Debates of Feb. 4th, 2004

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Indeed, the situation is just as dramatic for us; he has described it well.

There is one point that requires more emphasis, and that is that the agricultural producer is not at all responsible for this crisis and is the only one who loses, who suffers the consequences. The producer is not responsible because it was bad management or simply a natural disaster—we could call it that—as if there were a flood, or an illness like SARS, or a forest fire. It is a tragedy that has occurred.That is why the government has a duty and an obligation to provide assistance.

The hon. member spoke about families, and that is true. Agricultural producers, particularly dairy farmers—and I believe there are many in the hon. member's part of New Brunswick—had a tradition. In the fall, they would sell their culled cattle and that provided the income for family life. It was spent on the children's education, and for living in general. It provided about 75% of their income. The money they needed to live on came from the sale of culled cows. Now they no longer have this income.

The cull they sold for $1,000 would sell for $100 today; and they are lucky to get $100. The prices are as low as $60 or $70. Therefore, they no longer have this income. But what shocks them even more—and it shocks me, too, as their member of Parliament—is that while the price of a cow has fallen to $100, the steak on the butcher's block has stayed the same price. Something is not right with these prices.

In Quebec, a commission of inquiry was set up; it concluded that all was well and that everything was just as it should be. I was very surprised that the Charest government arrived at that conclusion. It is just not logical that beef animals sell for one tenth the price, while at the other end of the food chain, the consumer is paying the same price as before. Someone in the middle must be getting fat.

Perhaps the government ought to step in and conduct a serious investigation to make sure that no one exploits the agricultural producers during this crisis.

Nevertheless, the real solution is for the government to put the money on the table right away, because it is a national crisis and not the fault of the farmers. The farmers are victims and the government has a duty to help them.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chair, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Quebec and also the member for Acadie--Bathurst. While I do not agree with everything that they said, I can relate much more to what they said than I can to my colleagues in the alliance.

It seems to me that this talk of western alienation does not serve the Canadian public or the industry well. This is a serious national tragedy. It is a tragedy which affects the entire ruminant industry and which is spreading out to affect the entire farming community. As my colleagues here were trying to say, it is already going beyond the farming community into our economy in general. To talk of it as a western problem and something to be dealt with in the west, that it is mainly a beef packing problem, does not serve the Canadian public or the farm community well.

I was interested in what my colleague had to say. To use one example, it is not just beef cattle we are talking about; we are talking about sheep, goats and the dairy industry. For the people out there, and there are many farmers watching, the dairy industry of Quebec is famous. I would like my colleague to explain in further detail the impact this BSE problem is having on our dairy industry, the famous milk industry of Quebec. I would be grateful if he would explain that as distinct from the tragic effects it is having on beef cattle and the other animals that I mentioned.

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

Mr. Chair, the most serious consequences, naturally, concern cull cows.

In fact, 75% of cull cows slaughtered in Quebec were sold to the United States. These producers now have no access to that market. This means that the average producer, who sold about 20 cull cows each fall at $1,000 to $1,200 a head, earned between $20,000 and $25,000 with which to support his family. This represented 75% of his income; his milk production accounting for the remaining 25%.

However, such producers are completely helpless, because 75% of their income has disappeared. The cow they previously sold for $1,000 to $1,200 now sells for barely $100. However, as I said earlier, the retail price of meat has not changed. This is somewhat contradictory.

These producers are suffering. Some 47% of all milk is produced in Quebec. Consequently, milk producers are facing a serious crisis. Naturally, beef and other producers are also affected, but these producers are hardest hit.

In my opinion, the government recognized the problem when it implemented the program, and the Quebec government also provided compensation. However, this program was not generous enough.

The hon. member is a government member; he must speak to his caucus, his Minister of Finance and his Prime Minister to make them understand that, as he indicated earlier, this is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for these people. These producers are not responsible. They are therefore entitled to assistance, as are regions hit by floods, forest fires or, as Ontario was, by the SARS epidemic.

This is a tragedy, and I think the government must take more concrete action.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chair, I want to begin by congratulating the minister on his appointment two months ago. We all recognize that he has been thrown in at the deep end with this second case of mad cow.

It needs to be pointed out that the tenor of the debate tonight is in part a reflection of the number of emergency and special debates that we have had in the House of Commons over the last seven years dealing with agriculture. We seem to come back to it time and time again because we do not seem to get the resolutions to the problem. I appreciate that BSE is a separate issue but I think it is a reality, whether it was the AIDA program, CFIP, or some of the other problems we have been going through, drought and other things, we talk about it but we do not ever seem to come up with a solution that would satisfy people and allow us to move on.

What has happened obviously has amounted to an annus horribilis . We had one Canadian cow last May and then just at a time when it looked like the border might be on the verge of reopening to live exports, there was the cow in Washington state that also had a Canadian connection.

There is some optimism. The minister reflected it again tonight in his remarks about the peer review panel in the United States. Many farmers believe that it will not be until after the election in the United States in November that the border will reopen to live cattle exports.

Someone who is very knowledgeable on the mad cow issue said to me earlier this week that BSE is a disease that has had little effect on animals and little effect on human health, in fact none that we are aware of in this country, but has had a massive negative effect on the economic health of rural Canada. That is why we are here tonight. We are talking about the devastating results, the $2 billion hit and counting. The young cattle over winter which have been referred to by others, calves are selling for 50¢ a pound and cull cattle are perhaps fetching 7¢ a pound.

We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government and other provinces pour in to try to fix this. We acknowledge and recognize that precious little of that money has actually reached the people who need it most. My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst referred to the smaller farmers, the cow calf operators, the people who background and finish the cattle, seem not to have received the money whereas the packers appear to be laughing all the way to the bank.

Last June the federal government agreed to step up the testing. That was one of the recommendations from the international panel of experts. Brian Evans of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency talked about inspecting between 60,000 and 80,000 head of cattle. While we are moving in that direction, we are certainly not going to be anywhere close to it. In fact three or four years from now, we may be at 30,000 as I look at the statistics.

There are some different ideas about what kind of testing for mad cow we are going to use. Currently we are using what is referred to as the gold standard. There are some that take up to a week and for the industry, that appears to be too long. The Swiss rapid test is also being considered which reduces the time significantly. As I understand it, the CFIA is committed not to do testing at the slaughterhouse; it wants to do surveillance testing and that should start with older cattle and obviously downer cows.

More and more people are saying that we should follow the Japanese and test every animal. Perhaps they are right, although I tend to think that we do not need to test animals that are younger than 24 months, perhaps 30 months. The U.K. test at 24 months; France and a number of other European countries test every animal over 30 months of age.

The National Farmers Union has forecast that BSE testing of all animals would actually add less than 1¢ per pound to the price of a hamburger and insisted that is a small price to pay to be assured of safe food. Who could argue with that, given the hit that has been taken by the industry.

In addition to more testing, the international panel of experts also called for a ban on specified risk materials which was implemented promptly by the government. It also recommended banning all animal to animal feed. As everybody here is aware, the ban on animal to ruminants came into effect in August 1997. It is interesting to note that both of the cows that tested positive for BSE were born in 1997 but prior to the August date.

As was noted earlier, the Americans did ban the blood protein to cattle along with poultry litter and table scraps. The latter two were banned by Canada sometime ago. We have not yet followed up on the blood protein but I gather that our scientists are looking at that issue.

Let me turn for a moment to the integration of the North American cattle industry. I think that Canadian cattle producers are fond of saying that it is a North American herd but I am not sure that a lot of American ranchers feel that it is a North American herd. I would supplement that argument by referencing what Senator Tom Daschle said which was read into the record earlier, and that is why I think we are going to have some difficulty seeing the border open before the U.S. presidential election in November.

It seemed to me last summer in the early rush after the first mad cow was discovered that our farmers and ranchers did not want the Canadian government to do anything that would put them out of step in any way with what was being done in the American beef industry. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association and others are quite happy to go in lockstep with whatever the Americans are doing. They would not want, for example, to eliminate the bovine growth hormone or test a lot more cattle or ban all animal to animal feed.

In summary, I think that the industry is far too integrated for its own good or probably for this country's own good.

The agriculture minister once removed used to brag about Canadian products being the safest in the world. Most of us believed that and perhaps we still do. While Canadians still have tremendous confidence in food safety as evidenced by the rise in beef consumption following May 20, I do not think we are bragging about it the way that we used to. We recognize that there are some difficulties. Time does not permit me to make reference to the Vancouver Sun access to information on the conditions of many of our meat packing plants but it should be required reading because it is very sobering material.

We in this party have been very concerned for a long time about the reduction in meat inspections and inspectors and the trend to more self-regulation. A lot of members on the agriculture committee are here tonight and they know better than I do about the HACCP program that is coming in. That would result in actually fewer federal meat inspectors doing less frontline work and more auditing of the work being done by the companies' own inspectors. In the wake of this issue and the impact that it has had, we need to think very carefully about whether we should be reducing frontline meat inspectors who are employed by the government at this time.

In defence of the employees who work for CFIA and the department, by any objective standard our response to the discovery of mad cow last spring was head and shoulders above what happened in the United States in terms of identifying the other animals in those herds, in terms of ear tags and other things. It is important for that to be on the record.

What we need is money going to the industry from the Government of Canada to assist at this time of crisis so that the industry can go forward. We need to do that very promptly.

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

Madam Chair, I will be brief. I see there is a member across the way who also wishes to pose a question.

One thing that was noted earlier in the debate, which I want to pay tribute to, was the fact that it had not only been farmers trying to help farmers through this crisis, but, as was pointed out by a number of people, also Canadian consumers had responded tremendously across the country to try to assist the agricultural sector and specifically beef producers through this crisis.

Unfortunately, their best efforts have actually worked in reverse to what they were trying to do. It is rather ironic that with beef consumption up, recently we had a spokesperson for I think it was Canada Safeway say that there was no need to bring down the price because demand was up. In other words, the packing plants, which the member referred to, and the supermarkets seem to be doing quite fine, thanks very much, and the money is not filtering down to the farmer.

Even though the Canadian consumers out there are responding at the marketplace and trying to assist farmers, it has not been helping.

I would wonder when the Competition Bureau said, quite rightly I suppose, that it was really a basic tenet of supply and demand and because demand was up, then there really was no room to rule in favour of price collusion.

The member also made the same note that a number of us have made, that the industry and particularly farmers need money now. They need it immediately or they will go broke. This farm crisis is having a devastating effect on farm families. Does the member who just spoke have any idea as to how the government can target the money to the producers? I think it has to be sufficient and it has to be immediate so even if the cow is worth nothing, then at least the producer can survive in the short term.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Chair, in answer to my colleague's last question, I was actually a bit surprised last year that there was not more uptake from the government to the offer from the cattlemen's association and others in the industry that some money go to them, especially on the cull cattle, but that they be given the option of whether they wanted to market that cow or that animal today or whether they wanted to hold on to her until the market improved.

For whatever reason the governments, because the provinces were involved as well, did not want to follow that option. I think what the cattlemen were saying was that if they all had to market their cattle immediately obviously that would depress the prices. If they could have spread it out over some time, that would give the industry an opportunity and prices should go up accordingly.

I do not know what the rationale for that was. I think in hindsight that frankly it was a mistake that they did not proceed in the manner.

The intervenor mentioned the Competition Bureau. A half a dozen members of my caucus had written to the Competition Bureau last October requesting it to look at what appeared to us to be price collusion, and we wanted it investigated.

Subsequently, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food put in a similar request. I am sad to say that from the acting commissioner, we both got the short end of stick. I will quote the last paragraph. It says, “With respect to requests that the Bureau of Competition agree to an immediate and thorough review of the BSE recovery program, in order to determine whether the more than $460 million from taxpayers was fairly and properly distributed within the industry, I should point out that this falls outside the scope of the Bureau's mandate”.

I think that is highly unfortunate for a lot of Canadians and certainly for cattle producers.

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

Madam Chair, on that point I would say that if we took a look at changing the burden of proof from the Competition Bureau from the criminal burden of proof, which sounds good, it is very a high bar to make it civil. I think that could be a much more effective organization.

I would certainly support the procedure and House affairs committee striking the agriculture committee immediately and looking into this issue of why the price has not gone down and why the only people who seem to be paying for this crisis are the consumers and the farmers. That is something which needs to be looked at. I think the people who are watching this debate at home can take some heart in the fact that the members of the agriculture committee who speak on this are extremely knowledgeable and short term, we need to be guided by what their recommendations are. They produce unanimous reports and they are very useful.

I want to just mention a couple of things to this member, in terms of maybe the longer term or the larger issue here.

It seems to me that if this had happened 10 years ago, given export statistics of Canadian cattle, we would have been in much better shape because much more of our domestic supply made up the larger market. Canadians stepped up to the plate. Canadians increased their consumption of beef through this crisis. If we were in the position the United States is, where upwards of 90% of its market is domestic, and if Canadians stepped up to the plate, we would not be in the situation we are in today.

Ironically, it is the government itself that launched programs through the 1990s to try to get farmers to get into export markets. I think that globalization is a bit of a double-edged sword. There are all kinds of opportunities, but there are also all kinds of risks. We are starting to see some of the risks of putting farmers in that position.

I have listened to descriptions of some of the problems faced by western farmers, but in eastern Ontario a lot of the beef farmers are not set up in terms of infrastructure and barns to finish these cows over the winter and provincially--

[An hon. member]

What is the question?

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

It is comments too, so I am making a comment.

They are not used to doing that so they are relying on the feed producers to give them outreach information. In some cases, the infrastructure is not there. We had a late winter, we were looking good, and we had not had the second case.

BSE exists in one in a million cows spontaneously. The hon. member talked about testing. They talk about science and science-based. Look at Japan, it is not making decisions based on science. It has had two outbreaks. It is very political over there.

Would the hon. member please talk a bit more about perhaps looking at universal testing. It is BSE today? If we look at what is happening in SARS, one of the natures of a global market is we do not know what the next crisis is. Would it not be useful to think about testing and branding Canadian product to be the safest in the world? Even though the science does not support that move, but the consumers are not making their decision based on science.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Chair, yes, I think there is an argument to do more testing. The point that I have been trying to make in my remarks is that we are too wedded to the American market for our own good. We should be looking beyond the American border. Yes, it has been fine over the past while, it has looked good, and I think the industry said, “Let's just keep it going”.

I would like us to be in a position where countries like Japan and European countries would want to buy our beef because they would be satisfied, they would be persuaded that we had an excellent product that people around the world would want to buy. So far I do not think the industry sees it that way and that is the unfortunate thing.

I do not know about the spontaneity. I think animal feed is the reality here.

The other thing I would say to the member in passing, and I am looking at the Chair, is maybe we need a lawyer on the agriculture committee to help us with the Competition Bureau or other challenges.

The reality is with 330 million people in the United States, they can eat their way out of a lot more problems than we can, with 30-odd million. The fact of the matter is that our industry is predicated on exporting 60% or 70% of our product, most of it to the United States. We should be diversifying.

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

Madam Chair, I know the member for Palliser, in his comments to the minister, questioned the use of American beef to feed our troops in Afghanistan at this time. The reasoning we heard is the Americans won the tender. Part of the other reasoning was that the Americans could deliver it over there because that was their supply line and so on. When we looked into that a little further, we found that our troops in Bosnia were eating Brazilian beef.

Are Brazilian airlines delivering now to Bosnia or are they the cheapest tender? It is outside of NAFTA. How does it square that circle?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

I was not aware of the situation in Bosnia, Madam Chair, but it does speak to the need. We have a crisis in the country. We have to support one another. We have Canadian troops in Afghanistan, Bosnia and other places. We have to go the extra mile and try to ensure that we can move more of our product to those people, recognizing that our beef is currently banned in a number of other countries.

I understand about supply lines. It is funny on free trade the Americans still have a buy-America policy. We do not seem to have a buy-Canada policy and we definitely need one.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Chair, I just want to note before I begin that I want to extend my appreciation to the House for its cooperation in allowing this debate to happen this evening.

I am also aware that the Chair is very judicious in its practice of making sure we do not recognize those particularly in the House who perhaps are not at our level but are within the House, so I will be very careful to note that those who might be here will not be recognized by myself.

However, there is a huge audience in Canada watching this debate and some of those people are dairymen. Some of those people are somewhere in this city and perhaps are watching as we speak.

As someone who is engaged in the business of farming for my entire life, I know how important this debate is to primary producers. Through this debate we are sending a signal that this is a national issue that must receive attention at the highest level. No one farmer or sector in the industry should face this challenge alone.

Yesterday I received a media call concerning this debate. The basic question posed was: What do I hope to achieve with this debate? Based upon this question I offer my remarks this evening.

As you well know, Madam Chair, BSE is not just a rural matter. It is a matter affecting every Canadian. Furthermore, BSE is also no just an issue affecting food security, but it is something that has negatively impacted our national economy.

Given this, I would say that this debate is about sharing information.

First, with the Minister of Agriculture, yesterday at the Dairy Farmers of Canada annual policy conference, he again restated his desire to consult with stakeholders and with parliamentarians. I believe that it is our duty to fulfil that request by providing the minister with the facts that we have. The minister will then be equipped to take the commentary into consideration as he works with the Americans, the Japanese, the Europeans and even the Mexicans.

Furthermore, in this debate we must underscore the fact that Canadian beef is safe and of the highest quality. Canadians understand this, and we need to reassure and remind our international partners of this issue.

Second, with Canadians who are not farmers, Canadian farmers have a firsthand understanding of what BSE has done to the industry and subsequently to small town Canada, not just to beef but to the dairy sheep and also to the goat industries. There has been a substantial impact on the pet food industry as well as farm machinery dealers and countless other peripheral segments of our economy.

Canadian beef production is worth about $30 billion annually to our economy. The average Canadian I am told eats about 132 times a year with beef on the plate. There are nearly 15 million beef cattle in Canada, and Canada is the third largest beef and cattle exporter on the planet.

It is for these reasons and more that we must act to save this industry. I firmly believe that non-farming Canadians want to understand the complexities of this topic. Canadians have a long history of rallying to help those in need. Also, Canadians want to help our farmers, and I believe that this debate is a mechanism by which we can inform them of how we might do that.

Third, and perhaps most important, I believe that government can relay a very important message to those who seek to unfairly profit from this disaster. While I can accept that every person is entitled to make a living, I do not accept that someone has the right to make that living on the backs of the underprivileged.

Those are the areas that I would like to touch upon during my remarks this evening. I would hope that when we are finished here tonight our farmers will know that every member of the House, regardless of political affiliation, stands with them and that we will take any and all steps required to put this crisis behind us as soon as possible.

Prior to prorogation, I served as the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture. The committee worked tirelessly on all sides of the table to explore this issue and provide recommendations to the government on how to best address this BSE crisis.

While I assume that most members of the House have seen the report, because the recommendations were both instructive and unanimously supported by all parties, I am now going to read a number of them in part at least into the record so that it is there for the record.

The committee recommends that specific risk materials are not included in animal feed. This must be enforced and audited for compliance.

The committee recommends that the government work with the CFIA, the industry and provinces to enhance the existing Canadian cattle identification program by establishing a comprehensive and cost effective national traceability system.

The committee recommends the establishment of a task force that would focus specifically on the trade issues involved in the restoration of export markets for livestock and related meat products.

In order to ensure that increased costs resulting from changes made to inspection, rendering practices and traceability systems are not borne solely by producers, the committee recommends that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food increase the budget of the CFIA. Furthermore, the committee recommends that the minister name an auditor to ensure that additional costs be kept to a minimum and shared equitably among all stakeholders in the livestock industry.

The committee recommends a compensation plan for a culling program, which would include dairy cull cows, that should be conducted according to an attrition rate that would allow the industry to better balance supply and demand. Since such a program will require the development of meat products with greater value added, the committee recommends that the government support the industry through a special assistance fund for the development of new market opportunities.

The committee recommends that the Competition Bureau conduct an investigation into the price of beef at the processing and retail levels.

Given my first purpose for asking for this debate tonight, I would respectfully remind the minister that these recommendations are the product of considerable national consultation.

On the second point, as a farmer and as an MP representing a riding in which agriculture is the primary industry, I would like to thank all Canadians. It should be pointed out that Canada is the first nation in history to see an increase in domestic consumption of beef following a case of BSE. Madam Chair, through you to all Canadians, we thank you.

I have saved my most salient point for last, and that is unfair profiteering. I must say that the packing houses have been subjected to the vast majority of this criticism. Why, people might ask. I will tell them why.

In May of last year, just prior to the identification of the single Canadian case of BSE, according to market reports, live steers were averaging between $1.05 and $1.12; Holstein steers were selling somewhere between 90¢ and 95¢ and cows at 50¢ to 60¢. Today, one year later, relative to live prices, 78¢ is now being paid for steers, Holstein steers are at 25¢ and cows are 18¢ to 23¢. This is only after some stabilization in the market has occurred. The prices had even been lower.

Despite the substantial drop in prices paid to farmers, the price to consumers does not seem to be going down accordingly. Earlier today I consulted with a grocer in my riding who told me that today he is selling strip loin for $10.99 per pound and top sirloin for $6.99 a pound. I asked him to compare the price that he pays for beef today to what he was paying prior to the BSE discovery and he told me that there was no measurable difference.

Now I am no economist but this seems suspicious. Despite the fact that farmers are receiving 40% to 60% less today than they were a year ago, consumers are paying the same amount.

Some might attempt to distort the issue by saying that the cost of disposing of bones, blood and fat has increased, hence adding to the consumer cost. I spoke to a butcher in my riding who told me that, while his disposal costs have indeed increased, they could not begin to justify maintaining the pre-BSE retail prices of beef given the lower price being paid to farmers.

With this in mind, I would direct the House's attention to the committee's recommendation calling for the Competition Bureau to investigate this matter. It should be noted that a letter was sent to the bureau. However the committee's concerns on behalf of farmers were summarily dismissed.

Specifically, the acting commissioner of competition stated that the Competition Act did not provide the bureau with the authority to look into this matter. He then stated that while price fixing is illegal, unconscionable profiteering is not in and of itself contrary to the act.

Statistics are showing that in 2002 the average Canadian ate 48.3 pounds of beef. I would suggest that even I cannot eat that much bull. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could remind the bureau that it exists to prevent the development of an anti-competitive marketplace. Failing that, perhaps we should address this issue legislatively via amendments to the Competition Act.

I have much more I want to say but I see my time is running out. As my final point I want to thank the committee. Many of the members who worked on this issue are here this evening. I also thank my colleagues in the House, especially the vice-chairs of our committee. Our cooperative relationship is not lost on those we work to serve. I look forward to resuming our work in the near future.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Chair, I understand the member was the agriculture chair so I have a question for him from the Saskatchewan stock growers in my riding.

They are asking about a need for regulations to be compatible with the policy and regulations of the United States. He said that currently Canada requires feeder cattle imported from the U.S. to be tested for livestock diseases; that the cost of these tests is an impediment to trade; that bluetongue and anaplasmosis do not pose a risk to human health as both are animal diseases only; and that the current restrictions are in excess of the acceptable risk to the livestock industry and impedes our ability to regain market access for live cattle to the U.S. as part of our BSE recovery strategy.

I would like to know if the member could comment on that.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Chair, that is an issue that has been raised a number of times, both to myself and to the committee.

This is an issue that has been an irritant to the American farmers in terms of them being able to place live cattle into Canada year round. It is an issue that I think the minister is looking into in terms of how we can deal with it. I do understand that the climate that we have in Canada does not allow for those diseases in particular to perpetuate themselves in the winter months because of our cold climate.

It is not particularly an issue that is of great danger to our industry. I expect that somehow, in the next number of months or so, we may have some resolution to that issue, trusting that in some part that may be a way in which we can help the Americans to understand that the border needs to be opened.

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

Madam Chair, this summer I had a chance to talk with cattle producers all the way through my riding. One of the things that has become very apparent to me is the profiteering by the packing houses, one in particular in Ontario. It is at the point where producers have complained to me privately in my office that they cannot really come out publicly and complain about the profiteering because if they do they will be blackballed when they go to the stockyards. They will get a lower price than they would normally get. They are hooked into a situation where they cannot speak out.

Once the standing committee on agriculture gets up and running, how can we look into this issue? How can we get the Competition Bureau involved in this, because there is profiteering and it has even become worse than that; there is suppressive action within the farming community?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Chair, that is probably the biggest question that our committee will have when we resume our sittings, hopefully in the next two weeks.

Profiteering on the part of packers, given that there is limited competition, that the culled cows are no longer going to the United States and have to be slaughtered here, that there is limited hook space, obviously in a time and a climate when basically we are running short of that kind of beef, and when our processors are saying to us “we may have to ask you to look at supplementary imports, at a time when we have all these cows in the country that need to be slaughtered”, I think that it is pretty disgusting.

It is my hope that when the committee reconvenes we will, as a committee, agree to have the packers, who have not agreed in the past, to appear. If we have to as a committee, and I am sure we had that agreement prior to prorogation, we will subpoena some of those people to the committee, because I do believe there is a story to be told. Obviously those people who have the story to tell from the producers' side cannot tell it for the fear of repercussions.

Therefore, we have to find a way where their message can come to us. Whether we have to use the witness protection act or whatever act we might have to use, we will find ways. We have a pretty ingenious committee and I know we are all diligent in finding some resolution to this.

I cannot accept the Competition Bureau's view that simply going out and gouging in this case, because there are no others in the marketplace, that it is fair ball. It is not fair ball. Our farmers have been gouged and raped, and we have to do something about it. We are the only advocate farmers have left. They themselves cannot go to the table because of the fact that there would be repercussions for them in the industry if they did that.

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

Madam Chair, I have a question for my colleague across the way. I think he is well aware that we are still importing large quantities of beef into our country despite the fact that there is growing domestic over-supply. I would be interested in his view of why that is so from the government's point of view. Also, what does he believe the government can do about that over-supply we have when we are importing all the time into the county?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Chair, as the hon. member well knows, Canada does have commitments within the North American Free Trade Agreement. We have TRQs in terms of quotas that we have to honour, because basically those quotas have been honoured, and the beef industry itself knows that Canada has a commitment to those agreements. It was on the supplementary import side quotas that we basically said that we would close that down. There are no supplementary quotas being honoured or being engaged in at this time.

However the 78,000 tonnes that we normally import, that is an ongoing agreement that we have with the Americans. While we are exporting we are also importing. Canada, because of its diversity in terms of geography, imports a lot of beef, particularly into Ontario, because we do not sustain the appetite of the consuming public in Ontario. We simply do not have the beef in Ontario. We have to rely on the west and on the Americans, and much of the western beef, of course, goes to the United States. It is an integrated market so there is a shifting of meat both north and south and east and west as well. That will continue because those are long standing agreements.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada-U.S.)]

Madam Chair, I want to commend the hon. member for Huron—Bruce for his interventions tonight. This is an important debate for farmers and families in Kings—Hants and, in fact, for all Canadians. It is great to see the non-partisan spirit of cooperation here tonight as we are addressing a very important issue.

President Bush's statement in Monterrey and his recognition that this is a Canada-U.S. issue and not specifically a Canadian issue, but that it is an integrated industry, and that because of the fact that it is an integrated industry, Canadian and U.S. administrations, the public service and the industry have to work together to find a way to address this issue and then to jointly work together to defend our integrated industry around the world, I thought was very positive. It is also positive to see the cooperation at the public service level and the fact that the U.S. agencies have upgraded their standards to match Canadian standards.

That being the case, particularly in an election year in the U.S., there is a great deal of fear that this will be politicized more and more in the coming months at the congressional level.

While we are seeing great progress at the administration level between the Prime Minister and the president on this issue, I would appreciate the hon. member's feedback on the importance of dialogue between Canadian and U.S. legislators and between parliamentarians and congressional representatives in the coming months, and the fact that it ought to be a multi-partisan effort between Canadian and U.S. legislators in the coming months. That is something that is a priority for myself in my role but it is also one that I would appreciate the hon. member's feedback on as someone who is very involved in this issue.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Chair, I think my hon. colleague's question is very much in order and very appropriate given the circumstances of the past 24 months or so in this country and the attitudes that have prevailed between the countries both north and south. It is important.

The Prime Minister has taken the initiative already by indicating that there needs to be greater dialogue between not only the leaders but from a committee standpoint. The Americans have an agriculture committee and we have an all party committee. This goes across all party lines. As Canadians we need to identify the kinds of concerns we have because, basically, Canadian farmers are not much different than American farmers and Canadian politicians are not that much different either for that matter.

Sometimes it is pretty hard to separate the science and the politics but I think we need to go beyond all of those things. I do not believe that one cow, either an American cow or a Canadian cow, should cause us to close our borders. In an integrated industry we need transparency and we need identification, and Canada has done very well in doing that. In fact, the Americans are looking at us as the model to follow in terms of how we do that, particularly in the way they did their peer review work.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, it is a privilege for me to speak on this issue. I am coming at it from a different perspective because I speak as a senior health critic, so I want to address it from a health perspective. However, I also want to address this issue from a personal perspective because I have spent a number of years, in fact all my life, in agriculture.

We have heard that the dairy industry is very concerned as well as the beef industry. I have spent most of my life in the dairy industry. There have been comments here this evening, talking about whether this is a western issue, an eastern issue or a central Canada issue. This is an all Canadian issue and the dairy farmers in Quebec are no different than the dairy farmers in Alberta. They fight with the same problems and from the same perspectives on this issue. It affects them in exactly the same way.

I can tell members that the beef industry is the same from coast to coast as well. The difference comes in the magnitude of the problems and the number of them in different provinces as they relate to their respective provinces and geographic areas.

I am a little upset about how this debate started and how it has gone this evening. It started with everybody bragging about how wonderful it was to bring this debate into the House of Commons as a take note debate. It is absolutely ridiculous that we would have a take note debate on something that we already know about. This is an emergency debate. The lives of families are at risk. They are on the line right now and it absolutely must be an emergency debate. The government must step up to the plate and do something about it.

I can tell members what I spent most of my summer doing, besides eating beef. I spent most of my summer talking to the farmers and the people who are affected from one side of my riding to the other, and it is a large geographic area. I can tell members that it affects not only the beef and dairy industries, but the chronic wasting disease that is in the elk industry, of which I also have firsthand experience. It is actually into its third year of what could be called the BSE crisis because elk have been impacted with chronic wasting disease and then all of a sudden got impacted by BSE, out of no fault of their own. There is no scientific proof behind it.

I want to address this situation because we say that it is all about health and safety. I believe it is health and safety; however Canadians understood it to not be a health and safety issue. This summer they increased their consumption by 15%. Thank goodness they did. We know that one mad cow in this country does not constitute a national disaster as far as a health crisis when that cow did not even get into the food chain.

Thank goodness that because of our surveillance system and the kind of discipline that we have around the industry that it was not the case. Nor does it matter whether the animal came from the United States or Canada because we both use the same protocol and stopped feeding animal by-products to ruminant animals in October 1997 on both sides of the border. It is immaterial as to where the animal came from because it is just the luck of the draw if it happens on one side of the border or the other, if this is indeed where this BSE originates from. Let us stop the rhetoric about where it came from. It is an integrated market in this industry on both sides of the border.

This is about politics. This is not about health and safety. I would challenge our government to ask why the relationship with the United States deteriorated to the point where we cannot talk constructively about it.

I will say that the government is playing politics too. I have heard a number of government people say tonight that this is all about politics, that it has nothing to do with health and safety. If that is the case, why are we not allowing American beef feeders to come into our market right now? We have had one case of BSE and we have stopped them from coming in and feeding their animals into Canada at the present time. I am saying we should put our money where our mouths are. That is the kind of relationship stuff that destroys the integration of the market.

I could go on about what we must do politically to ensure that this industry sustains itself and that we get the border opened up, but we must show some good faith on both sides of the border, and we have to see this as not about health and safety. We have to talk about the science of it and the science will prove that it is not about health and safety. This is about politics. This is not about mad cow, this is mad politics, and it must stop. We have to get this industry going again and the government must step up to the plate and support the farmers in their time of need.

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

Madam Chair, I thought I heard my hon. colleague say that he wants us to open up the border to American beef, feeder cattle coming across. I wonder if that is the point he wants to make.

What we should be doing in this case is basing the decisions on science and that is exactly what we have done. What we need to do is to recognize again that this is a North American issue. If the Americans were to look at the science--and I believe they will look at the science because the science is overwhelming--then at that point we should open our border but certainly not before.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Chair, I would like to clear this up because that is what I am saying.

All summer long we asked the Americans to open their border. The science proves that this is not about health and safety. We asked them to open the border up because we have the safest product in the world, and I will stand by that, and the science will prove that as well.

How then can we turn around and say to them, when they have one animal, that we will shut our border to their animals coming into Canada? We are on dangerous ground when our actions do not follow what we have been saying. It actually proves them to be right if we do not do that. This is an integrated market.

I was upset with some of the comments that I heard earlier tonight saying that we should start a trade war with the Americans and get really rough with them. I think the exact term was that we should be playing hardball with them. That is the wrong approach in this situation.

What we have to do is make them realize that this should not be about politics. We have to make them realize that this is not about health and safety. We must open the border to an integrated market. Canadian beef is every bit as safe as American beef and vice versa. It is an integrated market. We should be dealing with this as an American situation and then moving forward to international markets beyond the American border.

I know the minister realizes just how integrated this market is. There is nothing we can do about that except get the politics out of it and let the science make that happen. We should be working to that end.

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

Madam Chair, my colleague talked about how so many other sectors are affected by this, such as elk producers and sheep producers and so on. He is absolutely right. However, it is not only there. In the beef industry alone, organic beef producers are shipping only to the Canadian market and they are caught up in this as well.

One producer called me recently talking about the 30 month and under deadline and the criteria used with the identification of age through the examination of teeth. Her herd has been caught up in this. Some 17 of her animals have had to go through the special processing which is very expensive even though they have had ear tags since the day they were born and she can prove that to an independent audit. They are under 30 months. They are being sold into the Canadian market, not for export, and are still caught up in this.

Has my colleague faced similar situations in his riding and what would he recommend we do about it?