Debates of Feb. 13th, 2008

Livestock Industry

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member opposite.

During the testimonies about the crisis in the beef and pork sectors, the committee was told that the costs paid by Canadian producers to comply with the rules and the new regulations are higher than what the American producers have to pay. From the start, Canadian producers are therefore less competitive since they have stricter standards to comply with. It is obvious that, at this time, the government has the financial means to offer help. It has set a new standard called "specified risk materials". Why do producers have to wait before they can get some financial support in order to be able to comply with this new standard? Can the member explain why the government has to wait for so long before—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright has about 40 seconds to answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for a very good question. I agree that our government, while we have done a lot, has not done everything we can do to make the standards and the way farmers have to deal with regulation, with SRMs as an example, to make them similar in Canada to what they are in the United States.

We have done a lot and I fully acknowledge there is more to be done in that area. In the years ahead we will do a lot more in that area. These are not things that can be done overnight. We were left with a government that ignored farmers for 13 years.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share the time I have with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. I have the great honour to speak tonight to the crisis in the pork and cattle industry. The pork producers have been going through a months long crisis with disturbing effects on their financial situation. The drop in pork prices combined with an increase in the price of grain is creating serious cashflow problems.

The federation asks the federal government to raise the $1.5 million ceiling in the AgriStability and AgriInvest programs and as well to raise the ceiling of the start-up fund, which is now set at $3 million. The federation also requests that labelling rules for Canadian products be tightened up to make sure consumers can clearly identify where products come from. It also requests that a new envelope be set up to support shared cost programs, allowing for regional flexibility in the next generation of Flexi-Farm agricultural policies. The Advance Payments Program, which has just been improved to include stock production should not use the business risk management program as a collateral since that forces producers to pay back advances when they receive a payment.

There is a huge economic impact in the agricultural sector. Farm income amounts to a total of $6.1 billion dollars, of which 13.6% comes from pork production—$844.9 million per year. Pork production accounts for 28,200 jobs and $1.3 billion in value added. This industry is present in several different regions of Quebec. Pork is the leading bio-food export product in Quebec and ranks twelfth among products exported from Quebec. Pork production provides a trade surplus of $890 million, thus producing a positive agri-food trade balance of $289 million; without it, there would be a $601 million deficit.

Pork production generates over $225 million in government revenue. It is a multiplier of both jobs and government revenue, which means that 100 direct jobs create a total of 415 jobs, that $100 in direct GDP equals $330 in total GDP, and $100 in total expenditures equals $12 in government revenue.

This is an untenable situation on a day-to-day basis. At present, a very large majority of producers are having to deal with cashflow problems that threaten the very survival of their businesses. This is an exceptional situation. There are several unfavourable factors in play at the same time, such as a drop in world prices associated with surpluses on the market and a rise in input costs, a low price situation that has been going on for over 16 months and a rapid rise in the value of the Canadian dollar to a level that has not been seen in 31 years.

Federal support programs are not doing their job. On December 19, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced the first phase of an action plan to support Canada’s livestock sector. The news release refers to the implementation of the following programs as a way to provide assistance to producers in the short term: AgriStability, with interim payments and targeted advances; AgriInvest, including the federal $600 million Kickstart program; and a supposedly improved Advance Payments Program.

The existing programs are not providing an adequate response to the needs of pork producers affected by the enormity of the present crisis. That announcement is based on already existing programs and provides no fresh money. As well, because of how Agriculture and Agri-food Canada interprets the law, implementation of the Advance Payment Program for the livestock sector in Quebec has had to be delayed. Talks are continuing, but the program is still not available for pork producers in Quebec, and so they are experiencing hardship.

The Conservatives make bad investments. In the two years they have been in power, the Conservative Party has reinvested in agriculture. Yes, that is true, but it has invested in programs that do not create jobs. It converted the CAIS program into Agri-Green. What does that change? They traded four quarters for a dollar. Where is the money? The producers do not have more money in their pockets. I

The Conservative government did not pay Quebec its fair share. For instance, in its first budget in May 2006—how could we forget?—the Conservative government promised additional assistance of $2.2 billion over two years for the agricultural sector. Yet Quebec received only 6.8% of that particular grant. This translates into a shortfall of over $150 million.

Quebec agriculture represents 18% of all Canadian farm production and 12% of the production outside supply management. Thus, Quebec should have received at least 18%.

The Pronovost commission urged the federal government to give Quebec its fair share. The UPA is constantly calling for the federal government to balance its investments in agriculture. It mentioned that again in its prebudget document from October 2006.

Over a period of more than 15 years, per capita support for agriculture has dropped by 25% in Canada, although it has grown by 75% in the European Union, by 31% in the United States and by 14% in Japan. That says it all. The Conservatives tell us they have done a lot for agriculture and that they have opened doors everywhere. So why do we have a crisis? Why is it that other countries are allowed to give more subsidies than us? If the Conservatives are such good businesspeople, they are supposed to be able to fix everything. Well here is a problem; let them fix it.

La Terre de chez nous published a letter from Jean-Guy Vincent, president of the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec. I would like to read the letter.

“Producers are in an untenable situation, says Jean-Guy Vincent, president of the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec, who has launched a sort of appeal at a time when many people are in crisis. The Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec is forming a coalition to pressure Ottawa to give producers immediate access to cash.”

“The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Laurent Lessard, had been invited to join the movement but had not responded at press time. However, his press secretary told La terre de chez nous that the minister had met with his federal counterpart last week and had called for speedy action to help beef and pork producers. It is expected that the two men will meet and the Minister of Agriculture will respond shortly.”

I believe that the response did not come. I am not sure, the minister might know, but I have not heard otherwise.

“In fact, the federal programs that were announced are slow in coming. For example, the federal advance payment program is not expected to be in place until early April.”

Naturally, it will be in place provided there is no election. If there is an election, the program will not be in place until August. What will our producers do from April to August? Half of them will go bankrupt.

“Many farms have already reached their credit limit. Bankers and suppliers are patient, but they are understandably nervous. “They need reassurance”, says Mr. Vincent. We are therefore calling on Ottawa to quickly set up a program to provide loan guarantees and cover the interest producers are currently paying.”

“The Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec estimates that the current price of pork, which is $85 a kilogram at index 100, represents roughly half the costs of production.”

Yet, with a $10.5 billion surplus, the government could do something for farmers. I believe that helping farmers would benefit Quebec and Canada as a whole.

“Ottawa remains silent”, laments Mr. Jean-Guy Vincent who adds that if they do not receive a reply from the federal government within three weeks, Quebec and Canadian hog producers plan to organize a demonstration on Parliament Hill. The Canadian Pork Council and its President have sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling for an immediate response to what it calls a disaster caused by the soaring dollar and input costs combined with a major decline in hog prices.

We should bear in mind that the three weeks are just about up, given that the letter is dated January 31.

The CPC is asking for loans and improvements to existing programs.

They are looking for loan guarantees that cost the government nothing. The government has money; it has $10.6 billion.

Last December, six recommendations were made by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I will read them since I do not think the government remembers them.

The first recommendation was to provide:

—a special transitional measure that will provide cash-flow in the form of interest-free loans to be paid back over a period of three to five years, and bankable cash advances to hog and cattle producers.

There is nothing extraordinary there. That is a quote from a report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Representatives from all parties—Conservatives, New Democrats, Liberals and Bloc members—participated. We work just as hard as the others. I believe we do our job and that we do good work as parliamentarians.

I will answer any questions.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I could hardly wait for you to give me the floor. I have two questions to ask my honourable colleague.

The Leader of the Opposition once said that he was not an expert in agriculture. On the other hand, the Conservative government has many farmers in its caucus. With whom does the member think the farmers are better off? Is it with a party whose leader is not an expert in agriculture and is not sure about what he should do? Or is it rather with a party whose caucus includes many farmers?

Moreover, can the member tell us what the Bloc Québécois has done for farmers in its 17 years in Parliament?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I will do as the Conservatives do, who thank us when we ask them questions.

The Leader of the Opposition may not know much about agriculture, but I am not sure the Secretary of State (Agriculture), who is a lawyer, knew much about it either before his appointment.

I have been around Western Canada with members who are present tonight, including the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Farmers told us that the people creating the programs in the federal government could not tell a carrot from a cow. To put it simply, it is not a good idea to talk about people not being experts when one is hiring people who do not know agriculture. On the other hand, 25 years ago, everyone here was from a farm family, or had grandparents who had a farm.

What was the second question? The first question was the one that interested me. What has the Bloc Québécois done in 17 years? First—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Malpeque has the floor.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question spinning off from what the parliamentary secretary asked.

My hon. colleague was a great member on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. In explaining government programming on January 29, the parliamentary secretary explained the agri-invest kickstart program by saying that “money is flowing toward the cattle and hog sectors as we speak”. Does my hon. colleague from Quebec believe what the parliamentary secretary said? Has his producers seen much of that money?

The member for Madawaska—Restigouche talked earlier about his producers getting 25¢, a quarter. Do you think a quarter per cow will solve the problem in the beef and hog sector in this country? Is the money really flowing as the parliamentary secretary has said?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure if the hon. member for Malpeque was asking me or the hon. member for Montcalm. I will assume he was asking the hon. member for Montcalm.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

To be honest, I will say that there is not a lot of money. I think there is more money in oil companies. There are several members here who like oil companies. Indeed, as I was saying, in its last budget, the government gave them $902 million, but it will not take one or two billions from the surpluses to help the agricultural sector and create a concrete plan.

The hon. member asked what the Bloc Québécois has been doing for the past 17 years. Our party was elected under a democratic process. If people in my riding had not wanted me and had preferred a Conservative, they would have voted for one. But back home they do not want Conservatives. Is that clear? The Conservatives are too far to the right. Come on, asking what the Bloc is doing in the House of Commons is ridiculous.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this emergency debate. Frankly, if my colleagues in the House will permit me, I could perhaps continue in a better climate of silence, in a respectful climate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

It is getting late and I was saying that I am quite proud to take part in this emergency debate. I want to commend the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, the official Bloc Québécois agriculture critic, for launching this debate. He deserves a round of applause. Here we have a strong opposition party like the Bloc Québécois truly engaging in the emergency debate on agriculture.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska initiated this debate because in his riding and throughout Quebec, the pork and beef producers have expressed their needs to him and talked to him about the crisis they are currently dealing with.

All these producers, who are listening, who are probably watching us and who will read about this, need to understand who in this House is truly defending their situation and their condition.

I represent an agricultural riding and that is why I wanted to be sure to take part in this debate. On many occasions and even at my riding office, many beef and pork producers have come to me to express their worries and discouragement.

We can hide behind numbers and significant amounts of money, but there is nothing more sincere than a person, a human, a farmer or a group of farmers coming to our riding office to talk to us about their real situation, their discouragement and distress—and studies have been published on this.

They are truly at the end of their rope, these men and women who live on what a farm produces, these farmers, these businessmen and businesswomen. It is a reality: a person who operates a pork or beef farm is a businessman or a businesswoman. Working hard every day only to end up in the red at the end of the month, not knowing how the loans will get paid or how to survive the following month; all that causes an extraordinary amount of tension and stress. Sometimes I get the impression that the members opposite are hiding behind their actions and are not paying enough attention to these people who are expressing their distress and discouragement.

I have a great deal of respect for producers because they are also business people who must use their creativity to innovate and make their farms profitable. Unfortunately, beef and pork producers especially are facing a desperate situation. Many farms are on the verge of ceasing operations. Earlier, I was talking to a producer in my riding, a large steer producer in Saint-Anicet, who told me that he has recorded $200,000 in losses since the fall. If things go on as they are, he will probably have to shut down his operation before the end of summer. He will be unable to continue operating as he is without support because he will accumulate over $600,000 in debt if he does.

When I meet with producers, they tell me that the government has announced billions of dollars and support, but for the past year and a half, none of them have seen one red cent of that money. Announcements about aid run every other week or so in local weekly and daily papers, as if old announcements are being recycled to bank political capital.

I do not think that producers in my riding are lying. When I meet them, they tell me that they have not yet received the money that the federal government, the Conservative government, promised. The machinery of government is slow, and the bureaucracy is ponderous. We get the sense that the system exists to serve the system, not the producers, and that is a big problem. Beef and pork producers need help now. We often forget—and this bears mentioning—that these producers operate farms and generate economic activity in nearby towns. Closing down a farm has a devastating impact on the town's economy. It affects credit unions, lenders, corner stores, mechanic shops and equipment dealers. The network of pork and beef farms is weakening, and an entire sector of economic activity is feeling the repercussions.

The Bloc wants to see farms in Quebec. We do not want to see only two or three megafarms in Quebec. We want activity and life in our villages. Farmers are important players in our communities specially since they are committed to their community. They are, for example, municipal councillors or school board members. They are generous and socially involved. Right now, their morale is so low that it has an impact on their involvement. How can they feel like giving when they are themselves in financial difficulty and do not know how they will manage to pay their bills next month? The situation is terrible in the pork as well as in the cattle industry.

I listened to the Conservative members when they said that the opposition does not propose solutions. That is totally false.

One only has to look, among other initiatives, at the various motions presented in this House by the Bloc Québécois, including the one on supply management, which was unanimously supported by all parliamentarians, and which helped put pressure on the government to respect its commitment to protect supply management. We also did a lot of work with producers. The Bloc Québécois is in touch with producers. What we are saying here this evening, and what the member for Richmond—Arthabaska has been doing as our critic on agriculture, reflects what producers are telling him.

Everyone in this House—even Conservative members—knows that there is a crisis going on, and that we must take action.

I talked about the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which proposed six priorities to help the beef and pork industries. That report was produced after an extensive debate and after witnesses expressed all the needs of that sector. We wonder why some of these priorities are not implemented immediately. We have to say it: the government has the means to implement these priorities.

I invite it to be more attentive, to be proactive, to listen to the proposals made by the opposition, and to take immediate and direct action to help beef and pork producers find their way out of that crisis.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. In agriculture, it is never too late in the day to work, even at this late hour. Believe me, farmers often work very late.

We can see the damage left by the lack of vision from the previous Liberal government. That government was artificially kept in office with the help of the Bloc Québécois. I would simply like my dear colleague to explain to me how the whole matter ties in with the legacy left by the policies of the sovereigntist government in Quebec which was elected in 1976, 32 years ago, and had no long term vision for agriculture in Quebec. We are left with a great deal of problems, and I would like to hear my colleague comment on this.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of giving the member opposite a history lesson, but this allows me to respond to his question and tell him that not only are pork and beef producers in the middle of a crisis, but all the problems currently related to the slaughter of steers in Quebec only add to the difficulties facing beef producers. At present, there is a processing problem. This issue also needs to be explored and a solution found, because it adds to their problems.

In my riding at this time there is a committee that is trying to reopen a slaughterhouse, the only beef slaughterhouse in Quebec. I can assure this House we are seeing some very positive things, from which my colleague opposite could draw some inspiration. It involves real teamwork that is bringing together all the elected officials of the riding and the area involved. The unions, the major players in economic development, the CLD, CFDC, reeves, mayors, MLAs and MPs are all involved. Together, we are finding solutions. The government should take note of such practices, which include listening, consulting, and taking action.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be chair of a rural caucus that took immediate action when this crisis came up. We consistently asked questions in the House of Commons to get the government to pay attention. Our deputy leader asked questions to show how important it was, with the support of our House leader. Then our leader started a task force to examine the crisis in the hog and the beef industry. I am proud of our rural caucus, which worked so hard to deal with the farm emergencies.

The member's speech was excellent. Could she tell us exactly what the government has done since it found out about the crisis in December?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The answer is rather simple. I think the Conservative government must take its responsibilities and listen to the pork and beef producers who have submitted practical, concrete and achievable solutions. It must also listen to the opposition members who also proposed concrete, achievable solutions. The government is in possession of a unanimous report with six priorities that are concrete and achievable, especially since it has the means.

I am pushing for this in particular because there is a very important priority regarding slaughterhouses in the report, which would have the government support producers and slaughterhouses on any issues related to specified risk materials, or SRMs. It must finance this transition to make it easier to adapt and to make the market more competitive. I think it has the means. In Quebec, this assistance was estimated at $50 million over two years. I strongly encourage all the Conservative members who come from agricultural areas to put pressure on the cabinet to immediately provide the $50 million over two years needed to help beef producers survive the transition and implement a new standard that they themselves set.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I appreciate the fact that the member for Richmond—Arthabaska has brought this forward tonight. I get to work with him on agriculture committee. Most of the work we do is very non-partisan. We work at trying to make an impact, which will create an improvement in the conditions facing the agriculture industry.

I am a cattle producer. Members of my family are ranchers. I represent a riding that has over 2,500 ranch families. I am living this crisis. We know how bad it is. I hear from all my producers on a continuous basis about the challenges they face. They know there is no way the entire problem can be fixed by government. They know there is a lot of things that have to change in the marketplace. They know we need more access to export markets and we definitely have to see a devaluation in the Canadian dollar.

Our livestock producers, hogs and cattle producers, are the best in the world. I am proud of the product they produce and the way they produce it. They have been excellent in ensuring they have been taking a responsible approach in dealing with this crisis and suggesting ideas to government and to our agriculture committee on how to move forward.

I take exception to some of the comments that were made earlier today. The member for Malpeque, in my opinion, made some unfair comments about our Prime Minister. I have had many discussions with the Prime Minister on this crisis. He understands it all too well. A lot of people often forget that his in-laws are ranchers in Alberta. He hears from them personally about the challenges they face.

I have been hearing some really sad stories about how bad this crisis is getting. There is no question that when we see people who have been professional ranchers and cattle breeders for 40, 50 years, struggling to pay the bills, or trying to put the fuel in the tractor so they can feed their cattle, things have done to help them, and our government has started taking steps to meet those needs.

It has created a real problem. Two-thirds of my agriculture based riding is ranch based. No new farmers are interested in coming in and taking over those farms and ranches. There is no opportunity to diversify the operation. We cannot bust up this native land and turn it into crop land. There just is not any quality in it. My own farm is that way. There is only a couple of inches of topsoil and then it is all rocks, gravel and sand underneath. We cannot break up the land and do anything but raise cattle on it.

We have to look at the long term health of the industry, not just the short term crisis. Most producers realize that. They also realize we are not in this by ourselves. This is happening around the world. The U.S. market dictates world price on beef and hogs, and our competitors, whether it is Brazil, Argentina, the Europeans, Australia or New Zealand, have felt this first-hand. There is no doubt that any measure we take here is watched by them.

In the recent conversations I have had with parliamentarians from New Zealand, Australia, Chile and Mexico, they watch what steps we take. They do not have the resources to put money into their agriculture industry, but they will not hesitate to use trade action under our various trade agreements to take away any benefit we provide for our farmers.

My producers do not want to see, and I do not want to see as a producer, the government put out an ad hoc cash payment into the farmers just to see it sucked away by another foreign government in the countervailing duty, or worse yet, see them take advantage of us, as we saw through the BSE crisis, and have those dollars disappear into the packing industry. We need to have a long term, viable outlook on how we move forward with an industry.

Just at the end of last year, the Europeans, in my opinion, made a very grave mistake, one that we unfortunately cannot rectify, moving forward with export subsidies on pork. That is definitely unfair to the rest of the world. The minister has written to the EU Commissioner of Agriculture and Rural Development expressing our concerns as a country and asking that they reconsider these export subsidies. Offloading one's problems onto the rest the world is no way to fix a problem like we are facing today. These problems have to be resolved head on, and that is not what the Europeans are doing.

There is no doubt about what we need. Some headway was made just last week on the WTO deal. For the livestock industry, cattle and pork, we have to have a successful conclusion to opening up markets, reducing export subsidies, reducing production distorting subsidies, and addressing that need. Canada was a lead in developing the last paper coming out of WTO, and it really starts the process in getting us to where we want to be in the Canadian position and in definitely helping out our export based industries.

Over 80% of producers in this country depend upon export markets. Cattle, hogs, grains and oilseeds producers export over 50% of what they produce. We have to have access to it. A recent study by the George Morris Centre, when it looked at the WTO modalities text, translated that into what it is going to be as a potential benefit to Canadian exporting producers. It is saying that commodity prices in Canada will increase $8 billion to $11 billion a year, which is a $3 billion annual increase. We are not talking peanuts here. This is the type of relief we need to see in the industry. We have to have markets opened so that our producers can access those more lucrative markets and put more dollars in their pockets.

The government has also been active in market development, not just in the WTO talks, but the hon. Secretary of State for Agriculture signed a letter of intent in Spain on agri-food and agriculture. He also spent time with the France ministry to talk about opportunities in trade, and also to raise the issue of the European Union subsidies on pork, and asking them to reconsider that move.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food also recently met with his Mexican counterparts to discuss our strategic position as NAFTA partners, but also on moving North American beef around the world. We do have some joint concerns about the U.S. farm bill and how that distorts the marketplace as well. We do not want to see things like country of origin labelling, which would be even more detrimental to our cattle and pork industries here.

Also, members should not forget that in November the minister had discussions with his international counterparts at the Food and Agriculture Organization biannual meeting. He has also had bilateral discussions with the U.S. Acting Secretary of Agriculture, Charles Conner, in making sure that we have a firm commitment to the beef trade moving smoothly between our two borders. They talked about the pool issues and also about the temporary meat testing measures they had put on Canadian products.

I am proud of the work that we have done in committee. Last fall we took a very serious look at all the problems facing the livestock producers. We put a lot of thought into it. Many of the members here discussed this earlier. We presented a report in the House, and the government has already acted upon some of those recommendations.

Since that time we have also had a follow-up meeting with the cattle and hog industries to talk about some of the issues. As always, as I experienced as a producer under the former Liberal government, no program is perfect, and never is it going to meet all the needs. Sometimes we have to tweak them and change them and put them into place.

The cattle industry has been in crisis since the BSE crisis in 2003. I felt that first, and I know that during the BSE crisis the amount of assistance that actually flowed through government programs from the previous government was virtually nil. In talking to ranchers across my riding, the only actual relief they saw in payments through government programs were directly related to the drought that we experienced in Manitoba in 2003, not the actual BSE crisis. Because they had to buy extra feed, they were able to trigger payments from CAIS. It had absolutely nothing to do with the depression they experienced in cattle prices.

The market is something we have to see an improvement in. There are a number of ways we can help in the short term, and the government has already started acted upon it.

The first one that we asked for was interest-free loans to be paid back over a period of three to five years, and to make sure that there are bankable advances to the hog and cattle producers. Like any program, we had to get those running quickly. Under the existing cash advance program, we could not do that because it only applied to grains and oilseeds.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the member opposite. He knows, of course, that this is an emergency debate, that livestock producers are looking for immediate assistance, hence the term “emergency”. The phrasing “long term” is really not why we are here tonight. We are here to talk about short term, immediate relief for a sector which is in very difficult straits.

I would like to ask the member if he is hearing from his producers what I am hearing, which is that feed prices are so high that hog farmers cannot pay their feed bills, that the government, in the view of producers in my riding, is doing nothing to allow hog farmers to access loans, and that the present restrictions stop producers from getting money out of any government programs. That is what I am hearing from many in my riding.

I will ask the member opposite to comment not on long term solutions, which will be talked about another day, but on an immediate short term basis, what does the government intend to do for producers who are facing very difficult times right now?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the member opposite to understand that as a producer, as I am, I want a long term solution. I am in this for the long run, as is every other producer in my riding. They want to know that we are here to help them out in the short term, and the government is doing that through advances, but they also want to know that we have a plan to move ahead and that we are working closely with the industry, with the associations and with the researchers to make sure that we address the problems, to make sure that we are competitive long term.

People want to know that their investment is going to be good. People also want to know that the tax dollars that are going to be thrown their way, even if they are advances that need to be paid back, are going to be put to good use.

It is irresponsible to say that we are only here on an emergency debate. I have been living this for five years. This emergency has been going on for a long time and it is time for us to start planning the long term goals to get us out of this mess. It started under the previous government and we are taking the steps to make it happen.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake. In his comments, he claimed that the situation has now resulted in an income crisis in the pork and beef industries. He pointed out—as did my Bloc Québécois colleagues—that this crisis is persistent, ongoing and causing great harm to producers.

I would like to hear what my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake thinks of the comments made by the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, which contradicted the reality. To hear him, you would think that everything is rosy and wonderful and that we are actually wasting our time tonight discussing a sector of the economy that is vital to Quebec and Canada.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, things are difficult out there and I think most of us who are in the livestock business realize that.

Most of us also realize that government cannot have all the answers to the problems that we have. We do look for help and assistance. Government programs hopefully can be adapted, as we move into the new agri-stability program, to address some of these problems. I know that when we start moving down this road and using negative margins to determine payouts, that will be a help.

Right now with most of the farmers I know, including my family, my brother and my father, their margins are so small now it is almost impossible to generate a payment under the old CAIS program that is of any assistance. We know that as we move forward using negative margins, as we go into agri-stability, will be very beneficial and hopefully will provide some of the relief that so many of us desperately need.

The path that the government has started down is going to be the way to find a solution to this problem in the long term, as well as deal with the cash flow problems that we are experiencing today.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand here today to speak to this very important issue. My riding is the second largest beef riding in the country, and I know all too well the problems that are going on out there.

I come from a long line of farmers. My grandfather raised a large family. He farmed and he worked off the farm a bit, and he raised a family of 10 kids. My dad raised my four brothers, my two sisters and me. Until I came to the House in 2004, I was a full time farmer and proud of it. There are still days that I wish I were doing more of that, but there is the business at hand.

Three of my four brothers have farms and two of them still farm, Jerry and Paul. My youngest brother, Paul, is going at it. When he sold his calves this fall, I know the prices he was paid and it was a big reduction. We are quite aware of it out there. We have to work together.

The one thing that irks me about a lot of this is that sometimes partisanship gets involved way too much. A couple of my colleagues across the way have been on or still sit on the agriculture committee, a couple of members from the Bloc, and we all have one interest in common. We want to help agriculture in general, and in particular, the beef and pork sectors right now.

Just last Thursday the member for Malpeque and I sat on the other side of the House for a few minutes. It is not always crazy in this place, Mr. Speaker, as you well know. We talked about the BSE crisis. My equity took a hit of more than $140,000 in the BSE crisis. As my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake just said, we are still suffering from the hangover of BSE. I am not here to talk about my personal problems but to point out the kinds of losses people suffered.

One of the things the member for Malpeque and I talked about last week was that during the BSE crisis when the borders were closed, the government of the day, and this is not a partisan statement, was able to fire money at BSE through ad hoc programs. I commend that government for it. I supported it at the time. We have to remember that there is a big difference between then and now.

We cannot do that now. At that time the border was closed and money was dumped in through ad hoc programs. The borders were already closed, so they could not harm us. It was a little easier. I am not in any way trying to say it is that much easier, but there is an obstacle today that was not there then.

We have to come up with ways to do that. I believe the member for Selkirk—Interlake pointed out earlier that 80% of all our agricultural products produced, and certainly beef and pork are two of the big ones, are exported around the world. There are other situations affecting the pork and beef sectors right now. There is the high dollar. Grain prices are up, which is fantastic for our grains and oilseeds guys, because we all know that they had five or six years of taking it in the seat of the pants. We do not want any one sector ever to suffer because of another one. They are making money now and we have problems in another area.

We have to keep doing that and one of the ways is to try to diversify our export markets. There has been talk here tonight about throwing money at the problem. We have thrown a record amount of money at agriculture. Is it enough? No, it is not. It never will be. I will even give credit to the previous government. In the latter couple of years of its term, it started to increase spending in agriculture. We have continued that and that needs to be recognized. It is there, but we have to keep finding ways.

A motion asking for a review of the CFIA inspection fees was put forward in the agriculture committee last year and was unanimously supported by all members on the committee. What that basically would entail is all inspection fees for cattle, beef and livestock in general that would enter slaughterhouses. A preliminary review of the fees found that our producers were facing inspection fees at slaughterhouses and for live cattle border crossings that our American counterparts were not having to deal with.

That motion, which was supported unanimously, would go a ways toward giving the minister some kind of option. It was hoped that maybe he could address that in the same manner so that we could be on the same playing field as the United States.

Trade is the one area where we can increase markets. As I said, 80% of our products go around the world to more than 100 countries. Canada has an excellent reputation as a supplier of lean, high quality beef and pork products and we need to enlarge that market. The government has been working very hard to further advance international trade for both Canadian beef and pork.

Producers are facing some very tough times on the farm but they are demonstrating incredible resilience and perseverance, which is something for which Canadians are well known. We have federal and provincial governments working hard to offer support, some provinces more than others, but we need to deal with that. Some have the financial ability to do so but some do not.

Again, access to international markets needs to be and is an important part of economics assessed for Canada's livestock producers.

The opportunities out there to expand agriculture trade relations with many countries are enormous. The world wants our products, from genetics to breeding stock, right to the finished product, and we aim to supply that. Government needs to work in conjunction with industry, not one against the other or one by itself. The two must go work hand in hand. We are committed to doing that.

This government and the industry is working hard to get these products to the world. We have taken every opportunity to further secure, protect and enhance access to the U.S. and other key markets for the livestock sector. We have engaged, through a friend of the court submission, to fight the latest bid by R-CALF to once again close the border.

Canada has regained full beef access to the Philippines. Partial access has been granted for Canadian beef exports to Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Indonesia and Russia. These kinds of markets do not just open up overnight. It has taken time to build these relationships. I would like to feel that I have had a part in that, as well as people before me. It is ongoing. It is never-ending. There is potential out there and we need to keep at it. Currently, we are actively seeking to resume beef exports to Korea and China.

We have an ambitious agenda for the negotiation of bilateral free trade agreements. We are currently negotiating free trade agreements with several markets for our beef exporters and pork exporters, including Korea, Colombia, Peru, Dominican Republic and the Caribbean.

We are getting closer to coming up with an agreement on a Korea free trade agreement. I also sit on the international trade committee. I find the two go hand in hand very well and I enjoy it very much. Members of the opposition, in particular the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, do everything possible to derail this. Now I do not know whether that member does not have any agriculture in his riding or just does not care. However, we all know that with these types of agreements around the world, nothing benefits more than agriculture.

I would ask all parties to put aside their partisanship and work toward this agreement. It is one of many options that I believe will help our beef and pork sectors.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity of the last two government speakers, the member for Selkirk—Interlake and the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. They came across as very sincere in their remarks, different from many of the government speakers earlier who tried to portray the government announcement as something more than it really is.

The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound talked about markets opening up, as did the previous member, and that is all well and good and it must be done. However, the real problem right now for our hog and beef industry is a question of financial liquidity. The real question is whether they will have the wherewithal to survive from now until there is a bright light and they can at least break even mid-summer.

What is the government going to do, whether it be cash, loans or other means? I made eight suggestions earlier. Will the government move in order to accommodate this question of liquidity so farmers will have the wherewithal to survive until there are better times ahead?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. We certainly have gone a long way toward trying to get some money out there. I am going to be honest with the member. He and I have talked about this before. That money never flows out of the department as quickly as we would all like it to flow. That is a given and it is a reality that we must work around.

Industry leaders and farm leaders with whom I have spoken, from the pork and beef sectors, have made it very clear that while they want some loans, at the same time they say that it goes against their better judgment, so to speak, because the last thing they need is more debt. I heard that said by more than one farm leader. At the same time, I think it was desperation. They were willing to take the money but it was not the best solution.

On the other side of it, we heard loud and clear that we were definitely not to do something that would hurt them trade wise because that would destroy the industry, not just harm it.