Mr. Chair, I have the pleasure to take part in this sad debate. From the minister's answers, we get the impression that there is nothing much concrete that will gain the minister's sympathy and get him to do something sooner, and more particularly something more concrete, for farmers.
Let us bear in mind that the dates during the first crisis, May 20, August 8 and October 31, brought some extremely hard times for some farmers, financially.
Of course, confirmation of the second case of mad cow disease on January 9 had even more dramatic consequences. In fact, the assistance programs, initially due to terminate in August, were extended with the help of the provinces to December 31. After that, however, there were no programs in place any more.
Yet there was no justification for continuing the embargo, at least not for animals under the age of 30 months. We assume, however, that the meeting of the new Prime Minister with President Bush did not yield much in the way of results. With what he claims are improved relations with the President, perhaps he could take advantage of that improvement to explain how illogical it is to close the borders to animals under the age of 30 months.
As my colleague has just said, it is also curious that in the Speech from the Throne there is not a single word , let alone a paragraph, about mad cow disease, as if it did not represent a problem for the present government under the new Prime Minister.
Yet its consequences are dramatic. The first one was the sharp drop in prices. Dairy farmers, for instance, who were getting $1,000 for cull cattle are now getting the pitiful amount of $100.
This means that if a cow gets injured in the fall, if the vet is called in and wants $120, some of that for drugs to treat her, and the farmer is planning to sell her a month later, he would get only $75 or $80. So it is better to slaughter her.
These are extremely dramatic consequences, because that cow represented a source of income. These cull cattle, about 25% of the herd, represent some 10% of the dairy farmer's income and generally that is 75% of the household income. So this is an extremely drastic situation.
On top of this, producers have had to cope with higher costs. Not only lower income, but higher costs. Just to mention one, the renderers, who used to buy dead or sick cattle from farmers, now charge for taking them.
There is a 100% difference in the cost, just in terms of getting rid of the dead cows.
Consequently, each time producers are hit by a crisis, their numbers decrease. This situation is also serious.
Alain Laroche, who is the president of the Syndicat des producteurs de bovins du Centre du Québec, said:
The cattle industry, which generates 20% of the jobs in central Quebec, is on the verge of a catastrophe. The situation is a cause for concern for the next generation. It will be impossible for young people to buy a farm, even a family farm. Young people will go down with their farm... People must be told that we can no longer make ends meet.
From 1996 to 2001, the number of farms in Quebec dropped by 10.8%. This is quite serious, and the mad cow crisis will only accentuate the problem, meaning even fewer farms.
Nevertheless, the government said that there were assistance programs. Yes, there were, but they were all too brief. Take, for example, the assistance program for cull cattle.
This poses a problem. When, in November 2003, Ottawa announced the implementation of a specific program for cull cattle, it was a joint federal-provincial initiative, with the costs shared 60-40. This program was not well received by producers. Why? Because the $169 that producers get is far from the $300 they were demanding and farther still from the $500 they lose per head. Furthermore, producers are being compensated for up to 16% of their herd, although they cull 25% per year. This has an even greater impact on producers in Quebec than in the west. Some 47% of all milk is produced in Quebec. Based on 25% of the herd, this means that no compensation is received for 35% of all cattle.
Income in the west is guaranteed at 90% because only 9% of the livestock is renewed.
The same is true about the dollar per head, as I mentioned earlier. Depending on the region in Canada, depending on whether the cows are inside or outside the barn, this makes a big difference to the producers. The dollar is poorly distributed.
There should be a regional evaluation and at the very least, the government should improve the programs. In other words, it should extend the programs or put $6.4 million specifically toward cull, which is what the farmers are asking for.
As was also mentioned, the government prides itself on its health measures. We know the government took its lead from the United States with respect to its health measures. There was a system, but the United States decided, after the case of mad cow, to reinforce its health services. They announced several additional measures, including some we were already applying here.
In Canada, the new minister travelled to Washington and went on a trade mission to Japan, South Korea and Mexico. He announced an increase in testing on cows and an increase of $92 million over five years for inspections. These are good intentions, but they do nothing to help farmers right now.
With respect to the number of tests, as I mentioned earlier, 20,000 animals were tested over the past year in the United States. In Canada, 7,200 animals were tested over the past 10 years. This is not nearly enough to restore confidence in the Canadian beef industry. It was announced that 5,000 would be tested in 2003, 8,000 in 2004 and 30,000 by the end of five years. If we compare this to the tests done in Europe, 19 million animals were tested there in 2003. The minister says it is not the same problem. When all animals are tested, as is the practice in France, England and Japan, we know exactly how many cases of mad cow disease there are, no problem. We should be doing the same. It is a good approach: test 100% of the animals. That should be the target.
Nevertheless, we must also remember that, with respect to assistance to veterinary schools to train staff, the government has been very slow to help the four veterinary schools, particularly Saint-Hyacinthe. Moreover, it gave half of the money it had promised to help this magnificent institution maintain a very high standard of teaching.
Even though the measures announced by Ottawa concerning the increase in the number of screening tests are a step in the right direction, the ideal would be to test all animals older than 30 months.
I will close by discussing the regionalization of health services. In Quebec, at their own expense, farmers have set up a very precise program to monitor the movement of their animals.
For example, since 1993 animal-based feed has been banned in Quebec. Canada waited until 1997 to do the same thing. Remember that it was cows born in 1996 who contracted mad cow disease. If the measures used in Quebec had been used everywhere, these two cases would not have occurred.
Furthermore, the cattle in Quebec are identified; there are centralized records, and all moves made by a cow, from birth to death, can be tracked. It is easy to follow their moves.
This is not the case in Canada. There has been a kind of a census since 1997, except that it contains birth and death information, and is not centralized, which poses a problem.
If there had been some understanding that there are regional differences in this supposedly great county, then there could also have been regional differences in health services. There could at least have been regionalization, in other words perhaps the same services, but with regionalization. That way, if there were a problem in one region, other countries would stop importing from that region, but not from the others.
Had this been done, Quebec would not have had to suffer the consequences of mad cow, because it had taken precautions. It had made sacrifices and paid for better protection against such incidents.
After this debate, I hope the minister will be meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, so that they can address this problem and come up with a concrete solution so farmers can continue their operations. The way things are, there will be one bankruptcy after another until spring, because the farmers have no support from the government at this time.
