle as well as all other livestock sectors. There is about another $75 million calculated for that. There is also the mature livestock rationalization program estimated to be about $400 million. These are the specific figures as asked for by the members across the way. We are quite prepared to put them on the record today.

Then there is the Canadian agriculture income support program or CAIS as it is becoming known in common jargon. I talked to an accountant last week and he has concerns with many of these programs, and with this one to a certain degree as well.

A number of good heads have to get together, accountants and all the farm players have to get together to figure these programs out. Accountants get involved. They are very complicated programs.

There would need to be the top up of the CAIS program for BSE affected farm operations. That would take about $300 million. That is no insignificant sum of dollars that would need to be put into that. It is a very difficult time for those affected by a somewhat inadequate handling of this crisis by the present government through not looking down the road such that we could head off this thing by international protocols that were followed in our country.

We need to provide interest free cash advances of approximately $25 million. An advance on calf value aimed at cow-calf operators would be helpful to beef operators back in the Saskatoon—Wanuskewin constituency and all across the country.

We need to provide confidence to the lending institutions so that when farmers walk in and have particular needs they can know that they are backstopped by the Government of Canada, a Conservative government, that is supporting producers in respect to cashflow. We need to provide interest free loan guarantees for backgrounders and feedlot operators of some $25 million.

There will be more in future days, but these are specific concrete proposals that we are not shy to put on the record, in contrast to the rather nebulous plans of the government on the opposite side.

I think the minister is quite right. The beginning point is to stop the waste, stop the scandalous squander of dollars that has been occurring on the gun registry, the sponsorship scam, HRDC, and on and on it goes. There are probably more things that will turn up in the days ahead. We need to stop that and begin to redirect and get the priorities right, and focus in the particular way that we have talked about here. It is on the record. Members of the government can analyze it and do the calculations.

My question for the minister and those opposite today would be, are they prepared to live up to that? Can they deliver that kind of a program with specific concrete proposals? We would urge them to make that kind of commitment to farm families across the country.

That is our plan of action as a new Conservative government in 2004. That is what we would do for agriculture producers. It is how we would stand with them in the days ahead.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put the members on the opposite side of the House on notice because there have been several comments made in reference to our staying on topic on this side.

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.

The Prime Minister put the House and the media on notice that he was going to collect back those dollars that were illegally distributed. Has my colleague from Saskatchewan heard anything from any minister in the House as to the reallocation of those moneys to the farm crisis?

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, indeed my constituents are outraged and it is palpable. We hear it in conversations with people in terms of the dollars that we will probably never get back. The money has gone down a dark, black hole, down a drain where we probably will never be able to get it back. At least those with a more pessimistic side would say that.

Certainly we should pursue everything with full force and to the full extent of the law because there are people who are culpable. Maybe small amounts can be brought back. Certainly we want to send a strong signal in the days ahead that nobody in a public office should be using and abusing the public trust in that manner.

Our farmers are going under and there are people on the take, if you will, who are squandering hard-earned tax dollars made by the sweat of the brows of farmers and other hardworking people who pay taxes. They are using it for these kinds of things. People want to be done with the gun registry and the mounting costs in respect to that. They want to be sure that there are no more scams like that in Quebec or anywhere in the country for that matter. They want to be sure that HRDC scandals do not ever occur again.

We need to have things in place. We want to have those dollars retrieved but I have to confess I am not very optimistic about it because with some of the individuals the paper trail is not there. It was all verbal, there was not even a handshake. I do not express a lot of optimism, but certainly we should learn the lessons for the future as this should never, ever happen again.

It has put other programs in jeopardy, such as health, education, and certainly as we are speaking of today, agriculture. For beef producers in my friend's province of Alberta, it is the most distressing time of their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier the member from Qu'Appelle, which is in Saskatchewan, was speaking about his opposition to the Firearms Act and registering rifles and shotguns. We need to have a little clarification. Perhaps the member could correct me, but Jack Layton, the leader of the NDP, has quite clearly stated that he is going to ensure that all rifles and shotguns are registered, and that is the official NDP policy.

I would like the member to comment on whether or not an individual member can change things in the House, or whether he has to have the backing of others, at least in his party, to make that change. Could he contrast the NDP position on the Firearms Act to the Conservative Party's position?

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously Mr. Layton first needs to have a seat in the House and that has some question and doubt. There is no guarantee of that. He can make all the pronouncements he wants, but very clearly he is on the record as wanting to register long guns and the whole thing.

We stand very clearly in terms of scrapping the long gun registry, to be done with it. That is where the waste has been. There have been various other pistols and so on for the longest time, and there has been legislation with respect to them, but we would scrap the registry. There is no question about it.

There is a bit of a contradiction within the NDP because the leader is saying one thing and there are individuals out in my province who say another. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, if you will. It is really hard to know where they stand when in fact their leader, who is the one who kind of runs the show, or at least one would think that would be the case, is saying one thing in terms of support for registering all law-abiding duck hunters and so on across the country. He comes from downtown Toronto, an urban centre, and does not understand. Therefore he has a bit of a problem with his rural members who realize that their electoral chances are not real bright if in fact they do not indicate that they are opposed to the long gun registry.

The Conservative Party would scrap the long gun registry, no question.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague for Calgary Northeast was speaking, I was thinking that the motto for the government seems to be “give a nickel, steal a billion”, and then expect people not to say anything.

We are here today to talk about agriculture, which is in a crisis situation as many of us who have rural areas in our riding know. I am glad to see that once again the opposition is leading the way on this issue. We have a government that is saying very little about it. It does not seem to understand the crisis we are in. It is hard to find government members in the House who are even concerned about agriculture. The opposition has carried the day and it has been good to see that.

We all know the story about BSE and what happened in this country. One cow was found in Alberta and the CFIA was able to trace it back to its source. We thought the industry was going to get back on its feet after having the border closed for months. Just when it seemed the United States was going to open the border, a second cow was found in the United States and it was traced back to Canada.

Our industry is being driven into the ground and it is frustrating for ranchers. I have received a lot of calls over the last month as people have realized that this is not going to be a short-term problem. It will last longer than they expected. They are almost at the end of their first year of trying to deal with this situation.

This is not just affecting ranchers. A lot of other people are being affected as well such as truckers and auctioneers. Up until Christmastime, retailers did not seem to be affected that much, but in talking to them since Christmas, a lot of them have expressed concern.

Farmers do a lot of shopping in the fall. They buy machinery and that kind of thing. Ranchers tend to do a bit more of it in the spring. When the season stopped for farmers, there was nothing, and ranchers did not pick up the business. A lot of the agricultural implement dealers are feeling the stress and strain as well from this crisis. There are others as well such as farmers who grow feed wheat. They find themselves in a situation where ranchers cannot buy that wheat from them. It is tough.

Over the last few weeks I have noticed that more people are calling and the calls are more desperate. Before, they were concerned, but now, we are getting to the situation where young people are starting to look at losing their property. Young ranchers are being told to go back to the oil patch and to work there in order to save their ranches. That is not the long-term answer for these folks.

One of the problems that I have had through this whole situation is the fact that the government has completely failed to plan or to lead the ranch and farm community through this problem. They have received many promises from the government. We heard again today from the minister. He is good at saying how much he feels our pain, but he is not so good at getting anything done.

The government has failed in a whole number of areas. One area I can think of is feed regulations. The government has refused to deal head on with the issues of what to do with feed, how to regulate it, and how to regulate the companies that are making it. The government has not taken the initiative there.

Opening the border is obviously a very important issue. The government seems to be doing nothing. Something may be going on behind the scenes, but ranchers do not understand what it is. The government is not talking about it in the House. That is unfortunate because the border needs to be opened quickly for ranchers to do well.

I had a big concern last summer with the government's commitment of $500 million to ranchers and the ranching community. That money seems to have evaporated into thin air. I know it was spent. The problem is that none of the ranchers I know received any of it. They are paying the biggest price. They are suffering the most and they needed that money. It disappeared into thin air. Someone received it, but it was not the ranchers.

The government now has a $200 million program with regard to feeding culled cows through the winter. In my part of the world, that has turned out to be a disaster too because the provincial government cannot come to any agreement with the federal government about how to administer the program. As of the end of January, farmers were not able to get access to the money from the federal program.

It is unfortunate that there is an NDP government in Saskatchewan because it seems to be drilling our province into the ground. Our province is getting in worse shape. The Saskatchewan government is unable to cooperate with the federal government. And we have a federal government that is not able to put a plan or program together that will work for farmers.

Another area the government has failed is in setting the regulations for testing in Canada. Farmers and ranchers do not have any idea what the government plans for the future. I honestly do not think the government has any idea what it wants to do either.

We have heard from the minister. Producers have been very patient with him so far. He seems to be saying the right words, but producers are going to get impatient very quickly and will get tired of hearing promises and nothing else.

It is not just the ranchers that are in trouble. The grain industry is in a deep hole as well. The prices are at not all time lows but they are very low right now. There are shipping problems with the railway strike that is going on, but also a lot of problems with the whole grain marketing system in western Canada and most of it is focused on the Canadian Wheat Board.

Farmers have not recovered from the disaster that they had in 2002 and 2003 when they pulled out of the market when it was at its highest because they did not want to sell grain to the board. It had not done any planning for the future. It had not locked in any futures, missed the high, came back into the market at the low, and set the initial price too high and ended up with an $85 million deficit in the pool accounts. Thankfully for the farmers but not so for the taxpayers. The taxpayers had to make it up.

It was incompetence on the part of the marketing done by the Wheat Board and it ended up costing a lot of money.

The Wheat Board, as we know, limits opportunities for grain farmers in so many ways. We have organic farmers coming to us now that are protesting the buy-back. In the past, they have been allowed to sell their own wheat and they have been able to do that very well. As soon as they started developing a successful market and a successful industry, the Wheat Board stepped in and said that it needed its share, and that it had to take a cut too. Now it is starting to drive the organic farmers into the same situation as it has done with the rest of the farmers.

My biggest concern with what is happening in western Canada in the grain industry, and it is tied again to the Wheat Board, is the fact that farmers are not allowed to process. I have a lot of small communities in my riding. The people want to survive and thrive. They would love an opportunity to process the product that they grow the most of and that is grain.

Unfortunately, even though we have 125 speciality crop plants in our province because people can process their own products there, we have less than 20 flour mills in the province that mill grain and most of those are owned by two American multinationals.

I heard members on the other side say that they were on the side of farmers, but they were defending the millers and the Wheat Board more than they were the farmers when they insisted that the system stay the way it was.

The sad part of it is that farmers do not have control of it. The minister still has control of the Canadian Wheat Board. If farmers had control of it or had control of their own destiny, many of them would be marketing their own grain and doing well at it, as eastern Canadians farmers have been doing over the last year. Once they got the freedom to go into the Ontario Wheat Board or stay out of it, it is interesting that they have done very well going into the United States with their own wheat.

Therefore, we look for some opportunities. Unfortunately, in many ways the government is restricting those farmers, particularly in western Canada.

I want to speak a little about CFIP, the farm income program and what a disaster that it has been. Unfortunately, from 2002, the government paid out about 75% to many of the farmers. Now it is clawing money back from the producers saying that it needs to claw some of their money back, so that it can get everybody up to 60%.

It is the position of our party and our agriculture critic that we would commit to ensuring that 100% was paid out. The government will short the farmers by 30%. We are not prepared to do that. We would like to see farmers get what they are supposed to receive. We would step forward and certainly do that for producers. It is unfortunate that the government does not do that as well.

The new CAIS program does not look like the answer that everyone thought it would be and that is unfortunate.

One of the other things I want to talk about is an issue that we thought there was a lot of hope for. We had an application for an ethanol plant from Shaunavon which is in my riding. The guys put a lot of work into the project and put a good proposal together. They waited patiently to see if the government would approve their project. Ten days ago the government informed them that they were not going to get the funding.

Instead, one of the projects went to a multinational company that made $350 million in earnings in the fourth quarter and made $1.8 billion last year. It apparently needed that $14 million from the federal government for its project, while our local community group, that could have used that $14 million to get the project up and running, did not get the funding.

It is unfortunate to see once again that it looks like the backroom boys who have been in charge of the political connections received the money. Meanwhile, people in our small communities are not able to move ahead because the government is restricting them.

I would like to see the government support agriculture as much as it has supported our Prime Minister as he continues to pay 2% taxes while the average Canadian pays 50%. The government does not seem to be willing to stop that.

The government has supported the EI program as it has taken $7,000 per family in extra premiums over the last 10 years. The government has also supported the gun registry to the tune of somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion.

I wish the government would support agriculture with that same kind of enthusiasm.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debate all day.

I have also been attending the agriculture committee meetings that have been taking place regarding the BSE crisis. At the last agriculture committee meeting that I attended, the value added processors that came to the committee were upset with some of the issues surrounding this.

In probing this further, I point blank asked them, what is the key problem when it comes to resolving this in Canada? They told me that there was a lack of leadership in dealing with this. I asked them what they meant by that? Who is not providing this leadership? The processors said there was only one person in the whole country who could provide that leadership and that is the agriculture minister. It is our government that is responsible for bringing it together.

They explained that we must bring together the various sectors of the industry. We must have a strong representation at the international negotiations, especially with our American neighbours in promoting beef around the world and developing other markets. They said that is not happening.

This was an extremely serious indictment of the government when the processors pointed out that there was no real leadership here. We see the Americans defending their farmers. The Canadian government does not do the same.

The Conservative Party has put forward a proposal. People know that I have been working here in Parliament on the gun registry. People also know that the gun registry has been ballooning now to not just $1 billion but is now approaching the $2 billion mark.

I would ask the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, what kind of support would he like to see farmers getting? What kind of changes should the government be making to our agricultural programs? What positive suggestions has the Conservative Party made regarding farm programs, especially in relation to the BSE crisis? I would appreciate an answer to these questions.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of value added is an interesting one. Over the last few years I have found that the leadership on this issue is coming from our small communities. The leadership is coming from local people who have the gumption to get up and get together, and put companies together and go out and do something.

Unfortunately, these people have waited years for the government to do something and it has not happened.

Regarding the BSE crisis, there are a couple of places where the government could show some real leadership in this value added area. One area where the government could show leadership is in the area of slaughtering animals and packing. We have sat here for almost a year now. We have last year's group of cull cows that are not marketable. The government has sat and waited. This group of cows is still out there.

We have now come to the second cycle. We now have two years of cull cows. The government has not taken the initiative and put a couple of plants in place to deal with those cull cows. The government has not insisted that the Canadian fast food companies use those cull cows. The result is that we have two years of cull cows.

There is also a problem with the feeders. The slaughter companies have decided that they do not know if they can put extra packing lines in place. They do not know what the future is and how long those lines would be operational. The slaughter companies are hesitant about investing money when the government has not given them any direction about how long they will have to wait to recover their investment. These are a couple of areas.

We must move those cull cows out of the system. It looks as though we will end up having to rationalize those animals. I do not think there is anyone who wants that to happen. If it happens, it will be because the government has completely failed to show leadership over the last year.

It would be a terrible situation if we lost the market for those younger animals as well. One fact that has not been mentioned too much today is that the border is still open to animals that are 30 months and under, as long as they are packed and in boxes.

There is an opportunity for us to move some of that beef through the slaughter plants, freeze it and ship it to the United States. We have a market for it. However, we need that extra slaughter capacity and we need it quickly, or we will lose that market. We will lose our feedlots. Those people are on the edge of a bad situation right now.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want to thank my colleagues across the way for putting this important matter, agriculture, before the House of Commons. I may disagree with much of their policy on the other side and the way they have phrased this motion, but in any event I recognize their concern, as I know they recognize mine, over the situation that Canadian farmers find themselves in.

The past year has certainly been a challenging one for Canadian farmers and farm families. There is no other job like farming. If it is not the vagaries of the weather, it is a worldwide downturn in prices. If it is not high subsidies from other countries, it is the closing of borders, and we have experienced both those points in the last while in dealing with the United States.

We recognize, and I think everyone should recognize, that both the United States and the European economic community, in terms of the agricultural subsidies they put into their industry, really have not abided. They have met the law with respect of the World Trade Organization agreement, which replaced GATT, but they really have not met the spirit of the negotiation in reducing subsidies, as we have done in Canada. When it comes to the United States closing the border, it certainly has used “any old excuse will do”.

We have experienced that many times in my home province of Prince Edward Island. We have had the experience of potato wart. We have had the experience of the mop top virus--

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would like to rise on a point of order.

I do not want to mislead the House and I am trying to avoid any misunderstanding or confusion. Today, during oral question period, I answered a question from the hon. member for Roberval.

When I checked the transcripts, I realized that the question was not exactly what I thought I had heard. Therefore, my reply was not the appropriate reply to the question that was asked.

My answer to the question that was actually put is that it is up to the inquiry commission to deal with this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is not a point of order, since it clarifies a situation that the government House leader wanted to correct. Since the correction has been made in the House, we will now resume debate.

The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the House leadership will do that on us, but we take it in stride.

As I was saying, in my home province of Prince we have experienced this absolutely unnecessary closing of the borders by the Americans several times. There was potato wart, PVYn and mop top virus. When it comes to dealing with the United States, one difficulty is we have the scientific reasons for why those borders should reopen. It is right in the first instance usually to close them down when there is a quarantinable pest or whatever. However, the United States drags that out and causes untold damage to our industry in Canada as a result.

We have to find a way of making sure that science at the end of the day determines the movement of products across borders and not the political gamesmanship that we so often see by the United States, as it uses those levers to keep the border closed, and plays politics with the industry.

What other industry, other than the agriculture sector, has to contend with these kinds of issues? I doubt any have to contend with them the way we do. There is no question that the forecast for net income in 2003 is a record low. The average net income in Prince Edward Island for the year 2003 is at 1926 levels, and that is not acceptable.

In my view the Government of Canada and the provincial governments across the country have to stand with the industry in its time of need. Through the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who just spoke a moment ago, we can see that the Government of Canada is doing that. We are doing everything we can to stand with our industry. I will come to BSE in a moment.

Several factors have contributed to that low income such as the drought, the oversupply in some commodities and the ongoing subsidy war with the U.S. and the EU. The rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar has certainly hurt our ability to export. One of the biggest culprits has been BSE in the beef industry.

BSE is a case in point. The Americans have used this issue very extensively in damaging the Canadian industry. We have seen senators in the United States publicly asking the secretary of agriculture to continue to ban of Canadian beef to the United States. That is not necessary.

The fact of the matter is, the science is on our side. We had the traceability system in place. We have had one case of BSE in Canada and one case of BSE in the United States. The Americans will argue the cow originated in Canada. Where the cow originated has nothing to do with BSE. It is the kind of food products that the animal ate which would end up being BSE, and we have the safeguards in place. Our food safety system is secure and safe in the country. Not a bit of that BSE animal got into the Canadian food system. However, on the U.S. side, it has had to recall some of its product because it operates on a different system.

The North American beef industry is basically fully integrated. We move cattle down to the United States and it moves cattle up here. If we are going to get out of this dilemma and get our product moving around the world again, we have to work together. We have to be seen as a North American industry.

In my view, if the Americans would come to their senses, they would recognize that. They would recognize that the rest of the world knows this is a North American integrated beef industry. They should be saying “Let us work together. Let us show how safe our products are in Canada and in the United States and move them abroad”.

Instead of the U.S. senators playing politics, they should cease and desist, make decisions based upon science, allow our product to move across to the United States, as it should, and work with the rest of the world to get world borders opened up to North American beef products so the market can work as the market once worked.

This BSE issue has absolutely not been an easy issue to deal with, but the Government of Canada and ministers have been working with Canadian farmers. There have been endless meetings, including meetings held by the Prime Minister. I believe there was $520 million in one program. However, I ought to say that absolutely too much of that $500 million, which was really targeted for the beef industry, was bled off by others in the system. When the program was designed, we hoped that that would not happen, but it did. I personally believe that there are some, be it the packing houses or at the retail level, who have been ripping off the beef industry, the primary producers, by capturing more profits for themselves and not doing their best to hold up beef prices at the primary producer level, and that is sad. We have to criticize the packing and processing industries for that.

Members will note as well that even with these ridiculously low prices at the farm level, the prices of beef products at the retail level have not dropped substantially, as one would expect them to do. I believe the middlemen are ripping off both primary producers and consumers as well. We should state that clearly and if we can, we should revolt against it.

Farmers are also faced with challenges related to increasing demands by consumers who are seeking greater assurances about the safety and quality of their food and how it is produced. The agriculture sector is also concerned about new advances in science and increasing international competition.

The federal government intends to make sure that Canadian farmers have every opportunity to keep their businesses viable and to build a strong sector that can meet the challenges it faces. In fact the Minister of Agriculture a moment ago spoke of some of those challenges and spoke of what we were doing as a Canadian government to meet those challenges on behalf of Canadian producers.

The current Minister of Agriculture chaired a task force on the future of farming, and I was a member of the task force. We went out and met with farmers across the country to try to design a new program that would meet the needs of farmers better than the current policy was.

With all this in mind, the federal government, along with the provinces and territories and in consultation with industry, has developed the agricultural policy framework. This future orientated approach to managing risk, looks at the farm's potential, takes into consideration all activities of the farm business and actively encourages innovation, diversification and value added production.

New funding of $5.2 billion over five years has been dedicated to the APF in helping our farmers and farm families strive for greater profitability.

As I said a moment ago, that partly comes as a result of the work of the Liberal task force on the future of farming. I want to thank my colleagues and I certainly thank former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien for his efforts in seeing the work we did and coming up with the funding to put those kinds of dollars in place to partially--not totally--meet the needs of the Canadian agricultural industry. As things change so rapidly in that industry, there are always needs that we are not meeting as well as we would like to see them met.

The APF is designed to make Canada's agriculture and agrifood industry proactive instead of reactive and to make us known throughout the world as innovative, both in our production methods and in our products. And we are innovative, as the best producer of safe, high quality food and as environmentally sustainable producers.

We do not want to have to see our agriculture and agrifood industry sustained by subsidies. It is difficult for Canada because we cannot match the treasuries of the United States and the European Community, but whether we can match them or not, I certainly believe that we have to be there for the farm community in their time of need. I think we are showing that we are, and yes, there is more we have to do. Wealth and growth instead must come, to the greatest extent possible, from the market, we believe. In a country with a population of only 31 million or so people, we rely on trade and, it is to be hoped, fair trade.

Developing countries are getting into the game more as well. They are producing at a rapid pace and in some cases for much too cheap a return. I submit that if we are really going to deal with the full extent of this agricultural crisis, we have to do more internationally.

I would even go so far as to suggest that instead of just leaving it up to the trade ministers to have the discussions in terms of the agricultural policy issues--I know the Minister of Agriculture is often there--maybe it is time for agriculture ministers around the world to come together themselves in the interests of primary producers to try to find a way of putting a bottom line, a floor, under agricultural prices. This dog eat dog approach we are taking to agriculture internationally, where we are all driving prices down, is driving everybody out of business and creating rural devastation in many areas.

Yes, we are trying to backstop it through the APF and other programs, but I think that over the long term we are going to have to try to do more internationally. We are all farmers and we want to feed a hungry world. We want profits for ourselves. We want to have thriving rural communities. We may have to take that approach and do more internationally.

In order for our agriculture industry to grow and prosper, either our productivity has to grow faster than any other country's, or we must find additional value in, for example, new and value added products or we must have a premium reputation that commands higher prices.

The agricultural policy framework provides an organized framework, one that looks ahead into the 21st century with a broader agenda. The APF creates a more cooperative relationship between governments and with industries. It provides a solid foundation on which to build.

For Canada to achieve growth, it requires competitive success, as I said, beyond our borders. It requires both the right tools for farm business, such as risk management tools, skills and capital, and a bankable reputation for quality, delivery, innovation and market responsiveness.

The APF integrates a set of elements for success. Food safety and quality, innovation and environmental stewardship will be our mark and our brand of excellence.

We are providing the industry with the tools to get the job done. That is why there is a renewal component to the APF to assist family farms with their planning and management requirements. Yes, there have been consultations with industry and there no doubt will be more.

The CAIS program provides permanent stabilization and disaster coverage and is available to producers across the country.

If I might ask for my time, Mr. Speaker? My goodness, I cannot tell members everything the Government of Canada is doing in the one minute that is left.

CAIS helps protect farm businesses against large and small fluctuations in farm income margins. It can also provide assistance to producers who have experienced a loss of income because of extreme circumstances such as BSE or other factors.

CAIS will deliver significant payments in 2004. As well, there is $4.1 billion in the NISA accounts. These funds are available for withdrawal in 2004 as the program winds down to make way for the CAIS program. Crop insurance has been changed to production insurance.

As part of the $5.2 billion in new federal investments to implement the APF, the Government of Canada provided $1.2 billion over two years to help farmers make the transition. We are there for the current farm community. We intend to be there in the future for the farm community.

That is what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food indicated just a few moments ago and I think Canadians and members opposite as well ought to recognize that.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I disagree on a few things to do with agriculture, but I think we both agree that it and farm families are important. On that we can agree and see eye to eye.

I want to ask him a question about packing facilities. The border is partially open. It is not open totally, but it is open to boxed beef for animals under 30 months of age. One of the things that the government has failed to do is really take the initiative in developing the capacity that we have in this country.

Does he think the government should be taking an active role in developing slaughter capacity for that boxed beef under 30 months that goes to the U.S., in order to protect our packing industry but also to protect our feeder industry in Canada?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very good question. In fact, we met with some of the packing industry the other day. I really do not believe and I do not think that the Conservative Party would encourage us to build packing and processing plants ourselves as the Government of Canada, but there certainly are programs in the country that can assist.

In fact, in the province of Prince Edward Island at the moment there is a new packing plant being built that hopefully will assist the industry. At the moment in Prince Edward Island, cattle are being shipped to Cookstown to be slaughtered; it has been mainly Ontario since the U.S. border closed. That plant is going to be available for the Atlantic Canadian industry. Certainly ACOA is helping in some respects in terms of that plant with the waste management treatment side of the plant. It is important for that to be there for the industry in its time of need.

Yes, we need a greater slaughter capacity in this country, not only for the animals under 30 months but also for the aged animals. But not only is the slaughter capacity crucial, so is opening the border, just getting that border open. I certainly congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others for their efforts in trying to get that border open.

It is not easy dealing with the United States. The president could even be on side, but Congress and the Senate, playing political games, as they are showing they are doing, do not recognize the science and they keep the political pressure on that the border to stay closed. That is wrong for Canadian producers and I believe it is wrong for American producers as well, because we are an integrated industry and we have to get out of this dilemma together. We have a safe food supply and the Americans are going to have to recognize that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the agriculture critic for the Conservative Party of Canada put forward this supply motion today to talk about agriculture and in particular to talk about BSE. The devastation that cattle farmers find themselves in at this point is really tragic and it is a situation that should be determined a full disaster and dealt with as such.

I would like to talk for just a minute about the income situation on our farms and ranches across the country. This applies to non-beef farmers as well. The realized net income on farms has hit a negative dollar figure. This is the first time since 1920 when statistics were first kept that Canadian agriculture as a whole has been in such a serious negative financial situation.

This is not a day to go hammering on the government too badly. Liberals have been in charge of this agricultural policy and the regulations since 1993, and we find that not totally through the government's fault we have gone from crisis to crisis to crisis in agriculture. The government in power, just like a company president or CEO, has to have responsibility and this government is holding the bag for what has gone wrong. It is certainly quick to take on what has gone right, but in this case things have gone wrong.

In 2003, BSE did not occur until approximately May 20. Before that, many cattle had been sold so those incomes were there. Between May and December, prices were deep in the tank and some farm programs were brought in.

When I say farm programs, we have to be careful with our definitions. There are the packing plants, the feedlots and the farmers, or what most people would call the producers. All three of those entities produce meat or beef for the table.

When the government puts out the fact that it has spent so many millions of dollars on the beef producer, what it is really talking about is putting money into the packing plants and into the feedlots. While that is helpful, I would like to point out that the majority of cow-calf producers, which is the basic farm that provides the raw material for the rest of the people up the chain, has not received a cent to this point. That has been a major problem for the cow-calf operator: not having this cashflow.

As for the cull cow program, or cull animal program, which is what it is supposed to be, brought out by the federal government, what it tried to do was say that herds had to be culled, which is true. It is a natural process; so many are done every year. Somehow a dairy herd would be culled at 16% and a beef herd would be culled at 8%.

This is a fairness issue. The dairy farmer fortunately still has the income from the sale of milk from those animals whereas the beef farmer does not have any of that additional income.

As a result, this application of a percentage of the cull should have been at least equal, whether it was 16%--and maybe it would have been the ideal if that would have been given to the beef producer also--or the government could have split the difference and said that everyone gets 10%. That would have actually made the beef producer, someone who is strictly beef and not dairy production, feel a lot better. That kind of unfairness leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many people who are in just the beef operations.

Another part of the cull program which is wrong is that bulls and animals under 30 months of age should have been included if they were breeding stock. I know one case where there are about 75 bred heifers. Of that 75, by the time they calve out this spring, 15 or 20 of them that will not have a calf and will have to be sold. However, they will already be 30 months of age by the time that happens, but they are not counted as part of the cull program. Therefore, there are some deficiencies in the program.

We have yet to see how the CAIS program will play out. It is supposed to pick up some of the slack. There is some expectation that there will be a substantial amount of money coming from that. However, remember what I said. In 2003 many farms will not have a real claim under CAIS. When BSE hit, they made their sales before or in December when the prices were good, before the Americans had their case. As a result, we will not see a lot of CAIS money move in 2003.

However, in 2004 we will see a drain on that CAIS program like we have never seen. We will be drawing ahead. Who knows, it could be one, two or three years ahead that we will be sucking money back out of that budget to pay the claims that will come up in 2004. I say that because feeder calves that were selling in December 2003 for anywhere from $1.06 to $1.15 for a 700 pounder are now down around 50¢ to 60¢. That kind of drop means that it will be reflected in the income figure for farms and they will have a large drop down into the disaster component of the CAIS program.

We might as well talk about the CAIS program in general because it will be around for a few years. If farmers have $400,000 reference margins, they will have to put $90,000 into a bank account. That is an awful lot of their cash flow tied up in a bank account that they cannot access because the government says that it has to be on deposit in order to participate in the program. Any business will tell us that they cannot afford to have that much money tied up in a non-productive bank account, but that is what the government is forcing them to do, and it is really unfortunate.

I was speaking with young farmers who were on the Hill today. I know of many cases in my own area, but one young farmer said that he had a structural change in his farm. He is obviously only in his thirties, but has been in business about seven or eight years. Now he has expanded it. His reference margin is very low. I told him that I thought there were structural change forms that he could submit. He said that he tried to put them in, but he could not because they were not available.

Why the government would bring out a program and not have the details worked out and agreed to with the provinces before it is actually releases and announces it just does not seem to make a lot of sense.

Getting the U.S. border open is of course our main issue. Earlier on today we heard members from the NDP say how they wanted to play hardball with the U.S. I gave a dissertation at that time as to why that would not make a lot of sense and why it would not help the issue by slamming a border shutdown.

However, the member for Malpeque also has this idea that somehow we can kick the stuffing out of the American elephant. We are pretty small to be doing that. I am surprised he said that because Prince Edward Island is a great beef producing place. The people of Prince Edward Island are great beef eaters. They also live by trade, whether it is on the beef side within the Atlantic region or in the American northwest.

The member said that we had science on our side, yes, but that he firmly believed that we had to play hardball on this issue with the U.S. and that we had to restrict American imports here the same as they were restricting our exports into the U.S. He said that he knew that was not based on science.

What the government and the agriculture minister's position has been all along is that based on science, the borders of other countries should be open to Canadian exports. As soon as we in Canada, the agriculture minister in particular and the Prime Minister, make decisions that are not based on science, then we are shown up for what we are on the world scene. We are a country that is saying one thing and doing another. That is what is wrong with threatening the Americans, saying that we are going to close our border to them.

I have an example of how this is negatively impacting our producers. The Subway food chain has what it calls a steak sandwich. I have not actually had one, but Subway is a great company. It uses 100% Canadian beef. That is great for our farmers and the company. It takes the beef, ships it down to a central processing place in the United States where it is cut to the exact size. This is a value added technical thing about the food sold out of their Subway franchises. That same Canadian beef is processed to Subway's specifications, then brought back up to Canada. Science says that there is nothing wrong with that steak which is going back to Canada for those sandwiches.

However, what does our CFIA do on the advice and instructions of the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister, and people like the member for Malpeque? They shut the border and do not let any of that steak come in. What happens at the Subways? People who go to a Subway franchise are unable to order and buy Canadian beef because our government made decisions, not based on science, but based on politics. That is exactly what is wrong. Canada should be showing leadership.

In regard to the world situation, up until we had our first case of BSE, Canada was the most hard-nosed country in the world on other countries that had one case of BSE. I use Denmark as an example. We even slapped a ban on Brazil that did not have an official case of BSE. Again, our Liberal government is saying one thing and doing another. It is basing decisions, not on science but on politics. We as beef producers are trying to get away from that and the Canadian cattlemen would like to see us get away from that.

Therefore, we have this terrible situation where our government of the day has such little rapport in the United States, Japan or Korea to get those borders opened up. It is partly because relationships cannot be built at the last minute.

You know yourself, Mr. Speaker, where you live you are known as a great friendly fellow around the area, but there is always a neighbour that tends to be the one that irritates the other neighbours and does not really get along. Then all of a sudden his garage gets blown down in the wind and he cannot fix it himself. He needs a hand. When he goes around to his neighbours, who he has kind of ticked off over the years, they say that they are busy and cannot help him fix the garage. That is exactly what the they Americans have been telling us, in essence. They have said that Canada wants to be so hard-nosed, that it wants to abuse their President and be anti-American in a lot of ways. That has been a negative influence in getting the borders open.

Another example is that for years, particularly in western Canada where this is more of an issue, but I have also heard it in Ontario, we have been trying to get year round access for feeder calves from the United States so we in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta could buy American feeder cattle and bring them up to Canada year round. We could fatten them. They would never leave the feedlot. They would go from the feedlot to the packing plant or maybe even be shipped back to the United States to be slaughtered.

Science has said that there is nothing the matter with these cattle coming up from the States. The anaplasmosis and blue tongue, which are the two diseases that are of concern from some parts of the United States, are very easily handled. If an animal happens to have that in a feedlot, it can be treated with antibiotics. It is a non-issue.

What we have here is another case of a government not using science to make decisions. What the government wants to do is keep those feeder cattle out so we can feed our own, et cetera.

The government has to realize that we are in a continental market of livestock and farm products. We are also in a global market. A global market is making Canada richer. A global market pays for health care, education and many other things that we as Canadians enjoy.

I hope the other parties in the House follow the lead of the Conservative Party and myself in becoming better world citizens.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised with the member for Selkirk—Interlake. He above all people is saying that we should go soft on the Americans. The Americans are destroying our beef industry. The Americans are destroying the livelihood of primary producers in Canada, and the member sits there and says “go soft on the Americans”.

We do have science on our side. We have to get a message to the Americans. If the Americans understand anything, they understand hardball and they respect it. Perhaps the only way to get the Americans to show us some respect is to play a bit of hardball with them. That is what we have to do. I am surprised, I am absolutely shocked that the member for Selkirk—Interlake--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The best I can do is give equal time to the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us assess how the American reacted to our case of BSE. The first country in the world ever was the United States, including President Bush, that recognized Canada was a country in trouble and that the producers were being financially hurt. It was the first country in the world to open its borders to boneless beef.

The Americans did it, and that is the kind of friends I want to have in this world.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the business of supply are deemed put and the recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 9, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you sought it, you would find consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m., so we could begin private members' business.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.