Debates of March 8th, 2005

Canadian Livestock Industry

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a program to provide real assistance to milk producers for their cull cows would be adequate and should be implemented immediately.

I believe the minister is aware that milk producers are experiencing a crisis, which is now out of control. Never before have we have experienced such a crisis.

We would like the minister to tell us that there will be an agreement soon to provide real assistance so our milk producers can survive this crisis. However, other problems are affecting not only milk producers but also sheep and goat farmers.

Quebec needs a great deal of assistance to support farming. Producers are waiting for real assistance from the government. Since September, the minister has been telling us that there is a plan in place. I want to know when exactly we will have access to the assistance the minister has been announcing since September?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding where we not only have a lot of beef cattle, but we also have a lot of dairy cattle. Probably more than 50% of the dairy cattle in Manitoba comes from my riding. My colleague from the Bloc has mentioned significant issues with dairy.

However. when we look at this issue, it is an issue of relationships. It is a relationship that has had an opportunity to be mended. Yet we have not seen that decisive action by the government.

I know the particular crisis that occurred a few days ago in barring live cattle, which could have started flowing March 7, was as a direct result of a court injunction. However, what we also know is the senate in the United States voted against opening the border. It is not simply enough to say that this was in the hands of the courts and it was an independent organization. What the senate vote reflects is a failure by this government to actively and consistently lobby the U.S. senate and Congress to ensure the votes were there and that they understood Canadian beef was safe.

Does the member have anything to say about what else the Canadian government could be doing in getting those relationships working with the United States? We may be a sovereign nation, but we are not an island, and our trade depends on a good relationship with the United States.

[Denise Poirier-Rivard, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague, especially his reference to Quebec beef. We have tracking programs in place and can track the animal from breeder right to abattoir, so it is incomprehensible that nothing has been done and no agreement has been put in place.

A base price is being asked for. We are told this needs to be Canada-wide. Yet the problem is in Quebec, and we need a base price for our cull cattle.

We are waiting for that agreement. It is urgent. I say again, as I have said before, farmers have committed suicide in Quebec, unable to make ends meet. Agriculture will not recover, because producers are no longer able to borrow money. Lending institutions no longer want to lend to them because they have such a backlog of inventory on their farms.

There is a crisis now, and we feel it is high time there was an agreement so that we can be certain of the 42¢ base price we have been demanding.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here tonight and speak to this issue. I am sharing my time with the member for Burnaby--Douglas.

We are here for yet another emergency debate about agriculture. In fact my very first speech in the House was in an emergency debate on agriculture. At that time I made the point that there have been more emergency debates on agriculture than on any other issue that has come before the House in the last eight years. I am beginning to wonder why we continue to have these debates because nothing seems to change.

In light of this latest R-CALF move, we have crossed a political Rubicon here. This is the move we have been waiting for and fearing. We saw this move coming for a long time and now it has arrived. We are going to be bogged down in a long and nasty protectionist battle, just like we have been bogged down in a battle on softwood.

The question tonight is whether we are positioned, as the government says, to rebuild our domestic economy for beef and to move forward with a long term domestic solution for agriculture. The fact of the matter is the answer is no, zero, nothing, because the government has played its hand. The Liberals presented the budget in the House just a few days before the R-CALF decision came down and we got to see what their five year plan for agriculture was. It was a big zero.

I have to say, as I mentioned in a question previously, anyone remotely interested in the cattle issue in Canada could have seen that R-CALF injunction coming. We knew it was coming, yet the government seems to have been caught completely without a plan. It just crossed its fingers and hoped for the best. Anyone remotely interested in the viability of rural Canada could have said that 2005 is expected to be the year of bankruptcies across Canada, because of two years of this crisis coupled with commodity problems right across our sector. Equities have been burned up and farmers cannot hold out any longer.

We have the R-CALF injunction coming down at the same time as a five year plan in a budget that has made no attempt to address the long term issue of agriculture in Canada. If I were a tycoon or a foreign investor, I would probably be dancing on Bay Street right now, but to the rural farm families of Canada the budget has offered them nothing. Here we are coming through the deepest agricultural crisis since the dust bowl and all we are getting from the government is platitudes.

I had hoped that we were moving forward and that the government were serious, but having seen the government's response to this, I am beginning to think that our poor agriculture minister has become the cartoon character, Mr. Magoo, of the BSE crisis. I do not think he or the government would know rural despair if they fell over it, and that is what we are talking about. People are giving up. They were looking to the government for a solution.

When we talk about extras on the loan loss guarantees, that is not good enough. In the face of this crumbling rural economy, the government continues to stall for time. It is crossing its fingers and hoping for the best.

I will give for the record the response of our august finance minister. In today's National Post he summed up his government's response:

We've begun to analyze the exact nature of the government response that's required here.... I think it's still too early to say exactly what the nature of that response must be but it's under active consideration.

If we read the subtitles, that is no plan, no backbone and no desire to do anything to help the farm families across Canada. In fact this has been the same lame bleat that we have heard from the government for the last two years on this crisis, that it is repositioning our industry, that it is restoring a domestic economy, yet there was absolutely nothing in the budget to address the mounting agricultural debt that families are facing.

There was nothing in the budget to encourage young families to take up farming. We see right across rural Canada the rising stress levels of an aging rural population and young people have absolutely no incentive to take up farming.

In my own region in the north we are trying to maintain a healthy northern rural economy. Because all the farmland in southern Ontario is becoming too difficult or too zoned in to farm, my region would be a perfect region in which to expand. The only thing the government came forward with was that it was going to cut the agricultural research station in Kapuskasing. That was its commitment to northern agriculture. Obviously it is not worth the government's time to invest in winter hardy crops that are needed in the north.

Then we fall back on the one thing that was in the budget, the loan loss guarantee. I would love to say that this has been a fantastic solution, but it has not been. When we are talking about the increased numbers in slaughter capacity, let us be honest. The numbers are coming from the big packers. We have known for the last 10 years at least that the farmers' margins have been decreasing because of the increasing power of the packers. They are more powerful now than they were at the beginning of this crisis. If we are talking about ramping up capacity, where is the vast majority of this ramp-up? It is coming from the big packers.

We have been talking with the Beef Initiative Group from Alberta. It is trying to set up a plant. It has been waiting and trying to meet with the minister about a feasibility study to move forward. There is a lot of frustration. It seems to me it is the same frustration we see whenever rural Canada tries to meet with the government on issues to move forward. The government makes it sound as though it is moving heaven and earth, but out in farm country things are dragging on.

We have seen this with the CFIA in terms of its plant inspections and attempts of farm producer operations to get new plants. The CFIA continually pushes the plans back and changes things.

The Beef Initiative Group is trying to get a feasibility study agreed to by the government. It is beginning to wonder about the continual foot dragging. I would like the minister to make a commitment tonight that this feasibility study will go forward.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that the real problem is that the government has been flying by the seat of its pants and hoping for the best. A good example is that we are now three weeks away from the end of the fiscal year and the government still has not been able to address the issue of the CAIS deposit.

I know the minister will jump up and say that an answer will be coming very soon, but we are three weeks away from the end of the fiscal year and now we are scrambling to see whether or not producers are going to be told they have to come up with this coming year's CAIS deposit. There is $640 million in farmers' equity sitting in the CAIS deposit accounts. That is $640 million that had to be taken out in bank loans with the hope and prayer that CAIS would deliver.

We are going to hear lots of numbers about how CAIS is delivered here and CAIS is delivered there and CAIS is delivered everywhere, but the fact of the matter is when we talk to farm families it has not given them the money they need at the farm gate. Meanwhile $640 million in their own money is sitting in government accounts and we cannot even get a commitment from the government whether that money is going to be returned to the farmers.

The big issue is the government wants to insist that these men and women and farm families across Canada are somehow actively engaged in risk management. After surviving two years of the worst agricultural crisis in Canadian history, I would say these people are actively engaged in risk management, to the detriment of their own health and the future equity of their children.

We have come here once more to see what is the plan for rural Canada. Unfortunately we have seen the plan for rural Canada. It is laid out in the budget, and there is nothing there. The best we are going to get from the government is another quick fix. The best we are going to get is some kind of contingency support. That is not a long term repositioning of the industry. That is the problem with the government.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's intervention may have been more effective if it had accurately portrayed some factual information.

The hon. member said that there is absolutely nothing for agriculture in the budget. I guess the fact that under business risk management we had projected to spend $2.2 billion over two years but we are actually committing an additional $700 million to go to agricultural producers is nothing. It is not surprising that to the NDP $700 million does not mean anything.

I guess the fact that the AMPA program, which provides the ability for producers to get advances in the spring and in the fall to market their products, has been extended to beef and other livestock producers in the budget does not mean anything. The NDP does not understand the importance of beef producers having access to that program.

The federal government in the budget was very clear about the CAIS deposit. The member asked why we have not gotten rid of it. He knows full well that to do that requires the provincial governments, at least 8 out of 10 of them with 50% of farm cash receipts, to agree to it. Did he mention that? No, he did not.

What parts of those initiatives in the budget does the hon. member reject?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to make this a political issue. I would simply respond with what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said the day after the budget was delivered. It said that once again the minister has offered farmers hollow words and no action. End of story.

Of course the minister has to sit down with the provincial governments but here we are again at the last minute. It is less than three weeks away from the next fiscal year and we are being told that the government has not managed to phone all the provincial ministers to see if they will agree to change the CAIS deposit.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Remember that last week they were all here in Ottawa.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Did the minister get it?

Farmers back home are going to the banks now. They figure they have to give back their CAIS cheques so they can be part of next year's round. This has been going on for two years. Everybody has talked about the CAIS problems. We have talked about them in committee until we have turned blue in the face. There are three weeks to go and we are still waiting to hear from the provincial ministers. I do not think it is the provincial ministers' fault. I think it is the government that has not wanted to sit down and plan for the long term.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the loan loss reserve program that the member referred to earlier in his speech was supposed to help stimulate further slaughter capacity in Canada. The minister has been in the hot seat in respect of that. The Canadian Bankers Association was before the committee and testified that that $66 million program does not even exist. What a tragedy and travesty to desperate livestock producers.

I ask the member, after having announced in the budget the $17 million and some to this fabled non-existent program, redirected to it so to speak, why is the minister simply offering would-be slaughterhouse investors the sleeves off his vest? Why is the minister doing that with such mockery to producers across our country?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a valid one.

This extra $17 million was being offered as though it were real money. None of this money that I can see has gone to anybody in terms of building slaughter capacity. This plan has not put any concrete in the ground. We are dealing in a time of crisis when it is very difficult for any plant to go to a bank to obtain funding. We have no clear picture of where this market is going.

There is this loan loss guarantee which the bankers are just learning about now from what we can begin to understand. For the people who are trying to get these plants off the ground it is extremely frustrating. Dangling another $17 million of Monopoly money in front of their faces is only adding insult to injury.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay for his generosity in splitting his time with me.

It is very obvious that we are in crisis. It is very obvious, in light of the events of last week relating to BSE and the blocking of exports at the U.S. border, that this key industry is continuing to experience massive financial and job losses. We are dealing with a $2 billion reduction in GDP. We are dealing with a $5.7 billion reduction in overall production, that is, $1 billion in lost earnings and some 75,000 lost jobs.

As the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay said earlier, this government has taken no action. As the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said so well, there are only hollow words, but no actions. We know very well this has been pretty much the way this government operates. We saw it with the Kyoto plan. Is there a plan? No, there is no plan in that sector. Is there a plan to reduce the growing poverty in Canada? No, there is no plan. We have seen it in the textile industry. Is there a plan to deal with the crisis hitting the textile industry, which we have already talked about in this House? No, there is no plan.

Similarly, in the BSE case, we see that this government has no plan and takes no action. It does not respond in any way. Moreover, we know very well that the problems we are now having in this industry at the American border are experienced by other industries, such as softwood lumber. That industry is very important to my province, British Columbia, and the penalties incurred to date amount to $4 billion.

And in the face of all this, we see the government's lack of action. We see the lack of initiatives when it comes to negotiating firmly with the Americans or when it must try to ease the suffering of farmers all across the country. There is no plan for dealing with these job losses. There are no actions. When this government does, occasionally, take action, it is too little and too late.

What are we left with? We saw market prices plummet $130 an animal in the hours following the U.S. district court's ruling in Montana. This crash in prices came just as producers were starting to turn a profit on some of their animals for the first time since May 2003.

We see the crisis. We see the incredible impact on our farming communities across the country. Like the member for Timmins--James Bay said, we do not see any action in the budget to address these fundamental concerns. Even if the budget passes tomorrow night because of support from the Conservative Party, the reality is that for the farming and cattle communities across the country there is no action from the government and there should be.

Now that we are conducting some testing, are the Americans being truthful about the extent of mad cow disease on their own soil? I will cite as a reference an article from the Ottawa Citizen written just this week about Lester Friedlander, a former veterinarian with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a well-known whistleblower. Mr. Friedlander says, flat out, that “mad cow is probably prevalent in the U.S., but has so far been kept out of the public eye. There's no doubt in my mind”.

In the early 1990s, he said that he was speaking to the USDA's chief pathologist about mad cow when the following exchange took place:

“Lester, if you ever find mad cow disease, promise me one thing?” he was asked. “What's that?” he responded. “Don't tell anybody.”

Mr. Friedlander said that he would take a lie detector test to back up his story. Once he heard that, he said, “I knew this whole thing was a joke”.

Mr. Friedlander alleges the Americans have not pursued a handful of false positive tests with enough rigour and said:

“The U.S. isn't any better than Canada. Except Canada was a little more truthful and came out and dealt with the problem. That's what I'm trying to tell the USDA,” he argues.

What we have here is not an issue that requires more than government action and stepping forward. It is an issue that requires strong but firm negotiations with the United States. We know from witness accounts, such as the one I just mentioned, that there are Americans who believe there is equal prevalence of BSE on the United States side.

We also know, and this is outrageous, that members of R-CALF, the U.S. ranchers group that sued on safety grounds to keep the border closed to Canadian cattle, have been buying up cheap cows in Canada after that devastating ban. This is something that group's president actually acknowledged on March 7, 2005 when he said:

“I don't see anything ironic about it,” Leo McDonnell said from Columbus, Montana. “I didn't see it as a big deal”

Three of those U.S. ranchers have been significant contributors to R-CALF's litigation fund,” McDonnell said, “an endeavour focused squarely on keeping the border shut.

Rick Paskal, the president of the Canadian Cattlemen For Fair trade has said that R-CALF was “absolutely not concerned about food safety”.

“There's nothing unique about what we're doing,” said McDonnell, who noted that members of pro-trade U.S. ranching groups have also bought Canadian cattle.

The Americans have benefited from rock bottom cattle prices in Canada and Mr. Paskal is quoted as saying that as many as 30,000 head of cattle had been purchased by at least a dozen R-CALF members.

What we see here is not a safety issue. What we see here is an issue of trade and another example of how ineffective the government's approach to opening up the borders has been, just as we saw with softwood lumber.

Being a member from British Columbia, a province that has lost 20,000 jobs to softwood lumber because of the government's lack of action and lack of ability to negotiate on the softwood lumber, we are seeing the same type of dithering on top of dithering when it comes to BSE.

In both of those cases the government has been completely ineffective. In both of those cases we have seen the loss of tens of thousands of Canadian jobs in various parts of the country. In both of those cases we have seen devastation in communities across the country. In certain areas, in the epicentres of the crises, people are going under and families are losing their homes. In spite of all this, the government persists in taking weak-kneed actions.

What should it be doing? I will answer that. The member for Timmins—James Bay, who is also our agriculture critic, has said very clearly what needs to happen. He has called for 100% testing of cattle that is destined for slaughter. He has talked about a full feedback. Those are the types of things we need to do to respond to the international marketplace and make absolutely sure that we are establishing confidence in our cattle industry. Although we know that this is a question of trade and a question of negotiating firmly and strongly with our American neighbours, we also know that we have to take steps domestically.

We have also called for a very strong message to be sent to the Bush administration. When we see with chapter 19, with the BSE and with softwood lumber the continued trade tribunal rulings that have been ignored by the American government, we know we need to take a strong and firm position.

The NDP caucus continues to push for an effective plan to be put in place by the government to help farming communities, to help the cattle industry, to help the 75,000 workers who have lost their jobs and to help the tens of thousands of softwood workers who have lost their jobs. We will continue to speak out on this issue and we will continue to fight for them.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to two speakers from the NDP, I think I have finally figured out where they are going. They want to impose additional costs on producers. Their solution is to go to full testing and to impose a feed ban. They fail miserably in terms of understanding the kinds of concrete actions that the government is taking.

I want to reiterate to the members opposite what has been done. They have tried to indicate that we have had no plan. The minister announced a plan on September 10 that we would move ahead with whether the border opened or not. Where has that plan led us? From 76,000 cattle per week at the end of 2003 to 90,000 cattle per week at the end of June. It will be 98,000 at the end of this year. That is an increase in slaughter capacity of 30%. That is making progress.

We moved into the Hong Kong market in October 2004. Do the members opposite not think that is progress?

One last point because they go on about CAIS and so on. The fact is that the Government of Canada and the provincial governments put up $4.8 billion. We would love to put up more but we want to see the market open up. We are doing our part. I just wish they would stop misrepresenting the facts.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that the government has done very little in facing this incredible crisis. It is not just members of the NDP who say this. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has said that all the government is offering is empty words and no action. Cattle communities based right across the country are saying that the government has empty words and no action. Three-quarters of the members of the House in this minority Parliament are saying the same thing.

The Liberals say that somehow, in the midst of these empty words and complete lack of action, something good is happening. They can throw out all the statistics they want but we have seen with the budget that they like to do flim-flam, play around with figures, maybe do something this year and certainly they will do something five years from now, but we know that Liberal promises are not worth the paper or the napkin they are printed on.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with much of the sentiment that the hon. member has expressed. The whole issue here has become for a long time not about health or safety, not about science, but it has been about politics. The government has failed miserably to cut through the political BS and actually solve the BSE problem.

Other than this bloody government, all of us recognize the reality that the CAIS program is not working. It is not working whatsoever. My leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has called upon the government to utilize some of the $3 billion contingency reserve funds to properly address this issue with a program that works for farmers and delivers the money.

The parliamentary secretary just got up and bragged about the $4.8 billion. Why are farmers still going broke in this country then? It is because the money does not reach them. It does not get to the farm gate. I wonder if the member would support our call to use the contingency reserve funds for this emergency.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

What we support, Mr. Speaker, is real action. We support actual concrete steps that will make a difference in the farming communities across the country that have been horribly impacted by the lack of action of the government. We have always stood for that. We will continue to stand for that and we will continue to fight in this corner of the House for real concrete measures that make a difference.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker--

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I rise on a point of order. It is the NDP's turn.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. We always cycle between the parties, but we always go to a party first other than the speaker if there is anyone standing. Therefore, we go through speakers from opposition parties and in this case, with an NDP speaker, we do not go to an NDP questioner because that just would not be right. We will go to the member for Vegreville--Wainwright for a short question.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a couple of statements which were probably accurate. One was that BSE exists in the United States and has not been brought out. Second, R-CALF is doing what it is doing for the sake of making more money. However, that is still not dealing with the real issue.

The real issue here is the political harm that has been done by the government when it comes to our relationship with our American neighbours. It is the result of the name calling that took place over the past year and a half and more recently, through the unfortunate and stupid timing on the part of the Prime Minister when he announced just before the opening of the border that he would not take part in missile defence. That is the issue. That is why the border is not open. There is no other reason. I would like the member to comment on that, if he would.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reason for this continuing problem is very clear. We have a government that dithers and then dithers, and dithers some more. We are talking about missile defence where the NDP very clearly indicated early on with the mass of Canadian public opinion that it was extremely important that it be rejected. It took months and months and a Liberal convention before the government finally saw the light rather than be fried by its own members at the Liberal convention and decided to change its position.

On every one of these issues, there is constant and continued dithering. Rather than negotiating strongly and firmly the way Canadians appreciate, we have not seen this from the government and that is why we are in the state that we are in.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on debate. Let me begin by thanking my colleagues from all sides of the House for participating in the debate. This is indeed a very important question and a very critical one for producers. Indeed, it is a critical debate for all Canadians whether or not they live in rural Canada or whether they live in urban Canada. This is a national issue with national concerns.

In the debate so far we have heard a lot of comments. We have heard a fair amount of political rhetoric at the same time. I will try in my comments not to engage in that. There are some important messages that need to be sent to producers and to Canadians. It is my intent to do that.

The first message, and I say this on behalf of the government and I say it very loud and clear, is that the Government of Canada stands four square behind our producers. That is an absolute commitment. It is something that we have done since the first case of BSE in May 2003. It is something that we have done since that time. It is something that we are doing on an ongoing basis. It is something that we will do as we move forward.

There has been a lot of talk in the House that this is phantom money. It is not phantom money; it is real money. It is real investments making a real impact on our producers.

There has been $1.9 billion invested by the federal government specifically on the issues of BSE. That has had an impact on our industry. It has provided an opportunity through very difficult times to maintain the industry. Is it at a level that we would like it to be at? No. However, it is certainly providing the kind of assistance that is necessary for our producers.

In addition to that, it is important to note as well that provincial governments have also provided investments to the tune of a little over $400 million. There has in fact been substantial investments made to the industry. Those are appropriate investments. They are important investments and they have helped to sustain the industry through this very difficult time.

As we look forward and contemplate on exactly the type of actions that we need to take, there are three specific areas in which we need to continue to work. First of all, we will clearly continue to work with the United States to reopen the border. That is an important market to Canadians and it is something that we need to do.

There has been a lot of misinformation here. The Conservative Party has left itself with a storyline that just does not match reality. It is trying to suggest that the border was not reopened as a result of mismanagement of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

The facts say very differently. I know that the party opposite when it is caught in a situation where it does not match a fact simply tries to repeat it over and over again, and louder and louder to make it a fact. It is not a fact. This is not a dispute between the Government of Canada and the government of the United States.

The fact is that the Government of Canada and the government of the United States have exactly the same view. The border should be opened and that decision should be based on the sound science that exists today. Both governments feel exactly the same way.

The USDA, the counterpart of my department, is actively supporting that rule and actively defending it. The President of the United States has stated clearly that he wants that border opened. He helped promote the rule change and has said clearly that should congress put in a disallowance motion, he will in fact veto it.

That is an unprecedented step for this President. It represents his willingness to expend significant political capital in the United States to make that happen. The storyline as presented by the party opposite has no basis in fact. We are two governments that share exactly the same view and we share that view in large part because of the strong work that has been done by the Prime Minister, other members of cabinet, members of my caucus in dealing with the United States, and with officials who have helped us arrive and helped the Americans arrive at the conclusion that having the border opened based on science is the appropriate step that ought to be taken.

Second, in terms of talking about actions as we move forward, is the absolute need to continue the transition measures that we put in place in September, essentially the set aside programs both for feeder cattle and for fed cattle. That program has worked well. It represents, to use the expression of the party opposite, real money going to real producers in a timely manner.

But more important, it has allowed a balance in the number of cattle that is available for slaughter at any one time and the amount of slaughter capacity that is available. That has created a recovery in price in the marketplace and it has been significant from the lows that we experienced before we put this program into place last August to where we stood a couple of weeks ago.

Money has been provided to producers from where it should come from, the marketplace. Those set aside programs put in place by the federal government and by several of the provinces have created an increased price that has provided new revenue and important revenue from the marketplace to producers. That is a fact. It is a reality and the industry will be the first to say that it is a program that has worked well and one that I believe is a transition measure that needs to be continued.

The next area that we need to work on is to continue and build upon the transition program that we put in place in September 2004. What that attempts to do, and I know it is very difficult for minds across the way to grasp this, is to reposition the industry so that it can be profitable with or without a border opening. Again, something very much asked for by the industry, seen by the industry in terms of what we did, and very much accepted by the industry as the appropriate thing to do.

When it comes to judging the appropriateness of the programs or the effectiveness of the programs, I intend to listen very carefully to what the industry has to say and to act on its recommendations. It is what we have done in the past and it will be something that we will continue to do as we move forward.

There are two important messages I wanted to send and clearly that is one of them, that this government stands behind our producers. There is a second message that needs to be sent. I know some hon. members across the way have sent this message as well and it is an important one to send. I am going to relate it to some of the comments made by some U.S. senators, not by all U.S. senators. There were senators on both sides of the debate. The vote almost split right down the middle. Some senators made some comments that Canada's regulatory regime was not effective and did not warrant classifying Canada as a minimum risk region.

Those comments were simply wrong. They were inaccurate. They were based on wrong information. They were inappropriate. They provided a message that was simply not so and after seeing such a debate in the U.S. senate, that it is absolutely appropriate here in the Canadian House of Commons to respond to those U.S. senators and simply say to them they were wrong. The science indicates they were wrong and the situation is dramatically different from the one that they painted in the U.S. senate. I want to make that comment clear and unequivocal.

If we look at the reality, the systems we have in Canada and the United States are very similar. In fact our regulatory regimes and the measures that we have taken are almost identical. The exposure which brought BSE into the North American herd took place on both sides of the border. When we take the fact that cattle had moved freely for a long period of time after that exposure between both of those countries, the criticism that they would make of Canada is a criticism that they would have to make of the United States. Quite frankly, the rest of the world is listening, including markets like Japan, and they are simply wrong in trying to paint a picture that is not reality.

We have a very strong regulatory system in Canada. A point that needs to be made, and I would suspect that all members agree with this, is that animal health is protected by a regulatory regime and human health is protected by a regulatory regime. We have a safe beef and cattle supply in Canada. It is safe for Canadians and it is safe for consumers around the world, and that message needs to go forth loud and clear because it is the truth, it is the reality.

As a country, we have been very open and transparent. We have not tried to hide in any way what we do. After the incidents of late December and early January, as the minister, I invited anybody from every country to come to Canada to observe what we did in terms of our feed ban. The Americans did come. They did an independent review of our feed ban. They worked very carefully with our industry as they did that review. They issued a report which said clearly that our feed ban was an effective feed ban, one that worked and ensured animal health and human health. That is not our regulatory regime speaking, although we say that. The Americans, through an independent review, have said that about Canada. I think the U.S. senators in their debate should have listened to that.

Our system is strong because of the types of measures we have taken. In the early nineties, once the discovery had taken place, we put in place strong import regulations from affected countries. In 1997 we put in place a ruminant to ruminant feed ban. That is considered the appropriate and best way to ensure there will be a decline and an eventual elimination of the low level of BSE which may be contained in the Canadian herd.

In 2001 we put in a cattle identification system. We enhanced that later in 2004. As a country, we are the best in the world through the identification system we are building. It is a system that will give us a competitive marketing advantage in addition to the animal health issues with which it can deal.

In 2003 there was a decision to remove all SRM from the human food chain. That is the gold standard around the world as the accepted manner to protect human health, and Canada follows that step. Just last year we indicated that we would put in place an additional measure of removing all SRM from all animal feed, and that too is an appropriate way of ensuring that the level of BSE declines and goes out of the herd.

Unlike what some U.S. senators said, clearly we have a strong regulatory system in Canada, a system that keeps animal health and human health safe. That is absolutely critical for our Canadian consumers and for our producers. Our producers can and have travelled the world making a very clear and important statement that we have a safe beef and cattle supply.

Our rules are sound and they are based on science. They are recognized clearly by the Americans and others for what they are.

There are other issues, and I want to talk briefly about some of the things we need to do.

I have mentioned the repositioning strategy. I believe we need to build on that strategy.

We have had much discussion about capacity and we have talked about that in a number of different ways. We have seen a 20% increase in capacity. There are plans on line to talk about going to a 30% increase, but it is more than just reaching certain macro numbers. It also will be important that we develop slaughter capacity on a regional basis to ensure we have slaughter capacity in the appropriate way across the country. As well, we need to ensure that the slaughter capacity is available for the different types of animals. We not only need this for the cattle side for older animals as well as younger animals, but we have to deal with slaughter capacity for other ruminants as well. As one of the members has mentioned, we tend to talk about this in terms of cattle, but there are also other ruminants. We need to deal with them also because they are having difficulty in this respect.

Specifically, we saw two smaller new plants open up. Assistance has been provided to those. As we move forward, there have been many suggestions on how we can make our program for helping slaughter capacity more effective. We have listened very attentively to those comments, and I want to thank members who have provided a number of suggestions on how we can do that.

We need to continue to deal with the issue of developing new markets. The Deputy Prime Minister talked about a number of successes in developing those. It is important for us to continue that kind of success.

I have had an opportunity to travel personally to a number of potential new markets. We need to continue to do our work in that respect. The two things have to go hand in hand. It is important that we process more of our own product in Canada, but we also need to ensure that we have new international and additional international markets to sell it into. We are determined to ensure we do both those things because they are both important.

It has also mentioned by some honour members, and I agree with them, that we have to deal with the issue of the size of a herd and with the age of a herd. As we move forward, it will be absolutely critical that we deal with those two issues. We intend to work very closely with all parts of the industry to deal with those specific issues.

I mentioned earlier that we needed to deal with the other ruminant sectors that have been impacted dramatically by the border closure.

I am quite pleased that we are having this emergency debate today. It gives me an opportunity to make those two very important points, and I just will wrap up by reiterating them.

First, the Government of Canada fully stands behind the industry. We have been there since May 2003. We have invested a substantial amount of resources and we will continue to do that. Second, we have a strong regulatory system in Canada that protects both animal health and human health and we have the best product in the world for consumers, not just in Canada, not just for the United States, but for all the globe.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since we have a very popular minister here, I will keep questions and answers to one minute each.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for being here and I thank the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster for bringing forward this emergency debate.

I wish the minister could hear the calls that come into the offices of most of the MPs, calls from feedlot operators and producers. They are saying that the fat market has dropped $10 a hundred. They are getting 10¢ a pound for their calf prices. Their cattle are down $100 to $150. They are losing our shirts. I had a call from a pastor about a guy who was ready to release his cattle. He had given up hope.

People are looking at the minister to step forward and make a difference. If there are issues that are dividing us with the U.S., let us deal with them. I know the minister will stand and say that the President does this and he does that. However, is there anything the minister can do that he has not done already to get money into extra slaughter plants? The loan loss reserve is not working. What more can he do?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a number of things have been done and they have had a significant impact. I mentioned first about the fed and the feeder set aside programs. They provided good price recovery between August and February and they provided additional revenue to the industry from the marketplace. This has been significant, and we have made a commitment that we will continue those set aside programs.

Second, I know the members opposite have a terrible time understanding how the CAIS program works, but it provided in a 60 day period in the fall $106 million to beef producers at their request to add some liquidity into their system. They asked for it, we processed it and it worked.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who requested the debate.

The minister said not too long ago that the NDP always liked to have blank cheques. The Prime Minister on the weekend said at the Liberal convention that the NDP liked blank cheques. I believe the Liberal Party likes to write cheques but forgets to sign the cheques. That is what happens with the farmers. One thing they do not forget though is to sign cheques for Lafleur. When we look at the sponsorship program, it seems he got money that he did not know he would get.

I have never had calls from farmers who have said that they received cheques they were not supposed to get. They never get cheques. The calls I get in my riding are from the feedlot farmers who are losing their shirts. They do not feel good when they see they are not getting money for their beef, but when they go to the store, people are paying the same price as before.

How would the minister answer those farmers who call my office? It seems the farmers who call the opposition members are not the same farmers who call the government. We have maybe a big problem--