Debates of Feb. 4th, 2004

Fisheries

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, February 3, the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Government Business No. 1. I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 1, Mr. Kilger in the chair)

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

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

moved:

That this committee take note of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

[The Chair]

This is the first occasion after the most recent break that we have had to work in committee of the whole. I remind everyone that while it is less formal, I am the Chairman, not the Speaker. Members are free to sit wherever they choose to. Members will be given an opportunity to speak for a maximum of 10 minutes, with a period of 10 minutes for questions. Members may speak more than once.

To lead off this very important debate, I now turn to the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank all hon. members in the House tonight for coming out for this very important debate. I particularly want to thank the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and the member for Huron—Bruce who suggested this, as well as members from all parties who had asked that we have this debate.

This is an issue that the hon. member may not understand, but it is an issue that crosses party lines and it is an issue that is of concern to all Canadians. The Government of Canada, as I have said before and I will continue to say, takes this issue very seriously because it is one that I believe all Canadians, whether a farmer or not, believe is of utmost importance to the country.

I want to once again thank the Prime Minister for the work he has done on this in terms of his work with both President Bush and President Fox and for his encouragement and support for the work that ministers have had on this side in terms of trying to get the borders open.

The BSE situation has repercussions right across the country, not only for farmers and farm families or just beef or dairy. In fact representatives of the Dairy Farmers of Canada are in town this week. They represent the dairy producers across this country who have been impacted by this very much. I want to recognize the work that the leadership of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and all farm groups have done on this. They have taken this issue very seriously and I believe have given us here in the House the support that we need to help move this issue forward.

I want to report on BSE and what the Government of Canada has done since our first case of BSE on May 21, 2003. As everyone knows, the situation became much worse when a second case of BSE came about in Washington State. It was after I became Minister of Agriculture on December 12 and it was a time, I can say to all hon. members, that has taught me the importance of the House and working together with members of Parliament to work toward solutions to issues.

This is an issue on which the Government of Canada has moved swiftly. With the support of the Prime Minister, other ministers and caucuses in the House, we have been able to send messages to our international partners about how safe not only the beef is, but how safe all food is in Canada.

We had a situation in Canada where the consumption of beef rose because Canadians understood that Canada's regulatory system was a system they could trust and they knew the beef they ate was safe. That did not come about just because one day consumers thought it would be nice to think that. It came about because of the hard work that had taken place behind the scenes by groups such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and people within government who had worked with commodity groups and farmers across the country to come up with ways in which we could convince consumers.

We would not have been successful in getting our beef into other countries around the world had consumption in Canada not risen. It was the rising consumption in Canada that gave other governments the ability to recognize that Canadian beef was safe, and they therefore opened their borders to Canadian beef.

Once we had dealt with the issue in Ottawa, I had the opportunity to sit down with farm groups across the country and talk to them about what more they felt the Government of Canada could do in this situation. They told me, first and foremost, that we needed to get out and market Canadian beef around the world. That is exactly what we did.

I managed to take a couple of my colleagues, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac and the member for Medicine Hat, with me to Korea , Japan and Washington. We met with government officials, the ministers of agriculture in all these countries and the ministers of trade in some countries We talked about what we had done in Canada.

We talked about how we had listened to an international peer review panel that reported on Canada. The panel had given a glowing report on the actions that Canada had taken since its case of BSE. It had made recommendations on which the Government of Canada was moving. These recommendations could give not only Canadians the confidence about eating beef, they also could give the consumers in those countries the confidence that the beef they were eating was probably some of the safest beef in the world to eat.

We managed to convince the Japanese to look at issues other than just the way they handled BSE. Their minister talked about measures that we could take in Canada, not exactly the same measures but similar or equivalent to get our beef into Japan. That was a good step forward and one on which we have followed up.

What I have done since that time is send an inspector, a veterinarian from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to Tokyo, Japan to be on the ground. The inspector will work with the Japanese and countries in Asia, to show them what we are doing in Canada and talk to them about what the scientists at OIE, or the international body that regulates this, have said about what Canada has done. The inspector will also try get them to understand the importance of following the science and following what is coming out of the OIE.

We also got an agreement to work with them toward recognizing that the situation such as in Europe was a totally different than the situation in Canada. A group like the OIE could recognize that there is a difference between the risk factors in Europe and the risk factors in Canada. We only had one cow, which happened to be over six-and-a-half-years of age, which happened to get this disease prior to the time when we brought in the feed ban. I explained to people in Japan and Korea that we had a firewall and that firewall was taking the SRMs out of the food system.

We then moved on to Washington and talked with our Mexican and American counterparts. We got an agreement that we would have officials work toward normalizing trade in beef in North America. We also got an agreement from them to work in the OIE and to work together to try to change and get it to recognize we had a different situation in the North American case than that of the case in Europe. Finally, we got an agreement with them to work together in terms of getting North American beef into export markets around the world.

We have followed up on that. We have had meetings again with our American counterparts and we are trying to work through these problems. As many members may know, the international peer review panel in the United States reported and made recommendations to the Americans which were not unlike ours.

In the report of the panel one thing it has said to the Americans is they need to take a leadership role when it comes to trade in this area. They need to show that by opening up their borders to Canada they are following the science and recognizing that the risk in Canada is no different than the risk in the United States. The risk is so minimal that Canadians can continue, and Americans can also continue, to have the confidence in the beef they eat.

[The Chair]

If I can just take note we have a period of 10 of questions or comments. Therefore I would ask members to not take up more than a minute and a half or two minutes, so we can allow the minister to respond and give each party at least one question.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.

We have the opportunity to have a minister with us today. This being such an important issue—as the party in power has acknowledged—could we have unanimous consent to be able to question the minister for 30 minutes rather than 10? Given the minister's availability, I think we would have unanimous consent from all parties on this.

[The Chair]

The member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour has sought unanimous consent to have 30 minutes for questions to the minister rather than 10 minutes.

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Let us use up the first 10 minutes and then we will go from there. The hon. member for Prince George--Peace River.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, that is indeed unfortunate that on the first night of a take note debate on an issue of this importance, despite their new Prime Minister's claim that he wants to address the so-called democratic deficit, to use his term, that we cannot have longer to quiz the Minister of Agriculture on this critical issue.

Recognizing the fact that we want to share the limited time with others, I want to begin to make just a couple of quick points. One is that the minister started out his remarks by suggesting that it was the Liberal member for Huron--Bruce who prompted this. I would beg to differ. It was the House leader of the opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, who actually took the time to write a letter to the Speaker to request an emergency debate, and actually go through the process and the correct procedure. Therefore, I want that on the record at the outset.

The problem we have is that the minister in the limited time of 10 minutes basically gave farmers across Canada and farm families who are suffering now a rundown of what has happened over the last two months. They know what has happened. They want to know what the government will do, not what has happened in the past.

He recognized that consumption of beef has risen and yet farmers have not seen an increase in price to them, even though the price has stayed up in the supermarkets.

What is his government actually going to do down the road, today, starting tonight, to correct this problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the opposition party is moving away from the non-partisanship of this debate. It was not me who said no. I would be more than happy to stay here and answer any of the members' questions.

If the hon. member wants to go through the right process and talk to the right people, which is the people in the House, to discuss how we might want to do this, I would be more than pleased. I have hon. members who want to stand up and debate this. They want to make a point. If we run out of time at the end, because I have given it to the hon. member, then they cannot do that.

Therefore, I would hope that hon. members would recognize that there are ways of doing that and that they would go through the right process to do it.

If we want to talk about the democratic deficit, we can talk about where we are moving on this. I would be more than happy to talk to the hon. members as to what we are doing on this. What I will tell the hon. members is what I have told all Canadians. What we plan to do and what we will continue to do is push foreign governments to open the borders. That is what Canadian farmers have told me that we need to do. We will continue to do that.

[The Chair]

I would like to offer a comment. No doubt a large number of Canadians are very interested in this subject matter, are very concerned and are being greatly affected.

Sometimes we ask ourselves how Canadians view our proceedings. I dare say that I think we could all imagine what the answer might be if we were to take a snapshot of the early moments of this most significant debate at this time in our country.

I leave it to you, members.

The hon. member for Peace River on a point of order.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Chair, considering the remarks that you just made, I wonder if we could ask the minister to reconsider the request to extend this question period so that we could have a little bit of time. Do you know that some of the members here have only had a chance to speak for five minutes? I think this is a subject that deserves a lot more debate than that. We have people going broke left, right and centre in Canada over this issue.

I would ask that we put the question again to the Liberals, the other side that denied this, and ask if we could extend the question period for the minister to 30 minutes.

[The Chair]

On behalf of the member for Peace River, is there unanimous consent to extend the question time to the minister to 30 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair]

I erred in not recognizing first the lead spokesperson for the official opposition. The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe that if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to allow members wishing to split their time slot during this evening's take note debate to do so.

[The Chair]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Chair, it is great to finally get this out here in the open and to have the minister here. I thank him for his contribution so far.

This goes beyond the beef sector and so on. All livestock sectors are facing this. There is a lot of collateral damage. There are a lot of other industries out there that hinge around livestock. Neither the BSE compensation program or whatever came anywhere near those industries. Is the minister considering anything along those lines, I mean all of the other livestock industries that were affected, the sheep, buffalo and the elk, including the truckers, everyone that pivots around that livestock industry, is there any sort of compensation program that you are considering for those folks?

[The Chair]

We are prolonging the original question time. Was the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster asking a question to the minister?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair]

I will allow the minister to respond. After that I will go to the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour on a question.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to tell the hon. member and all hon. members that we do recognize that this has had a negative impact not only on farmers and farm families, but on communities and a number of businesses within these communities.

What we have done is we have moved forward to try to open up the borders. Will there be compensation for everyone who has been impacted by this? No, I do not think so.

What I have asked my officials to do is to look specifically at how this is impacting other sectors. I have asked them to see what it is that we could be doing to help out in these other sectors. Do we have a plan for a specific package for them? No, we do not.

As members know, this is something that is not only federal, but also provincial. It is something that we are trying to work together at both the federal and the provincial level to respond to some of the problems that this is creating.

What the industry has told me, first and foremost, is that we have to sell and market Canadian beef, and that is where we are putting our priorities. We also have to recognize that farmers are being impacted. We are trying to make sure that the dollars that should be going to them flow to them and get out to them as soon as possible.

In fact, as we speak now cheques being cut in a number of different areas. We are trying to get those dollars out to people to help them through this troubling time.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Chair, following up somewhat on my colleague's first question, he said that our expectation of the minister this evening was to get some concrete solutions from him, for instance to be able to tell the dairy farmers that have come here to Ottawa that the government has $10 million or $20 million to invest. Between January 1 and today there has been no support program in place.

All we have had this evening is a ministerial travelogue. He went to Japan, and to Korea. He has announced that broader testing would be in place within five years.

There is nothing concrete for farmers and producers, nothing concrete. This is a major disappointment, for the farmers at least, and particularly those I have the most contact with in central Quebec. I would also like point out that, historically, no minister of agriculture, and most particularly not the last one, has ever acknowledged the differences among Canada's various regions.

Take the aid packages for example. If I compare the situation in Quebec and in western Canada, that is great if western Canada is happy with part of the program. In Quebec, however, dairy farmers are culling 25% of their herds. Under this compensation program, they will be getting a mere 16%. This means they will not be getting any compensation for 35% of their livestock.

By comparison, in western Canada, only 9% of herds are culled. Therefore, they will be receiving 90% in compensation. This goes to show that there are regional disparities.

Providing $1 a day in compensation fails to recognize the fact that, in certain parts of Canada, the livestock does not live inside the barn, but outside. The cost is less than when one has to sell cull because there is no room for them inside the barn come the fall. There are differences like that.

With respect to health regulations, the president of the UPA, Laurent Pellerin, said that had we had special regulations for the regions of Canada, only one region would be affected by the mad cow crisis right now. But this difference between the regions and Quebec in particular was never acknowledged.

Is the new minister prepared to announce today that he plans to sit down with provincial representatives to examine these differences to ensure that the fact that 47% of cull cows are in Quebec, for instance, is not overlooked? Not every region is the same. In other regions, other factors will be considered.

These differences must be taken into account, instead of having national standards which made me say, one evening, that mad cow disease was being made into a symbol of Canadian unity.