Debates of March 8th, 2005

Canadian Livestock Industry

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what my friend has said. That is the type of frustration we see on the farm. We have so many examples of where people will spend hours and hours trying to figure out the CAIS forms. They then take them to an accountant and spend $1,000, $2,000 or $4,000 on these things, only to find out after many months that they do not even qualify for a payout of any kind. That is beyond ridiculous. It is cruel that the government would not fix these problems that have persisted for two and a half years since the CAIS program came into being. It is time to start acting on this and to fix some of these problems.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Edmonton--Mill Woods--Beaumont .

I am also pleased to speak this evening to this most critical issue affecting our primary agricultural producers. Sadly, we have seen a lot of numbers thrown about on all sides of the House this evening, but clearly the bottom line of the equation is that our producers are hurting and they are hurting badly.

This is not a numbers game. This is about our farmers and their families. It is also about the devastating impact that the BSE crisis is having on rural economies in general. To put it simply, when farmers hurt, all of rural Canada hurts. There is a great deal of pain out there in rural Canada tonight.

When I first began drafting this speech for this evening's debate, I considered talking about the repositioning strategy announced by the Minister of Agriculture last September. I strongly believe that his plan is forward looking and positive for the long term. I also believe that this made in Canada solution focuses on returning the Canadian livestock sector to profitability with or without a border opening. One must acknowledge that the repositioning strategy is a result of close collaboration with industry and with the provinces. It clearly aims to address both the immediate needs of ruminant producers and to reposition the sector for the longer term, whether or not the border opens.

I understand the importance of the three main objectives announced in the September plan. Enhancing slaughter capacity, helping producers transition and expanding in diversifying markets are all lofty, important and necessary goals. In fact, the agriculture committee has been calling for these measures for some time and I am glad to see that Agriculture Canada is also now responding.

That said, tonight I plan to talk about four things that do not revolve around the repositioning strategy. They are: first, the fact that we are moving live U.S. cattle through Canada into the continental United States; second, the allegations made by a former USDA veterinarian that the U.S. is hiding its cases of BSE; third, the need for an immediate and substantial injection of funds to help support our farmers; and fourth, the fact that the only science keeping the border closed to Canadian beef is U.S.-based political science.

I know I may sound a little less than diplomatic when I talk about these things this evening but many of my constituents were holding out until the border opened yesterday. However, as all members know, that did not happen. Moreover, it did not happen because of reasons that escape the understanding of most rational individuals. That missed date represents a huge psychological defeat for our farmers and I would be remiss if I failed to address this during the course of debate this evening.

Permit me to declare that I firmly believe that the Government of Canada, the CFIA and the Minister of Agriculture are doing all they can. However I believe t the language of diplomacy is obscuring the facts somewhat in this instance.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that the Bush administration is appealing the recent decision of the United States district court of Montana that prevented the border from opening as planned. This support is appreciated by our producers but, regrettably, the fact is that the border remains closed.

With that said I would like to cite an article that appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen entitled “Agriculture minister pushes for ban on Hawaiian cattle: Shipments transit Vancouver on way to continental U.S.” The article went on to say that the B.C. Minister of Agriculture was calling upon the federal government to stop permitting U.S. cattle to be shipped through our ports. I would have to add that if, according to the U.S. senate, the U.S. district court of Montana and the lobby group R-CALF, Canada is so wrought with risk, why would they want to have their cattle touch our soil?

The truth is that there is no more risk here than in the U.S and the U.S. senate, the U.S. district court of Montana and the lobby group R-CALF know that full well. They are simply playing games in an attempt to use the BSE crisis as a mechanism to pummel their Canadian competitors into the dust.

In getting back to the article, it is time to take off our kid gloves and fight fire with fire. I know our minister wants to encourage the international community to adopt rational, justified trade responses to BSE, but what are we to do if our concerted messages are being ignored and thwarted by certain elements of the U.S. beef industry? I am not suggesting that we should shoot ourselves in the foot by introducing measures that are irrational or haphazard, but our industry is taking on water. We are down to the brass tacks and our farmers need immediate and substantial help.

I know that this government is committed to supporting our producers in this their time of need. If there was any doubt on this front I would simply point out that over the past two years record payments have gone out to producers across this country: $4.8 billion in 2003, projected $4.9 billion in 2004, and $2.6 billion in direct BSE assistance, of which the federal share was almost $2 billion. That is the kind of initial support that I am talking about. Again, this is the initial support to which I refer. It is now time for much more.

As an extension of the above, in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen there was an article that was entitled “U.S. Hiding Mad Cow Cases”. There has been talk in the countryside for months that the U.S. has adopted King Ralph's “shoot, shovel and shut up” approach. According to this article we now have a whistleblower.

The article references a former USDA veterinarian who formerly supervised meat inspectors south of the border. He outlined how he oversaw the processing and/or disposal of hundreds of downer and suspect animals. He claimed that he had no doubt that there were instances of BSE in the U.S. and that it was simply dealt with outside of the public eye.

This veterinarian outlined how false positives were not followed up on and how the United States testing program may be subverted as a result of longstanding systemic deceptions of this nature.

I submit that from a purely scientific perspective it is difficult, if not impossible, to accept that the U.S. is free of BSE. While our state of knowledge with respect to this disease is incomplete, we do understand that spontaneous cases are generated at a rate of about one in a million. That said, the United States, with its millions of cattle, could not possibly be 100% free of BSE. It is not realistic in any sense of the word.

I am not looking to bash our American friends, but I am tired of getting kicked around for no reason. If there was a problem with the quality of Canadian beef, I would be the first to support embargos and other forms of corrective action, but this is not the case. I eat Canadian beef and feed it to my family because I know it to be of the highest quality available in the world.

Our farmers need money now. I can barely listen to any more of this debate. We all know the problems and we should stop playing politics with this issue. The minister has done a stellar job so far and he should be commended for that. We need action if our farmers are going to survive.

In health care, the Prime Minister determined that we were going to fix the problem for a generation. He took immediate and decisive action to do just that. Under his leadership the provinces were brought together and a deal was struck that placed our health care system on a stable footing for the next 10 years. I would urge every member of this House to take that kind of approach on this issue.

I do not know what will fix this problem entirely, but I have several actions that could be taken, and once added together they could provide substantial assistance to our farmers, their families, and all of rural Canada. I would love to hear what other members have to say on this front.

Increasing our domestic slaughter capacity through producer owned cooperatives would be an important first step. Governments could provide access to start-up capital and streamline the red tape.

Governments must also get money into the hands of our farmers and not into the hands of packing plants. Let us hear members tell us how they believe this can be done and accomplished effectively. Simply writing cheques will not solve these problems if they are written without a long-term plan. Let us move agriculture beyond crisis management and on to a stable foundation for the next generation.

I will again restate my belief that the only science keeping the U.S. border closed to our beef is political science. The OIE said that there was no reason to close the border because Canada's beef is not a health risk. Our tracing system prevented the public from eating the BSE contaminated beef, unlike the U.S. system that permitted a cow to be placed on supermarket shelves.

Canada has taken measures to remove SRMs from the food supply. SRMs are the only part of the animal that contain the BSE prion and hence, there is no possibility for contamination of the human food supply.

For these reasons and more, I submit that our neighbours to the south are still playing games. I heard a media interview with a U.S. senator that said he believed that Canadian beef was safe, but he had to vote against reopening the border because he needed to get re-elected in 2006.

Worse yet, after the R-CALF victory in the Montana court, the media interviewed R-CALF members and they all said that they would eat Canadian beef. I find this astonishing. If they believed that our beef was not safe, then why would they consume it? The fact is that they do not feel that our beef is at risk. They are simply playing games that are hurting our farmers.

I should point out that even the United States President ate beef when he visited Canada a short time ago. To his credit though, he at least has the courage to admit that he feels our beef is safe. I would suggest that our American friends remember that one day the proverbial chickens may come home to roost.

If and when the U.S. BSE case is discovered, I would sincerely hope that the U.S. will not look to this Canadian MP for a lot of sympathy. I would be prepared to offer the same level of compassion and logic that the U.S. senate offered to us. If we were indeed friends, then I would call upon the United States to act accordingly. Unless it is actually able to produce some science in support of this continued border closure, then it should stop its actions. Failure to do so should be looked at by Canada as nothing more than unwarranted trade sanctions and we should take action accordingly.

I congratulate the minister for the efforts he has made in terms of bringing some relief to our farming community. I also thank the member opposite for encouraging this debate this evening.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have followed this debate and I will go back to the onset of this whole crisis. I go back to the American rally in Montana in July after the border closed. I can still remember the mayor of Havre talking about the relationship with Canadians and about the Prime Minister. He pointed out our mistakes with our diplomatic relations with Japan and how poorly we treated the Japanese. He thought that we not only insulted them, but that had we shown some sort of outreach toward them then perhaps we would not have been in this situation today.

I find it really ironic that the government is working so very hard now. A headline in the Globe and Mail says: “Canada, Japan take step toward free trade”. Where was Japan two years ago? Why was Canada being so smug and not realizing it was so important to sit, speak and renew relationships with Japan?

I do not think this was a figment of anybody's imagination. It did exist. I also heard that we denied Japanese scientists entry when our first case was discovered. Does the member agree that we have lots of problems with our relationships? Who is making these mistakes with our relationships?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is well premised. It is important that we have good relationships. I trust that my comments this evening did not give the impression that we should not have good relationships. Whether it is with our United States neighbours or the Japanese, we have had longstanding relationships with these countries for many years.

As we all know, the Japanese were invited to be part of the team of scientists in Canada when the first case of BSE was discovered on our soil. Why they were not here I cannot speak to because I do not have the answer, but certainly they were invited.

On the issue of Japan's cases of BSE, there is a total misunderstanding even among the Japanese as to what degree BSE has overtaken the industry in that country. Today Japan is still not free of BSE. It is still finding the odd case from time to time. Do the people in Japan know that? I am told they do not. I am told every animal is tested. I am also told that in certain areas of that country, there are certain states, provinces or territories, every animal is tested, but in other areas they are not. Indeed they are walking around that.

We ought to know the full truth before we can really make a determination on some of these issues. Certainly, it is important to have good relationships, but I do not buy into the premise that we have failed in opening our borders simply because we made a decision on our northern strategic air defence systems. I do not believe that. If we believe the Americans and take them at their word, they have said this is an issue of science. It must be science based and the borders will be opened based on that decision.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member talks to quite a number of people. One of the questions that has been raised with me by many producers is how a judge from Montana could close down the border. It has been said to me that for a nation trying to hold itself up as an example of democracy based on the rule of law, this decision in which we were not even allowed standing as a country is really an affront to justice.

The member and I have talked about that a bit. I wonder if he has any comments he might want to express on that point because it flies in the face of common justice where all sides of the case should be heard. It seems to me that politics entered the courtroom in the United States and that speaks pretty sadly of that nation, not in terms of the American administration at the president's level and the level of secretary of agriculture. The fact that we could have an affront to justice in a way that would close the border and throw the lives of Canadians into jeopardy is a problem.

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

Madam Speaker, many of us probably witnessed the response of a number of members of R-CALF as they left the courtroom that day in jubilation over what they believed was a victory for them in terms of their pocketbooks.

It is hard to believe that a country with the power that the Americans have, and recognized as a superpower in the world, could be subjected to the powers of a court in the state of Montana. It is hard to believe that the President of the United States, who has veto power over the senate and congress, is unable to overpower a judge's decision in a state. That is hard for me to understand.

Justice was not served in this case by the way this was handled. It will not be served until the border is opened based on the merit of the science that has been done. It will not be served until it is proven that beef products and all animal products in Canada and the United States are safe for human consumption.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton—Beaumont, AB]

Madam Speaker, in this emergency debate I must, as an Alberta MP, add to what so many have said tonight. It is very unfortunate that the district court in Montana has succumbed to protectionist pressure. As my colleague has said, we should salute the Bush administration for appealing the decision.

The injunction comes despite the fact that the United States department of agriculture has said that Canadian beef is perfectly good and safe to eat. OISE has said it internationally. The United States DA's ruling that Canada is a minimal risk region was further reinforced, as members will recall, when the USDA technical team came to Canada to assess the risk in January this year. The team found that Canada's inspection program was robust and found compliance with Canada's feed ban regulations to be effectively curbing the risk of BSE.

The continued imposition of this scientifically unwarranted ban is a further blow to an industry that is only just beginning to recover from the fallout of the initial border closure.

The continued closure of the border reinforces the need for us to take immediate action. It has become quite obvious that the wait and see approach which has currently been adopted will not save our beef industry. We cannot be content to sit around and wait until the USDA has caught up in its legal wrangling to try to get the border open. Even though the USDA supports a science based approach and is pushing to get the border open, this will not help the thousands of producers.

Thousands of producers are slowly bleeding to death as they incur costs on cattle that they cannot sell at current prices. Since the crisis began in March 2003, it has become clear that increasing domestic processing capacity is of absolute importance in order to cushion the beef industry against further system shocks. Yet here we are in the same situation again and there has been precious little, if any, processing capacity added. Clearly, the loan loss program, which has been referred to by members opposite, has done nothing to decrease our dependence on American processors. Not a red cent has been advanced under this program.

We must all acknowledge that the loan loss reserve is an inadequate solution. It is abundantly clear now that the lenders will only lend to projects that meet their risk criteria in the first place. In other words, the processing plants that receive loans would have received them regardless of whether there was a loan loss program in place.

Financing processing plants in light of all the unknown variables and the tight operating margins that characterize these operations, constitute a level of risk with which lenders have clearly demonstrated they are reluctant to contend.

We all agree that increasing domestic processing capacity is of paramount importance. I believe this, therefore, leaves us with only one. The Government of Canada must make direct financial assistance, grants and loans, available for processing plants. My colleagues from the agriculture committee on the opposite side know that the two plants in Alberta were helped mightily to get going by the Government of Alberta way back.

We have paid a high price for our dependence on our neighbour to the south and we can no longer afford not to be self-sufficient in terms of processing capacity.

Although budget 2005 addresses some of the issues facing farmers by committing to eliminate the CAIS deposit requirements and providing $73 million this year and a total of $104 million over four years for agricultural cash advances, much more needs to be done. The magnitude of the crisis facing farmers today demands far more assistance than has been offered in the budget.

I do not know if members knew this, but Agriculture Canada was already predicting a drop in national net farm income this year of 34%, making it one of the worst year's on record. The farm economy in Saskatchewan alone will be experiencing its third consecutive year of losses, putting the total loss for the last three years for Saskatchewan producers at a staggering $900 million. That is unimaginable to me. What is even more alarming is that the farm income predictions for this year were made under the assumptions that the border would open to Canadian cattle and the Canadian dollar would remain in the 80¢ range. Clearly, neither of these assumptions is valid and so the decline in farm income this year promises to be disastrous if further support is not provided to our farmers immediately.

The Government of Canada needs to do much more to help our producers get back on their feet before our wealth of agricultural expertise is lost as more and more people pull out of the industry or are forced out by bankruptcy. Moreover, it is imperative that we continue.

A friend of mine, a three generation ranch farm, went into bankruptcy recently near Ponoka, Alberta. He has kids under 10, and his brothers are in difficulty. The whole community has been affected by the bankruptcy. To me it is an absolute tragedy that his financial institution could not have helped him get through this.

We have to support producers in this time of crisis so they can continue to leverage the competitive advantage in the production of capital intensive agriculture commodities and thus benefit from the continuing liberalization of global agricultural trade.

The competitive advantage of our producers is undeniable, especially when one considers that Canadians spend about 10.6% of their disposable income on food. The removal of trade barriers in global agricultural trades should be a boon for Canadian farmers and the Canadian economy, but this will only happen if we provide farmers with the support they need to get through the current crisis.

If this is not an emergency, then I do not know what is. I see no better time than now to take some of the $3 billion that has been earmarked for emergency situations and use it to alleviate the enormous crisis that farm families across the country are facing.

We can no longer stand by while an industry that provides the very nourishment that keeps us alive, an industry that makes up 8% of our economy and an industry that provides jobs for one in eight Canadians continues to be caught in this seemingly perpetual state of crisis. The time for action is now, and we must simply put a lot more money behind our farmers now.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. member's comments. He recognizes that the Saskatchewan economy is not very good. The agriculture economy is in the minus, by hundreds of millions. It is not very sweet, but yet the government and the finance minister from Saskatchewan continue to say that forever dollars go to Saskatchewan and to the agricultural community.

How can the member sit on the same side and allow these misrepresentations? It is simply not true. We are not getting the money. Would the member like to respond somehow and tell Canadian farmers what they can expect. Is there any hope? He heard the hopeless stories tonight. No one feels very good. We do not really have much hope. Perhaps he can help us because he is on that side of the House. Is there a way we can connect and get the message over there that we need the money and we need it now?

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton—Beaumont, AB]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with what the member for Blackstrap has said. She probably knows this far better than I do, but the losses of farm producers in Saskatchewan has been $900 million over the last three years. How many communities have seen their schools and stores close? It is simply unacceptable.

As a prairie Canadian like her, we have to do more. Prairie Canada and other parts of Canada are in crisis. This is the time when all the money we have for so many other things has to be focused on our producers. If we can get them through this, as I tried to say in my remarks, then we will be in a position where we can continue, as we are doing, to increase our exports of agricultural products.

This is the time. This is the rainy day. All the money that the Minister of Finance has been spending, and it seems to me a great deal more than has been committed to agriculture, should be going to help people like her constituents now. I see three other members of the agriculture committee as well as the chair here tonight. Their constituents are suffering enormously by what is going on right now. The Government of Canada, along with provincial governments, is supposed to help these people. They need it desperately, and I am sure members on all sides of the House agree with that.

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

Madam Speaker, I will admit I am disappointed that the member from the governing party has not talked about some of the benefits we have put out there. It leaves the impression that a lot of effort has not been made. In fact, as I indicated earlier, as a government, we have paid the largest payouts to the farm community in Canadian history. That is not to say that there is not hurt. I fully admit, and so has the minister, that there is extreme financial hurt in the farm community.

However, I would ask the member this. In terms of moving ahead and moving forward, how does the member believe we should proceed? Should we emphasize more in safety nets, which is basically government payments into the industry? Should we take a somewhat different approach or in parallel to try to deal with the real problem, which is the lack of return? We have had a declining return in the marketplace for producers. It has been declining down for 25 years, not only in Canada but globally. Should we be emphasizing in that area and trying to make the market work more for producers than it currently is? The moneys need to come from there. Safety nets only cover some of the shortfall, not it all, and we know that.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton—Beaumont, AB]

Madam Speaker, there has been a large payout, but it is also the largest crisis we have had. It is fine to say we have done this, but it is raining now. It is not good enough to say we will wait and see. This is not an attitude the Canadian producers can take.

What should we do? Other countries, the United States and its heartland, folks in Manhattan or San Francisco, have a real concern, affection and anxiety to help their farmers. They are treated as a strategic industry, which they are, and they are given all kinds of help, and equally so in Europe.

I know the parliamentary secretary is fond of saying that we have given about as much aid as we can now into the WTO. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, in your home town tomorrow I am sending a paper, because I cannot go to give it, on what agricultural subsidies are doing in Canada today. As it turns out, and I only learned this recently, we can do a lot more subsidizing of our producers as long as we are not in the red light district under the WTO. However, under green and amber we can do things to help our producers. I am glad to see my knowledgeable friend is nodding his head.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to share my time with the hon. member for Joliette.

Agriculture is being manhandled by Ottawa. Few countries have abandoned their agricultural sector as much as Canada did when the Prime Minister was Minister of Finance. Today more than ever, agricultural producers are less well supported, even though we are in the midst of a serious agricultural crisis caused by tumbling prices and the mad cow crisis.

When Ottawa intervenes, it establishes Canada-wide measures that do not meet the needs of Quebec or the other provinces. In fact, Quebec agriculture and Canadian agriculture are different. They are organized differently and do not have the same requirements. These measures are structures which only get in the way of helping farmers.

This crisis has struck Quebec twice as hard. It should not have affected Quebec at all. The discovery of one case of mad cow in Alberta, in May 2003 and the American embargo that followed have plunged the cattle industry in Quebec and other provinces into the depths of despair. If Canada were divided into health areas and controlled its borders and its public health policy, it would not be hit by the American embargo nation wide.

I want to warn the government's negotiators at the WTO by reading them a letter from the President of the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec.

Dear readers,

The negotiations on agricultural trade at the World Trade Organization, or WTO, will intensify in 2005. The framework agreement on agriculture was ratified in July, and members countries are now negotiating the terms and conditions. This could have a major impact on our agriculture and, consequently, on our food sovereignty.

For Canada, the main issue is the future of its fair agricultural model: supply management.The freer trade advocated by the WTO is threatening one of its pillars, namely import controls. We must not forget that the world dairy ingredients and products market is used to dump subsidized surpluses which, in the absence of effective controls, will take over our market.

Our model benefits society as a whole, not only the producers. It deserves to be maintained. Why? Because its allows producers to make a living from the market , without any subsidies. It fosters small family farms and very reasonable consumer prices. The public purse, regional economy and consumers all benefit from supply management.

The 1994 WTO agreement is already surreptitiously undermining supply management because Canada failed to take appropriate action in this respect. Following this agreement, imported dairy ingredients escape customs control and replace locally produced milk and cream in our dairy products at the expense of dairy producers and the natural quality of our products.

Like any other country, Canada must assume its responsibilities, using every means at its disposal to ensure better control at the borders. It is in the interest of the industry and consumers, who have the right to expect quality dairy products made in Canada, at an affordable price.

The letter is signed Marcel Groleau, president.

All this to say that Canada must immediately commence negotiations at the WTO and protect our industries, such as the milk, egg and turkey industries, which belong to the GO5.

Each dollar generated by the milk industry creates $26 in economic activities. One job on a dairy farm generates 1.5 jobs in the rest of the dairy industry. In Quebec, this industry alone employs 45,000 people, while in Canada, the figure is over 100,000.

During our negotiations with the WTO, I am asking the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his staff to be careful and to protect our agriculture, which is not costing them anything. This is important.

The main problems that have confronted the agricultural sector in recent years are: the income crisis; the globalization of markets; the reviewing of joint plans at the World Trade Organization; and increasingly more stringent environmental regulations on food safety, which adversely affect Quebec producers who must face foreign competition.

The government has to make a commitment to the agricultural sector. Agriculture makes an undeniable contribution to the vitality of rural regions, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

Being able to rely on a domestic and independent food supply contributes to the sovereignty of our nations. This is evident now more than ever and we must pay particular attention to the problems that Quebec and Canadian agriculture is facing. The government must commit to ensuring the harmonious development of agriculture and guarantee that agricultural activity will provide a fair remuneration for the work of men and women who make their living at it. This is more than wishful thinking. It requires a commitment, a real and feasible plan, for concrete solutions are what we have been waiting for since the discovery of the case in May 2003. None has yet been forthcoming.

This government has just shoved agriculture aside. If I remember correctly, the last three agriculture ministers have not been able to make their government, the Liberal government, see agriculture's importance for this country, or the importance of this continuing crisis, which is impoverishing our farming men and women.

Each of them has done his world travelling, Canada is, however, a member of the G-7 or G-8 and they have not been able to get the Canadian border opened up for beef exports. What means have they been using? Not a one. They have found no solutions for solving the problem, in the short term, the medium term or the long term, just ad hoc measures that solve virtually nothing.

There was a cross-Canada tour with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in January 2005. They found there was a shortfall of $2.1 billion, so what solution did they come up with for the producers? Nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing but promises. They have been making promises for 12 years and one of these days this will catch up with them.

As the critic for agriculture, I would like to do everything I can to defend the interests of Quebec producers and farmers. We must not forget that, when agriculture is well, all is well in the best of all worlds. If they need me, I am here for them.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks. He works hard on the agriculture committee and he put out a statistic which I think really shows the value of the agricultural industry and the value of some of the Canadian programs that are in place.

He mentioned dairy. For every dollar of produce, I believe he said, there is a $26 spinoff into the economy. That shows what some of the national marketing systems that we have in place can do. Not only do they create income for primary producers, but they create economic growth for the country as a whole. As a result, the farming industry is indeed to a great extent the economic backbone of the country, creating one job in eight, and the list goes on.

I want to congratulate the member on his remarks and for pointing out some of those facts, because these are the facts that the general consumer population needs to realize. It is important for the Government of Canada and for Canadians to be there for the agricultural industry in its time of need.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary and I appreciate his congratulations. Still they have not yet found solutions because if we go back to what he was saying earlier concerning dairy products, they allowed in soy oil and cheese sticks that could possibly have brought in over $1 billion for farmers from 1997 to 2002.

I think the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should go off together on a crusade to the United States. If memory serves, during the crisis of September 11, 2001, the United States was on its knees begging Canada to strengthen security. Why is it that today, because of one poor little mad cow, our whole agricultural industry has been brought down? What I would like would be for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to set out on a crusade with the Prime Minister and other important ministers. I am just wondering if the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is really a minister or if he is just a pawn the government has put in place. It seems to me that he does not get support from the rest of the cabinet. He is always all alone in his corner. So I am really wondering whether or not he has been forgotten.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's reply and cannot help wondering when he says the Prime Minister is a pawn if he would agree that perhaps the problems with our trade relations have to do with some sort of connection with the announcement last week when the Prime Minister decided not to join the U.S. missile defence.

I read about how it is a security issue. The spokesman said that they do believe it is a security issue. We believe it is a trade issue. I think it is both a trade and a security issue. I am wondering if the member would see a connection with the Prime Minister's announcement last week. Is it perhaps related? Does the member agree?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, very honestly, I thank the hon. member for her question.

However, I do not think there is any link. The American government's dice have been loaded for many years, so that it is no longer possible to reach an agreement with the U.S. on almost any project, such as the missile defence shield. Whatever has happened with the Americans, we have no agreements with them.

We have not been able to win an argument with the American government as a full-fledged G-8 country. That is what amazes me the most. As a G-8 country, we are unable to thump our fist on the table and say that we, too, are as capable as anyone else. But no, we are at the mercy of all those countries, especially the United States.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with both great satisfaction and great disappointment that I take part in this debate. We will recall that, just a few weeks ago, President Bush came to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada. He gave us the assurance that the border would be reopening in early March. At the time, we all wanted to believe it would. I warned against rejoicing too fast, because a similar announcement had been made once before, but then a mad cow, a Canadian cow, was discovered in the U.S. That had delayed things. Once again, a portion of the U.S. cattle industry was able to take advantage of the discovery of another mad cow, this time in Canada, to pursue their protectionist approach, which, in a few areas of the U.S economy, is unfortunately the trademark of producers.

We are talking about agriculture, but we could also talk about softwood lumber. We could talk about live hog and the dairy industry as well. Even though, earlier this year, there was hope that the border would reopen, intensive lobbying of all U.S. representatives and public opinion should have continued to explain that there are no public health reasons to ban cattle exports from Canada and Quebec to the U.S.

I think that we have taken a somewhat careless and wait-and-see attitude in relying only on the word of the U.S. president. I am convinced of the sincerity of the U.S. president on this issue, because, shortly after the injunction was obtained in Montana, President Bush announced that he would be supporting Canada's position, that is for the U.S. border to be reopened to cattle from Canada and Quebec.

Convincing the U.S. president is not good enough, however. Once again, we are getting proof of that. We can think of the cattle issue. In this respect, we have heard all through the evening very important testimonies from members like my hon. colleague from Montcalm. But we have to realize that the same is true for softwood lumber.

We are told in this connection that the Americans are going to respect the decisions by the WTO and special NAFTA panels. Unfortunately, after six positive decisions, in favour of the Canadian position, the Americans are still withholding the $4 billion-plus in countervailing duties illegally collected in connection with Canadian and Quebec softwood lumber exports.

The other example I can give is the Byrd amendment. Canada was right in its WTO challenge with the other countries of the Americans' decision to include in their trade legislation the provision that results—and I will remind you of this here because we are still in the process of putting in place the retaliatory rights to get the Americans to comply with the WTO decisions—in its being illegal for the Americans to levy countervailing duties and antidumping duties on foreign exports in a trade dispute and to hand them over to the industries lodging the complaint.

Obviously, something like the Byrd amendment acts as an incentive to file complaints and to create trade disputes. Consequently, softwood lumber, like the matter of exporting Quebec and Canadian cattle to the Untied States, is part of a context in which it seems, from the American point of view, that they will experience a great deal of difficulty in fulfilling their obligations toward Canada in relation to the decisions reached by the international institutions, or in the case of NAFTA bilateral institutions—in fact trilateral, since Mexico is included—or complying with treaties I would imagine were signed in good faith.

Given this context, after the visit by President Bush, the Prime Minister ought to have taken the bull by the horns—pardon the play on words—and continued his crusade in the U.S. in order to ensure that the President's commitments are respected.

This calls into question the government's approach to trade disputes with the United States. All too often, I get the feeling that the current government, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food are afraid that if Canada asserts its rights at mutually established institutions, such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, it will antagonize the Americans even more. That is not how it works.

We know that the United States is a huge country that has a very diverse economy, particularly in terms of the production of goods, services and agricultural products. Often, we will have to face well-organized lobby groups, but they are limited, however, within the industry.

For example, with regard to softwood lumber, the entire softwood lumber or construction industry is not opposed to the return of the free trade of softwood lumber. In fact, here, we have allies in the U.S., just as we do with regard to Canadian and Quebec cattle, starting with the American president. I could name a number of other allies, particularly in terms of live hog, for which there was a preliminary announcement about countervailing duties.

A large part of the American industry realizes that it goes against its own interest for this lobby, representing one section of the American hog industry, just as in the softwood lumber and cattle industries, to want to use dilatory measures simply to protect their market from exports or, in this case, from Canadian imports.

This is the context, I believe, in which Canada must now raise its voice in terms of its overall approach to Canada-U.S. relations. In fact, we have gotten nowhere by not asserting our rights or by adopting a low-profile strategy and maintaining informal relations. I remember the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he was Minister for International Trade, saying to let him do his job and to be patient, since he knew what he was doing. Two or three years later and the conflict has yet to be resolved. The border has been closed to Canadian cattle for the past 18 months.

In my opinion, Canada and the Liberal government has to stop taking a wait-and-see attitude and has to let all our trading partners know that the Americans are not honouring their international obligations towards Canada. There are a number of ways to do this.

The meeting the Prime Minister of Canada will have with his counterparts, President Bush and President Fox, will provide an opportunity to make a point. It is not enough to tell the U.S. president that we would really like the U.S. border to be reopened to Canadian cattle and the softwood lumber dispute to be resolved.

On the pork issue, we are looking at a preliminary notice of countervailing duties. I hope this will not go any further. It has been unsuccessful in recent years. Unlike us, the Americans have a plan. It is important to understand that, in reference to the cattle, softwood lumber and pork industries, I am talking about industries relying on protectionism to protect their markets. Informal negotiations or discussions such as those we were involved in are not enough for them.

The time has come for Canada to let the U.S. president know that we want to have a very serious discussion on preventing industries like the lumber, cattle, pork or steel industry from using dilatory tactics to avoid complying with decisions rendered under the rules we have mutually agreed on.

On March 23, the Prime Minister of Canada will have a very big responsibility. I will conclude by saying that I was amazed to learn today—I will check it out tomorrow—that this meeting whose purpose was originally to discuss improvements to NAFTA will not have that particular item on the agenda.This would mean taking not only a wait-and-see attitude, but also an absolutely irresponsible one.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about a range of trade issues, but I want to stick to the subject of the debate here tonight which is agriculture.

I want to first of all point out that the ruling in the United States in terms of pork indicated that no countervail action was to be taken. It had to do with anti-dumping issues and not countervailing issues. The reality is that Canada clearly does not subsidize its pork industry.

He raised another issue which has been brought up in the House on a number of occasions, one which is important to re-emphasize. It is not President Bush's position that the border ought to remain closed between Canada and the United States in the trading of live cattle. His position is the exact opposite. He is supportive of opening the border. He has indicated clearly that he is willing to take what for him would be an unprecedented step which would be to cast a veto should Congress move to disallow the particular rule.

The U.S. administration is clearly speaking in the same voice as Canada, that the border ought to be opened and it should be opened on the basis of science. That science exists and it states clearly that there is a strong regulatory regime in Canada to ensure that animal health and human health are protected.

This is not an issue between the President and the Prime Minister or between the USDA and the Canadian agriculture ministry. It is the result of a group in the United States which brought a court action and achieved a temporary injunction which the USDA intends to vigorously argue against.

The member talked about a litany of other issues, but in terms of the agricultural issue, the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada clearly have a similar position in that respect. In terms of this particular agricultural issue there is no division between Canada and the United States. Both governments believe that the border ought to be opened and it should be opened based on science and that it should occur now.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question. As I said in my speech, I concede that President Bush has adopted the same position as Canada, or so he said. During his visit, he had effectively guaranteed us that the border would re-open in early March. As far as I can tell, he is unable to keep his promise because, on the one hand, a court in Montana has issued an injunction and, on the other, the American Senate passed a motion.

When American parliamentarians adopt a motion by a slim margin, we have a very serious perception problem. I think that it was 54 to 49, approximately, so it was a relatively slim margin but the motion passed all the same. So, we must deal with this perception problem, and that is not something we can do overnight.

That is why I wanted to put this debate on the closure of the border to Canadian cattle in a broader perspective, in the context of our overall trade ties with the U.S. We have a number of problems. I see that the low-profile strategy has not worked at all.

If we have the support of Mr. Bush here, that is a plus, but there are still some things missing and we need to work on them.

I cannot believe that the Prime Minister will not, in his meeting on March 23 with President Bush, address the question of the border closure. Judging from what the minister says, it is more or less pointless to do so. The matter must be brought up, but so that we look for strategy together that would prove to the U.S. courts that Canadian beef meets all health standards.

This leads me to another topic. Not only does Canada have a wait-and-see attitude in its trade relations with the Americans, but it is inconsistent. I am sorry to again draw a parallel with another issue, but the Liberal government's strategy with respect to softwood lumber is the same as its strategy with respect to cattle. Yes, there are procedures. Informal discussions appear to be taking place; there is nothing really formal in the way of discussions. The government is certainly not threatening the Americans with the implementation of the rules agreed onmoreover, there is no help to the victims here in Canada and Quebec.

Neither the beef producers nor the dairy producers of Quebec have had any sort of program of assistance that can be called such. The message being sent to the Americans is basically: hang in there. The number of victims created in Quebec and in Canada will make us far less of a trade threat in future.

It is the same thing with softwood lumber. We were promised assistance. We saw phase one, assistance with court costs for communities and associations, but then nothing more since 2003. Every year, the softwood lumber industry and the various companies have some $100 million in legal costs just to keep on going.

So without a solid assistance package in place to show the Americans that we are going to be able to hang on to the end, if no public opinion campaign is undertaken by U.S politicians and of course the American administration, we will not be able to survive this cattle crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for putting this issue on the agenda this evening. It is a very important debate. It is especially so to producers in terms of if there are any added incentives or extra solutions we can bring out of this debate tonight.

The focus of the debate should be kept on where the responsibility for the latest crisis lies, and that is with the United States. I have to add a caveat to that, which is that United States President Bush and Secretary of Agriculture Johanns are on our side on this issue. They are fighting with us in terms of trying to get the border open. However, a single judge in the state of Montana and a group of protectionist producers are clearly responsible for this additional dilemma in which the Canadian producers find themselves. That is a fact.

As was heard in a question earlier this evening, I personally believe the way this was handled by a judge in Montana is an affront to common justice. The facts were not allowed to be put on the table in terms of the science that had been done by this country. When one reads the 27 page transcript from the judge, it is clear that the transcript was written well in advance and reeks more of politics than it does of law. That saddens me when I look to our neighbours to the south and think that justice in this case does not prevail. In fact, there has been a serious injustice done to Canadian producers, and over the long term to American consumers and probably American producers over the longer term as well.

It was summed up pretty well in an article in The StarPhoenix on March 4, entitled “Science, law victims of BSE”. I will quote a couple of sections from that article:

The judgment is specious and ignores both the rules of law and science. And, as if to trump Cebull's myopic injunction, the U.S. Senate followed the lead of a protectionist North Dakota Democratic senator in proposing a bill that will punish consumers for the short term and producers indefinitely to continue the ban.

The article goes on to state:

The U.S. economy with its huge trade deficit is increasingly in danger of becoming isolated from the world, and made irrelevant. Canada, for example, is pushing to process its own beef and battling to find markets in Asia and Europe -- anywhere outside the Fortress USA.

At least the editor of this article recognizes something that the opposition party tonight has tried to avoid. The opposition has tried to get into the political rhetoric without at least acknowledging some of the things we are doing. In the debate tonight we should be adding ideas on top of that so that we can in fact do better for producers in terms of opening up markets.

For once, instead of playing political games the official opposition should be prepared to take a position it may wish to avoid. Namely, it should stand with government members in condemning the United States Senate for adopting a protectionist, anti-trade, anti-science based assessment motion which effectively keeps the border closed.

As I stated a moment ago, the continued closure of the border is the result of a United States judge in Montana accepting the narrow protectionist arguments of R-CALF, a splinter group of U.S. producers determined to keep the border closed in order that they will be able to inflate prices to their consumers and really damage the whole idea of an integrated marketplace in North America and the whole idea of free trade.

It is the knee-jerk reaction of a protectionist U.S. Senate as well that talks free trade and practises protectionism.

As it was with the United States Senate, it was apparent in the decision of the United States District Court in Montana that the issue is not safety. The issue is clearly protectionism.

I will say that we have some allies in the United States Senate as well. On the floor of the United States Senate, Canada and its food inspection system had its defenders. I want to mention a few of those examples. It is important to hear what some senators in the United States are in fact saying.

Senator Bond, who is a Republican from Missouri, had this to say about the call for the border to remain closed to Canadian beef by his colleagues in the Senate:

We just heard a defence of protectionism. Let me define what protectionism is. Protectionism is, in my view, the use of scare tactics, the use of unfound scientific information, in an attempt to protect our markets. In this case, I believe sound science dictates it is time to open the border.

Let us turn to Senator Allard, who is a Republican from Colorado. In response to the motion to ensure that Canada's beef products are kept out of the United States, this senator said:

Frankly, the Canadian border is already open. Boxed beef is coming across the border from Canada in record numbers, numbers higher than they were before BSE was discovered in Canada.... U.S. beef imports from Canada set a record in 2004, approaching 1.2 billion pounds, a 12% increase over 2002 levels. During 2005, beef imports from Canada are expected to total 1.2 to 1.3 billion pounds.

At least that senator recognizes what the opposition fails to admit, that we have made progress with beef products.

Yes, we want to make progress with live animals under 30 months and eventually get to exporting into the United States breeding stock again from both dairy and beef. We have some of the highest quality breeding stock in the world and that border should be open to those stocks as well.

Senator Allard called attention to the support of the scientific community on the safety of Canadian beef. He went on to say that the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has stated that there is no body of scientific evidence indicating there is any potential risk to the American consumer in allowing live Canadian cattle under the age of 30 months to enter the U.S. marketplace.

That backs up everything the government, the livestock industry in Canada, and indeed the opposition in this case have been saying, that there is sound science behind our livestock industry, that we have some of the safest food in the world and the border should be open to the sale of those products.

Senator Chambliss, who is a Republican from Georgia, had the following to say concerning the work of the USDA inspection team, which reported on January 24:

The inspection team found that Canada has a robust inspection program, that overall compliance with the feed ban is good, and that the feed ban is reducing the risk of transmission of BSE in the Canadian cattle population.

The USDA report continued by stating:

The Canadian feed ban is not substantially different than the U.S. feed ban.

Then he continued by pointing this out and I agree entirely:

--the Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, has audited a number of Canadian plants and found them to be in compliance with U.S. BSE requirements, including SRM...removal.

The powerful National Cattlemen's Beef Association sent a delegation to Canada in January. Senator Chambliss quoted them in his remarks in the Senate:

The Canadian feed industry appears to be in compliance with its feed ban, based on visual inspections and multiple annual audit reports.

The consequence for the United States of the border closure to United States beef by the Japanese has been as frustrating as is the continued closure of the U.S. border to Canadian producers. That is a recognized fact. United States producers are frustrated with the closure of the border by Japan and Canadian producers are frustrated by the closure of the border by the U.S.

In that regard, though, the U.S. senators pointed to the hypocrisy of the U.S. Senate calling for the scientifically unjustified continuing closure of the Canadian border while demanding that the Japanese open their border to the United States on the basis of science. Nothing could be more hypocritical than that.

The fact of the matter is that we have an integrated North American beef industry. It is the most integrated industry that we have between our two countries. The Americans should understand they are going into the Japanese market only when they treat us the same way they expect to be treated themselves by the Japanese. It only makes sense and it should be based on sound science.

Over the long haul, this decision by the Montana judge is going to hurt the American livestock industry in its ability to move forward.

Senator Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, had this to say about the continued closure of the Japanese market:

The international science...says our cattle under 30 months of age are safe and not at risk for BSE. Still that market remains closed to the U.S...The market is not closed because of scientific concerns. It remains closed because of internal Japanese politics....

Senator Roberts continued by saying that keeping the Canadian border closed without a scientific justification is counterproductive for efforts to open the Japanese market. In the last quote I will read to members, he said:

The same international science and guidelines that say that U.S. beef and animals under 30 months of age are safe also say that the beef and animals in Canada under 30 months are safe as well....That is the sound science standard.

I raise all those points because I think it is important to note that we did have a lot of allies in the United States Senate in terms of the debate that occurred there. Yes, the motion went the other way and some are trying to put a ban on the USDA decision to allow our products into the U.S., but it is important to note the argument these senators made. They were making their argument based on sound science. They were making it out of a belief in the terms of the integrated market that Canada and the United States have, and they were looking at the systems we have in place in Canada and recognizing the good systems that we in fact do have in place.

I raise those quotes just to point out to the opposition that yes, there are allies, and I would encourage opposition members here tonight to ally themselves with the government in terms of moving forward instead of using political rhetoric, instead of using the example of the border closure as a way to attack the government. On this issue the House should be united and working together to force the border open, to find other markets and to stand with beef producers and the farming industry in their time of need.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has understood for a long time that regardless of whether the border opens or not we need to do what we can within our own domestic industry to move forward. On September 10 he provided, through the Government of Canada, a repositioning strategy for the livestock industry in this country.

This national strategy, with measures totalling $488 million, quickly began helping the industry move forward toward operating on a sustainable basis, not as profitably as we would like, certainly, but moving forward. That strategy includes continuing efforts to reopen the U.S. border. It included taking steps to increase ruminant slaughter in Canada. As has been mentioned, and I will not go through the numbers again, the numbers are in fact increasing. We want them to increase more.

It includes introducing measures to sustain the cattle industry until capacity comes on line. That was the fed cattle set-aside and the feeder set-aside program and it did have the success of bumping up the price and returning more from the marketplace itself. Yes, that came crashing down when the Montana judge made his decision, but maybe it can assist in the future again.

Finally, it includes expanding access to export markets for both livestock and beef products. This is an area in which the minister has worked very aggressively. He has been very hard at it. The Deputy Prime Minister announced earlier tonight that the opening up of the Hong Kong market is a result of the minister's efforts in that regard.

As for slaughter capacity, I am happy to report that where we were once processing 65,000 animals per week, we are now processing 83,000. The minister has said he would like to increase that capacity to about 100,000 per week because he knows that Canadian producers deserve the opportunity to have their cattle processed in Canada.

So we are in fact moving ahead. We are using the repositioning strategy. As members back in this corner where the NDP reside, they tried to leave the impression that we were not doing anything in that regard. We in fact are and it is having some success.

The Minister of Agriculture has listened to the needs of rural Canadians. He has tried to move forward quickly on that front.

There is no question about it: there is a cashflow and liquidity issue in the country. It has come up and we would expect it to come up in this debate tonight. There is a cashflow and liquidity issue in the country. There is this issue, and it has been admitted that the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, or CAIS, the new program that it is, has not exactly responded as fully and as aggressively in returning incomes to producers as the government would have liked, but it in fact has been able to roll money out to the agricultural community in record levels.

We have to recognize that. Let us not try to slough it under the rug. We have admitted this. Yes, there is a cash income crunch out there, and the minister has asked me to hold consultations across the country on farm income. I am in the process of doing that. We have held meetings in every province now. We will be trying to focus that into a plan of action. The numbers are severe, there is no question about it. The market has not been returning to producers the kinds of incomes needed to cover their cost of production and a return on their labour and investment. We need to focus on that problem as well as this one.

The fact of the matter is that record amounts of dollars have gone out from the Government of Canada, with $4.8 billion in 2003. There are record amounts of dollars going out to the farm communities to assist them in terms of a safety net capacity and to assist them in their incomes. Of course it is not making them money; it is there as a safety net. We have to try to address that other concern in farm income.

The bottom line is that the minister and the Government of Canada have shown they are aggressively working on this issue through the repositioning strategy, through the programs that are in place and through the additions we made in the budget.

As the minister said earlier tonight, we will stand with producers in their time of need. I would look for some positive suggestions from members of the opposition for a change, things that we can look at, analyze and really use to assist the livestock industry.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about American relations and rhetoric, I just wondered if the minister noticed that up until November with all of the anti-Bush remarks there was not a very good relationship between the Americans and the Canadians or between President Bush and our Prime Minister. It was not until after President Bush met with our leader, Stephen Harper, that we started to see better--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I remind the member not to use members' names.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as somebody on my side of the House said, that is quite a stretch but it would be unfair to say that about its entirety. I think that the leader of the official opposition as well as the Prime Minister of Canada and the numbers of ministers who have talked to President Bush have had some impact on this issue. I do not think there is any question about that. I expect that the leader of the official opposition, as well as the Prime Minister, put forward the issue of BSE and the need for the integrated marketplace that we have and the need to move ahead with a good relationship.

We are always going to have these trade issue problems of some kind. We have a huge trading relationship at around $2 billion a day, so we do expect some bumps in the road.

We have clearly shown we want to be and we want to remain a sovereign nation in some of the decisions that we have made, so there will also be some differences of opinion there.

I think that at the senior levels of government it would be wrong to believe that a policy decision the other sovereign nation does not agree with would have any substantive impact on the trade relationship. That would be wrong and we both know it, because in order for both economies to remain strong and grow we have to work together and have that international trade relationship work in a very positive way.

That is what we want to do on this one. In fact, President Bush and Secretary Johanns are on our side, as are quite a number of senators, as I have quoted, and they are trying to make that relationship move forward and open up that border.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, being that my hon. colleague will not acknowledge that our relationships improved after that visit, I would like to ask the hon. member this question.

In Saskatchewan the situation is very cruel. I cannot express it strongly enough. The hon. member is in a good position to get some cash into our producers' hands. We have had a gamut of problems with everything from drought to grasshoppers. The CAIS program is not working because we cannot have that margin that we need to access CAIS. I would like to ask the hon. member what he can do for our producers in Saskatchewan, because across the nation they are suffering the worst by far of all the provinces. I would like him to comment, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and indeed for her concern. I have spent a lot of time in Saskatchewan myself over the years. I agree that it seems to be one thing after another, the August 23 frost, the border closure, and low grain prices.

In terms of government programming, CAIS is not the only government program. There is crop insurance, PFRA, interim cash advances, spring and fall cash advances, and the Canadian Wheat Board that maximizes the returns that are in the marketplace back to primary producers.There is the supply management system in some industries. There is a gamut of programs that are designed to assist producers. There has been some of the ad hoc funding that the minister mentioned earlier in terms of the BSE crisis.

There were a lot of things in my farm income hearings across the country that were certainly stated clearly. One of them was the lack of market power that producers have in the marketplace.

I want to quote a rural sociologist, William Heffernan. He summarized from his point of view what is becoming all too evident to a number of primary producers. He said, “Economic power, not efficiency predicts survival in the system”.

I raise it because Canadian farmers are among the most efficient and most productive in the world. Yet, as a result of all our productivity, their efficiencies have been drained off by someone somewhere. They are not receiving their cost of production and return on labour investment even though they are efficient and productive. Why? Is it because they do not have that economic power?

I think this statement is realistic. We must find ways together to ensure that they do have more power in the marketplace and they get a fair share of that consumer and export dollar.

I raise that challenge with opposition members. Let us work together in terms of trying to achieve ways and means for farmers, for primary producers who are efficient and productive in this country, the backbone of the economy in rural Canada, to receive a fair return on labour investment. How do we find ways to give them some of that market power so that they can get that share of consumer and export dollars?