House of Commons Hansard #3 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was beef.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a very brief comment. Thanks for this testimony. I think the hon. member spoke more eloquently than I did about the distress of people confronted to a problem they did not cause. This problem does not seem to be getting all the attention it deserves.
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, I listened with interest to the debate tonight. It is certainly a very difficult situation for many farmers across the country, not only for those in Newfoundland who are beyond midnight at our time here, but those from coast to coast.
As members of Parliament, we all share and hopefully can offer some suggestions that might improve the very difficult situation in which these farm families find themselves.
I will try in the very brief time I have available to provide a few statistics and also some suggestions that might be taken by our Department of Agriculture and by our minister.
It is encouraging that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Trade were both here tonight to listen to the debate and hopefully become actively involved. I know the Minister of Agriculture already is, as was his predecessor. However, the situation is much greater probably than the sum of the solutions that have already been offered.
The dairy people, beef producers, the livestock producers and the businesses in the various communities are very much affected by these difficulties.
It is interesting to note that the first BSE problems developed in the United Kingdom back in 1986. Since then throughout the European community, country after country have found evidence and encountered situations where their livestock were affected by BSE. We also recognize that some cattle that came into Canada in the early 1990s from the United Kingdom were found to have BSE.
It is almost incredible that one cow in this country has created such turmoil and difficulty for Canada. In the weeks prior to the discovery of the mad cow in the slaughter house, which was brought to our attention, they were slaughtering some 70,000 animals a week. If we put that into a year's production, we find we have a lot of cattle going to our slaughter houses. After the discovery of the made cow, that went down to some 20,000 animals that were being slaughtered.
I am a bit disappointed tonight that in all our discussions we seem to say that it is a North American market. We know that of the livestock production and beef production around the world, the United States produces some 25% of the total beef production globally. Canadian production is some 3% so we are a very small part of that. We have to recognize that in terms of beef production and the consumption of beef around the globe, all of us, both Canadians and Americans, have to look at markets in Japan and in other countries that would be available to us.
When the minister went to Asia to try to open up those markets for us in terms of Japan, we certainly appreciated the fact that he was very active in trying to do so. In fact, with the Canadian export market of beef in the year 2003, 80% of our beef went to the United States. Mexico picked up some 7.7%, Japan some 3.3% and other Asian markets about 4.1%.
We certainly have to commend the Cattlemen's Association for its work along with our trade and industry minister in promoting Canadian beef throughout the globe.
We find that in terms of all of this, when we look at the problem that exists, Canada today we have some 14 million heads of cattle and with it we have a tremendous production each year.
We talked about the dairy industry. It has about one million cattle that are producing milk and calves each year. In the beef sector a little over 4.1 million beef animals were producing a calf each year. Therefore, we have an increased number of livestock that go into the farms and communities, and for which there needs to be a market.
I suggest what we have to do as a nation and as a government is look at three major things.
First, there is animal waste. I do not know how the Europeans and Canada go into what happened in this past year, but we have to avoid feeding animal waste to other livestock.
I believe we started the system of ruminants back in 1999, when we had a feed ban. However, we also have to look at what might happen in other sectors when bone meal and other animal parts are fed to cattle, hogs or poultry. We have to ensure that Canadian consumers and consumers around the world are sure we are producing a good product.
I say this to the minister tonight and I have said it before. In Europe nearly every animal is checked. When a carcass is put up, it has a stamp on it saying it is free from BSE. I know a tremendous amount of money would be involved, some $30 per animal. However, a dairyman today shipping a culled cow is getting probably about $150 for it, when last year he probably got $700 or $800. A $30 investment certainly would not be a tremendous burden upon that farmer or upon the slaughterhouse that is accepting the animal. That is the second thing we have to do.
The other thing we have to do is look at slaughter facilities. In eastern Canada especially, in my own province of New Brunswick, nearly every animal we try to send to market has to go to Quebec or to Guelph, Ontario. Last year many of the culled cows and some of our beef were going to Pennsylvania. We do not have enough slaughterhouse capacity in Canada, and we have to look at that fact. In terms of our cattlemen and our dairy groups, with incentives from our government, somehow we have to increase our slaughtering capacities.
We have a tremendous food inspection agency and we have always been very strong in terms of the products that we put into our food industry. We can show the world that Canadian beef, whether it goes to Japan or Europe, has been certified to be free of these diseases, just as the French do.
I will just finish with this. It is really a tremendous insult to our farmers in the beef sector, particularly A1 beef, when they are getting some 27% less this year than what they got a year ago, if we look at the CanFax figures of the past week. If we look at our dairy people who are shipping culled cows and if we look at the spread in terms of beef, the farmer quite often is getting about $1 a hundred weight. If we look at the retail sector in terms of the CanFax figures, it is about $500 a hundred weight. We have this tremendous spread between the retail value and what the farm groups get.
In closing, we really find that our Canadian people have great empathy with our Canadian farm community. In the last three generations, when we look back, nearly all of us came from a farm somewhere. We have a tremendous amount of support and I hope that tonight, as a result of our debate, we can encourage our industry to look forward to changes that will improve its capacity to develop a good economy. All of us as Canadians can certainly benefit from the very dedicated people that contribute so much to our Canadian agriculture.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB
Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate and thank my colleague from Miramichi for his wise comments this evening and his careful analysis of this problem. I want to congratulate all members of the House whom I have heard speak this evening with knowledge, passion and concern for a very serious problem facing our country.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has assumed his responsibilities very quickly. He has made certainly our government and Canadians proud in the way he has handled this very difficult situation, and I want to thank him on behalf of producers in my constituency for his work. However, I was hoping I could pick up on a comment that my colleague from Miramichi made with respect to some of the difficulties in our own province of New Brunswick.
He and I have friends, the Acton family, who have been big beef producers in my part of New Brunswick for many generations. I have had a chance to discuss this serious situation with them a number of times and I know the member for Miramichi has. They consistently tell us about the problem of the lack of a slaughter facility and slaughter capacity, and what that means for their costs and for their ability to produce beef viably.
Would the member expand on some of the difficulties that this might represent for producers in our province and what suggestions he might have to try to address this imbalance?
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, this certainly has been one of the problems in terms of the New Brunswick agricultural sector.
We did have a slaughter house in Moncton, New Brunswick called Hub, which did all types of slaughter, but it has recently moved toward hogs only. As a result, the provinces in Atlantic Canada, especially Prince Edward Island, are developing a new slaughter house which should be available some time later this year, probably toward the late fall. The ground has been opened, construction is underway, and it will be through a cooperative effort. Farmers are buying what they call hooks and by having hooks they will have the ability to send their animals for slaughter to this new slaughter house that will be located in P.E.I. It certainly will be advantageous for them and they are looking forward to that.
Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Chair, I want to comment on the minister's address here tonight. I do appreciate one thing about his speech. Unlike many of the other speeches I have heard from the government side tonight, I have not heard a lot of answers as to what we should do. I have heard that we need to keep working to keep the border open and that we need to keep talking to the Americans. However, what happens if that border does not open? What happens if we are in this thing for the long term? At least tonight he suggested that we start looking at certain things.
Before coming here tonight I had the chance to speak to two constituents. One lady from the New Norway-Ferintosh area posed a question to me. She asked me why no one was doing anything. We have shown the genetic lines, we have done the testing and the CFIA has done its job but there seems to be no plan B.
One of the comments that the member for Miramichi made was that we should begin to question the feeding of animal byproducts, bone meal and others, to other animals that will be put into the food consumption.
If the member believes the producers of our nation are saying that we should ban all animal byproducts being fed to other animals for human consumption and if he believes that consumers here and around the world are asking for the same thing, then why has the government not stepped forward and said that this is something that perhaps it should consider?
It seems that the government is very reactive but not very proactive. We have seen cases like SARS where there was no plan. The BSE issue has no plan. What happens if the border does not open?
Would the member recommend to the minister of agriculture that we stop all animal byproducts from being fed to other animals that are going to enter the human food chain?
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, I certainly would agree with that. I believe this country produces enough vegetation so that we have good protein in our soy beans and so forth. It would improve our agricultural sector generally. We should get away from the concept of feeding parts of animals to other animals. I agree with that. It is only a suggestion to the minister but it is my position.
Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Chair, in eastern Ontario our beef producers are mainly cow-calf operators, that is, we either stock other herds with calves or we sell our cull cattle, the animals that no longer breed.
Since this single case of BSE was discovered, the trade crisis in the meat industry has caused the downward spiral in prices to the farmer. I emphasize that this is a trade crisis; there is no epidemic of BSE going on here. For example, last year at this time, stocker calves were going for $1 to $1.15 a pound. Now they are down to 75¢ a pound. That is 25¢, so one might say big deal, but if we multiply that by 500 pounds in the animal and then even to just 10 animals in the herd, that particular farmer is out of pocket by $12,500. So not only is the family farm not making a living; it is costing them money to stay in business.
Where the insult to injury comes from is the fact that consumers are still paying top dollar for their meat. Most consumers are oblivious to the fact that the people who raise the food they are eating off their plates tonight are being forced into bankruptcy because the money that consumers are paying for their food is going to those who are using the Liberals' flawed system, and they are getting very rich off that.
The farmers are losing money by keeping their animals alive. They have to feed them and house them, but by selling them for less than they bought them for they lose a whole lot more money all at once. Yet the price in the grocery stores, aside from the weekly specials, remains the same.
Somewhere between the auction barn and the grocery shelf, someone is pocketing a huge chunk of change. These people, the companies and the shareholders, are profiteering off the hard work of those who make enormous sacrifices to ensure that we have safe, wholesome food to eat.
Canada is constantly on the international stage, championing the cause of third world farmers, but why is this government allowing our own people to be exploited? Once we take the time to see who is making the big money off the family farm--because it certainly is not the farmers--then maybe we can compare this list of profiteers to the list of Liberal campaign contributors and see whether or not there is any overlap there. Maybe it is payback time for the people who helped this government get into power.
There have been announcements about hundreds of millions of dollars going into farm aid, but that is all they are: they are just announcements. The money never got to the people who needed it. For some people, some family farmers, even if the money ever came through, now it is too late.
Right now we are seeing the trickle down effect in job losses from the sectors that service the agricultural industry. Just today, farmers in my riding received a letter from a local equipment salesman announcing that the company was closing the Pembroke branch of its supply store. And in a county where jobs are hard to come by, we notice every job that is lost. This is expanding far past the farm.
Even dairy producers, who have the benefit of supply management, are defaulting on their payments. The meat producers who have off farm jobs can only handle putting their off farm income into their losing proposition with cattle farming for so long. For those who depend entirely upon livestock for their income, the situation is desperate, and desperate people do desperate things. These hundreds of millions of dollars going into food safety would be going to waste if uninspected meat gets into our food chain.
In Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, we have several committees going. The warden, Bob Sweet, is leading the “Save Our Beef” committee; its members have dubbed themselves the SOBs. They are pressing for every animal to be tested. Right now we do not have the infrastructure to do that. If we did do it, our U.S. counterpart would freeze us out of the market because we would be too far ahead and they would never catch up. They do not even have the animal identification in place.
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Mr. Chair, I listened very carefully to what my hon. colleague across the way said this evening because I am sure that she is very concerned with the way that this money has passed from government into other people's hands. She has intimated that the money has gone into the wrong hands. For some reason, she believes that some of the money has gone back to feed the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not know how that correlation can be arrived at, but somehow I got that message from her message to us this evening.
I wonder if she could tell us how she feels that this money that we believe we delivered to farmers could have been delivered in a more effective way so that the farmers could have put that money in their pockets. I am also wondering whether she could tell us who she thinks made all this money, given that some of the money has gone into someone's hands. Who are those people and organizations that have this money and could give it to the Liberal Party of Canada?
Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Chair, first of all, I did not say that the money went directly back into the Liberal Party of Canada, but it is interesting that the government member would say that.
I did not get a chance to talk about solutions. One of the options that we do have to look at is going to our different markets, if we can get an agreement in writing that if we take certain measures they will accept our cattle. For example, we have the 30 months and older cull cattle. If the other markets would agree to take our animals if we had them tested, that would be one solution. We could actually get something in return for putting the money into the testing.
The agriculture ministry says no to that because the tests are not conclusive, but there is a new test available that is being used in the European Union. It has no false negatives and the turnaround time for results is five hours. That could be implemented in Canada if we were to get an agreement that one of the criteria being met is that cattle over 30 months of age will be tested.
Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Chair, the hour is late here in the House of Commons, but it certainly is a lot later on many of the farms and in many of the businesses across this country that rely on agriculture for their income.
May 20 and December 23 of 2003 are days many in this country will never forget. These of course are the dates on which two cases of BSE were discovered in North America, one in Canada and one in the United States.
The fact that there is a border between each case is immaterial. Or it should be immaterial. The fact is that the Canada-U.S. border remains closed to trade in live cattle due to politics, not science. All the scientific evidence has proven that beef in North America is safe and the best food safety protocols in the world are in place to ensure that it stays that way.
Why then do we have restrictions that are hampering the free trade of cattle, beef and other ruminant products? We can talk about the poisoned relations between Canada and the United States, a relationship that I personally think needs much repair. We can talk about the abuse of international protocols by many countries, including our own. We can talk about unexplored markets around the world, which would help ease our dependence on the U.S. market. All of these issues are part of the problem. However, what is it that is needed to return a once vibrant growth industry back to its pre-BSE status?
Because this is a take note debate, I want to offer some suggestions to the government to bring this crisis to an end and to end the pain that is being felt in many businesses in Canada, both on and off the farm.
The first is to harmonize the health standards in North America. That includes Canada addressing the fact that we do not allow U.S. feeder cattle into Canada on a year round, untested basis. This of course addresses the issue of bluetongue and anaplasmosis.
The second is to seek agreement from the international community through the OIE to completely exempt cattle 30 months and younger from any negative trade action.
The third is to examine the feed protocols and ensure there is absolute compliance.
The fourth is to establish world confidence in beef from mature animals by targeting any new testing where it will do the most good and in realistic quantities that leave no doubt our process is the safest in the world. This would create demand and give value to our mature animals.
The fifth is to control imports of beef to maximize the use of mature animals from Canadian producers and increase inspections of imported beef to guarantee its quality and to guarantee its origin.
The sixth is to implement the task force that the chairman of the agriculture committee mentioned previously and which was recommended by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to look into the cattle industry. I suggest that we look at the entire industry, from cow-calf operations to retail sales, to ensure that the industry operates on a fair and equitable basis. This task force could also include in its mandate the issue of slaughter capacity and limited packer options.
The seventh I have mentioned to the minister previously. It is to change the disaster component of the CAISP program to include BSE as a natural disaster. This would give the producers one more level up in the help that they would receive.
But my final offering to this government is to do whatever is necessary to get the border open to trade in live cattle and to start by getting the bureaucrats out of the way. They have done their job. Now they are only hindering the process. I say through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister that if they will not get out of the way, I suggest that he move them out of the way. We have a problem in the bureaucracy in this ministry and it has to change. If they will not go, make them go.
I referenced a letter today from the president of the CFIA to a producer in my riding. Some of the statements in it are absolutely irresponsible. I would also like to mention the comment period that the CFIA has established in dealing with the rules to change the health standards on bluetongue and anaplasmosis. That is a farce. It is a thinly veiled attempt by the CFIA to keep the status quo and keep the border closed to live cattle from the U.S. on a year round basis. That has to change.
Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Chair, my hon. colleague who just spoke talks about implementing the task force that the all party committee recommended. Certainly I do not disagree with that, but that is hindsight. We are going back over the problem. Unfortunately, the problem is compounding as we speak.
I ask my colleague, what about the cash flow situation that we are facing now? Does he have any direction for the government in getting out the money that it talked about? There were the $100 million in the cull cow program, the $600 million transition from NISA accounts, the CAISP program and the CFIP program, all this cash that the government says is in play. Where is it? My farmers are not seeing it. Are my colleague's?
Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Chair, there is one instance that was brought to my attention. This business has lost equity of $6 million this year. The reference margins that were supplied to him at 70% would return to him $1.4 million through this process. How does that work out when he has lost $6 million and the program will only give him back $1.4 million? This is if he puts up a substantial sum of money in the beginning.
I have a headline from the Lethbridge Herald , “Bankruptcies Soar: Huge increase in numbers from ag related businesses attributed to mad cow disease”.
I also have quotes here from constituents, families that have sent them to me. The first one states, “We are really up against the wall. If we don't receive an answer from you within the next week, I fear we will lose everything”. This is from a family trucking business. Another quote states, “We find ourselves in an increasingly desperate situation. As a small producer we are certainly bearing the brunt of the BSE crisis”. The final one states, “My days in business are numbered. Please, I need your help”.
I just leave that with the minister. These are real people, real families and they are in a real bind. They need some help and they need it now. The program that was put in place, that money went right through their hands and we all talked tonight about where it ended up.
Any program that is designed from here on in has to stop at the producers level so they can get the trucking industry going, so that they can get the welders, the machinists and the mechanics going. It cannot just slip through their hands and everyone lose equity in this business and no one can open their doors in the morning.
Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL
Mr. Chair, we just came from a meeting with the restaurant caucus. We talked about all of those who are affected. Sometimes we do not know how far the loss in this industry extends. When we talk to these people and stop to think about it, where does the beef usually end up? Besides what we buy personally, a lot of it ends up on the tables in the hotels and restaurants around the country. These people are hurting also and they are encouraging government to do exactly what the member is asking: let us get the industry going again.
I just wonder, from the member's own experience particularly in the west, are the restaurants, the hotels and the eating establishments having the same problem that all the ones we spoke to tonight seem to be having?
Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB
Absolutely, Mr. Chair. This problem has seeped out and spread out into all aspects of the economy. I do not think there is anyone not in trouble. Over the last couple of weeks I have had the opportunity to visit a number of businesses and there is not one that I went into that is not in trouble.
One in particular has been operating very well for 25 years. What has happened is this was not a slow decline that could be predicted in the economy that dropped off the table, their business just stopped. They have no means of recovering or handling that. This is why they are looking to the government for some help.
People in the cattle industry are proud people. They do not ask for a handout when they do not need it and if they get through this, they will never ask for another one. When they are up against the wall and they are struggling for their very survival, I think it is time we stood back and had a look.
The atmosphere in this industry is poisoned. I do not know how we are ever going to get investors back into the industry. If another case of BSE were to happen next year and it did all of this to us again, people will stay away. We have to somehow put a regime in place that will not allow this to ever happen to us again. I do not care how many cases of BSE we find, we have to put the protocols in place that allow this country and allow the international community to deal with this in a sane and level manner.
Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON
Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order.
When I agreed to do my questions and comments which actually took a little longer than a half hour, I was guaranteed that our last speaker would in fact get on the list. I hope that is still the case. We have only about 10 minutes left and we do have one more speaker.
Bovine Spongiform EncephalopathyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Chair
I can inform the hon. minister that there is approximately six minutes left as per the order that was agreed to yesterday.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast.
David Kilgour Liberal Edmonton Southeast, AB
Mr. Chair, on the point just discussed by my colleagues opposite, Canadians are showing great confidence in our beef safety systems. I understand that we are consuming about 60% more beef in restaurants everywhere across the country since the crisis began. What an act of national solidarity with our beef producing families.
Canadian agri-food products are sought in more than 180 countries for their high standards of safety and quality. When the international team of scientific experts came to review our handling of BSE last June, they gave us very high marks in the thoroughness of the investigation. That should come as no surprise because Canadian agriculture, specifically the Canadian beef industry, has done a great many things right when it comes to food safety and food quality.
For example, the quality starts here with the assurance program the Canadian Cattlemen's Association piloted in the 1990s. Our national cattle identification program is unique in North America and is seen as a model for the U.S. and other cattle producing countries. The Government of Canada has been a partner in these initiatives and others, aiming to secure our reputation for safe, high quality beef.
We have supported significant investments and in kind support through programs such as the Canadian on farm food safety program. We have launched the $62 million Canadian food safety and quality program which supports initiatives such as the HACCP based systems for on and off farm as well as work on food quality and traceability.
Last month the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced further measures to make a safe system even safer. The government is investing more than $92 million toward enhanced animal surveillance and national animal identification. That funding will go in part to increase animal testing beginning with the testing of 8,000 head a year this year, rising to 30,000 within a few years.
In short, Canada has taken a science based approach, including the banning of cattle from the U.K. in 1990, BSE surveillance in 1992 and a ruminant feed ban in 1997. Canadian beef is probably the safest in the world.
Canada has addressed almost all of the key recommendations from the international team of scientific experts and we are continuing to evaluate and address the others. There is no reason, as all members in the House would agree, why trade should not resume. This is consistent with the recommendations against irrational trade barriers in the international review panel report released today.
Because this is a crisis, it is a priority for all of us in all parts of the country. We have raised BSE with our key trading partners at the highest levels, including our Prime Minister speaking with President Bush. I believe he spent more time on this issue than any other issue in his bilateral talks with the president.
The efforts are bearing fruit. Earlier this month the agriculture ministers in the U.S., Mexico and Canada promised to work together to show global leadership on the issue. South Korea and Japan have agreed to work closely with Canadian food safety and veterinarian officials to address any safety concerns. In short, we are making progress on the international level and all of us hope that it continues.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Chair, I congratulate the member and all members present who have partaken in this debate. It is a very timely one. Many Canadians were left with the impression that much of the concern and much of the terrible fallout and effects of the BSE crisis were just starting to wane when of course another animal was identified and linked to Canada. So I am very pleased to see that the Parliament of Canada has brought this forward in the first week of our return.
My question for the hon. member opposite is with respect to a North American approach. He referenced the restaurants and hotels, and my colleague from St. John's West referenced this as well. This is an approach that obviously is going to have to follow the protocols, the science, the efforts made now to an integrated approach that will allow for the early prevention and identification of BSE. Ensuring that consumer confidence is restored is another aspect that I know the minister himself has concerned himself with.
To the hon. member opposite, does he believe that part of the grand scheme, the strategy that has to follow here, is going to involve a great deal of cooperation with the United States and Mexico to ensure that there is a North American approach taken to this situation?
David Kilgour Liberal Edmonton Southeast, AB
Mr. Chair, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex referred earlier to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the international panel on the U.S. investigation into the BSE cow in Washington. I believe the report came out this evening.
The report is favourable toward Canada's position. The report emphasized the integrated nature of the North American cattle industry. It says that the United States cannot dismiss the Washington state case by considering it an imported case. The international report also calls upon the U.S. to demonstrate leadership in trade matters by adopting import-export policies in accordance with international standards, and I assume that means Mexico as well, thus encouraging the discontinuation of irrational trade barriers when countries identify their first case of BSE.
Bovine Spongiform EncephalopathyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Chair
It being 11:16 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, February 3, the committee will rise and I will leave the chair.
Bovine Spongiform EncephalopathyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
Consequently, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11:16 p.m.)