Debates of Feb. 13th, 2008

Livestock Industry

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this has an enormous social impact. Indeed, that is one thing we are seeing in our ridings. I represent a riding of 27 municipalities. In most of them that are primarily agricultural, we are seeing a mass exodus of the population to the larger centres. As the member mentioned, there are no jobs.

Consider this peculiarity. Often in Quebec, farms operate thanks to family members who work there. When there is no longer work for one family member, who often plays a minimal role in the business or is related to the employer, he or she might apply for employment insurance in order to compensate for the salary loss, but will be refused employment insurance benefits because he or she is related to the employer or plays a minimal role in the family business.

Thus, our farmers are facing a double injustice. Furthermore, this will considerably deter young farmers from stepping up to take over. Soon, we will have no one to take over the farms.

[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 want to thank the hon. member for raising this debate. I think this debate is critical and I think it is time. It is really important that we talk about the situation this evening.

This is an important issue that we have discussed with different farmers right across this country. We are well aware of the situation as it is. As the member opposite knows, and all members opposite know or should know, this is the first government that actually puts farmers first.

We are very proud of putting farmers first. Our Conservative caucus is filled with farmers from across Canada. No other party understands agriculture or works harder for our farmers than the Conservative government. Not only is our caucus full of farmers, our minister is a farmer. No one in this Parliament understands or works harder for the Canadian farmer than our honourable minister.

Here are some of the actions that this minister has taken, immediate action: we took $4.5 million for program payments in 2006; $600 million for agri-invest kickstart money that is flowing right now; $400 million to cover farmers increased input costs; and $76 million to help farmers combat hog disease. And that is just a sampling.

Let us compare that to what the former Liberal government did during 13 years. In the mid-90s, the Liberals cut $400 million from agriculture programs. Just when agriculture was going through the most critical times, that is when they cut help to the farmers. Without speculating, would this be part of the reason that we are in the crisis that we are in now? Farmers had been neglected for more than a decade. So we can understand why they are facing the crisis they are.

On November 19, the industry received the long-awaited good news that the U.S. border was opening for older cattle. After years of Liberal immature bilateral relations, Canadian farmers saw what happens when the Conservative government works with its neighbours.

This was also good news for our world famous genetics industry, which can once again enjoy access to markets to the south. There is no question, however, that our livestock sector is facing difficulty. No one is more aware of that than the Conservative government and the Minister of Agriculture.

The Conservative government and, in fact, all ministers of agriculture across Canada are taking the situation facing our livestock producers very seriously. Every minister from coast to coast is determined to get help to livestock producers through existing programs, quickly.

The new agri-invest program is delivering $600 million in federal funding to kickstart producer accounts. That is being done immediately. These payments are now being made to our producers. This is new money that the Conservative government has invested in Canadian farmers. These accounts will help farmers weather small drops in cash flow. We will make more help available with interim payments and targeted advances under agri-stability, the new margin-based program.

This is real action from the Conservative government to give the livestock industry some of the help that it needs because when farmers need help, they need help right away. We on the Conservative side understand that and we have acted. No longer will farmers have to wait 18 and 24 months to get help, like they used to have to wait under the former government.

I am pleased to report to this House that targeted advance payments have already been triggered for hog producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Interim payments are available for those who are not eligible for a TAP.

We know that timely access to program payments is critical for producers. Fast-tracking delivery of payments through existing programs still remains our goal. To this end, we are currently working with the provinces to fast-track 2008 agri-stability targeted advance payments, 2008 interim payments and 2007 final payments.

In regard to agri-invest kickstart payments, these funds are being deposited into producers' accounts directly.

Agri-stability, the new margin-based income stabilization program for large income losses, includes many improvements requested by the livestock sector such broader eligibility criteria for negative margin coverage, the targeted advance payment mechanism to respond to disaster situations and a better method of valuing inventories.

Together, these changes are helping to ensure the program is more responsive to losses in the livestock sector.

Unlike Liberal governments that think that they know best when it comes to farm programs, we think that we should put the farmers first. That is why we sat down with farmers and redesigned our farm programs.

After hearing how bad the Liberal CAIS program worked, we replaced it with growing forward. How many of us heard time and again how horrible that CAIS program was?

Through these new industry requested programs, $1.5 billion in cash payments is expected to flow to livestock producers from late 2007 to 2008. There is also up to $1 billion in additional amounts available to the livestock sector through enhancements to the advance payments program.

Governments and industry have also been working together to identify ways that would help industry position itself to be competitive in the long term. I get feedback all the time from the industry that says, for once government is finally listening, and industry feels it is part of the decision making process and part of the solution.

These ways include: reducing the cost of implementing the enhanced feed ban; considering approaches for competitive inspection fees; increasing livestock, pork and beef sales abroad; and bringing innovative feed grain inputs and products to market even more rapidly.

To help hog producers manage disease, we have launched the circovirus inoculation program, with immediate federal assistance of $25 million to producers to test and vaccinate hogs in Canada. This is the first of two phases of a $76 million initiative to assist the hog industry in controlling diseases.

As well, to help our packers, who are a critical part of the equation, we have invested $51 million to improve the temporary foreign workers program.

Building a foundation for the future is a topic and those are some of the actions the government is taking in the short term, but we are laying a firm foundation for the future, as well.

When I met with the provincial and territorial agriculture ministers, we committed to work on some concrete goals for Canadian livestock producers. The situation will not be resolved by one-off responses. We are now in intense discussions with producers, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pork Council and the Canadian Meat Council to try to identify ways the government can respond to both the short and long term needs of the industry with their input.

We are sitting down with the industry and farmers and responding to their requests. Working groups on regulations, market access and business risk management have identified potential areas to work together. Discussions are proceeding.

The government is working with the national beef and pork value chain roundtables to address the long term competitiveness of this sector. Internationally, we are working hard to find new markets for Canadian products and we are working hard to maximize the markets we are already in.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Prime Minister are working harder than anyone before them to open new markets for our farmers.

I will let my colleague speak to our work in this area in more detail. Suffice it to say that wherever I go in the world, I push to maximize market access for Canadian livestock producers.

We are taking immediate action for our producers and we are taking action for the longer term. Why? Because I believe, and our government believes, that the future holds promise for the Canadian livestock sector.

There are challenges and we are working together to meet them, but at the same time, we need to change the terms of reference from crisis to opportunity.

As Hugh Lynch-Staunton, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association once said, “Negativity doesn't make bad times better. It's those who see opportunity in the future who are most likely to prosper”.

The Conservative Party understands agriculture and is putting farmers first. We want farmers to have sustainable profitable farms and we are going to do what it takes to make sure that happens.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder what we are doing here. According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, all is for the best in the best of worlds. He is wearing his rose-coloured glasses this evening. He was in attendance at meetings where witnesses told the committee about the urgency of the situation and the serious crisis in the cattle and pork industry. I cannot understand his position. Better yet, the parliamentary secretary and the committee members from his party signed the unanimous report containing six recommendations in which the suggestion was made to the government to consider the possibility of helping these industries.

I would like to respond to the member from the Conservative Party who told my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that there might be some danger with respect to the WTO. I was laughed at, here in this House, when we called for article 28 to be used to limit imports of milk protein. The minister shouted insults at me. At committee, officials told me that I was doing a dangerous thing. A few months later, while the Bloc Québécois may not be doing anything, under pressure from us and from producers, article 28 was used.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary where he was when these committee meetings were held. Did he agree with the six recommendations in the first report of the Committee on Agriculture, which was adopted unanimously? Does he agree with those six recommendations?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is no doubt a good question and I am prepared to answer it. Yes, I was in attendance and I listened. We are not being told the whole story and everything that was said by the witnesses.

I was there at the same time that my colleague and other members of the agriculture committee were there. We had great representation from some people in the livestock industry who were going through some very tough times. They told us that they had problems with the high dollar, which was having a great impact on their businesses. They also mentioned high feed costs. They mentioned that they were going through a cycle with low prices.

But one thing they said was that they wanted a long term fix. They wanted us to get this right. They wanted some help, but they did not want money that was going to be countervailable. They wanted us to figure out, in consultation with them, how to do something constructive to make sure they remain profitable and sustainable for the long term. That is what we and our minister are working toward. That is what this government wants. We want a good, strong agricultural industry forever.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, is the parliamentary secretary living in la-la land? Where is he?

The parliamentary secretary said that tonight's debate is critical and that it is important to talk about this issue this evening, but might I say to the parliamentary secretary that the time for talking is over? The time for action is now. The time for action was in December. The minister raised expectations but still did not come through with any money.

The member can say what he likes about Liberals and Conservatives, but I can tell him that farmers out there who are going broke tonight really do not care about political rhetoric. The parliamentary secretary can try to leave the impression that Liberals did not put money out there, but we put a record amount of money out there in those years--

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

A record low.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

--and I will admit that it was not enough, but we were developing programs for farmers, which that government has failed to do.

Let me ask the parliamentary secretary two questions. He talked about the border opening in November for cattle that were over 30 months. The fact of the matter is that when we were in government that border was supposed to open in June 2006.

What were you doing for all those months? Sleeping? Why did it not open--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The member was very good. He was putting questions through the chair, then suddenly he lost it.

We will go to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is rich coming from that member. I would almost be embarrassed if I had been a member of that Liberal government for 13 years. I would not dare to ask a question about agriculture. For 13 years farmers were neglected.

Here is what has happened since the Conservatives have taken over. We provided $4.5 billion for program payments in 2006, $600 million for the AgriInvest kickstart, $400 million to cover farmers' increased input costs, and $76 million to help farmers combat hog disease.

On September 27, 2007, we provided almost $1 million to help the Canadian agriculture industry. On September 21, 2007, we provided $2.6 million for Alberta's agri-processing. On September 21, we provided $1.5 million in funding for Canada's beef exports. On September 21, 2007, we allowed a deferral in the collection of interest on overpayments. On December 14, we gave $305,000 to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. The list goes on and on.

Mr. Farmer, for 13 years nothing happened. Now farmers are getting their fair share.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sure the hon. member meant to say “Mr. Speaker”.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary forgot to mention that they gave $660,000 to--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. That does not sound like a point of order to me.

I am trying to get in as many people as we can here. The hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, trade was one of the things that we looked at over the time of committee and so on. We looked at what the minister had been doing for agriculture, what markets he was visiting and what governments he was dealing with. One thing we found out was that many of the provincial governments had not completed their agreements with him.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to tell us a little about what countries the minister has travelled to and what negotiations and agreements he is working on.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a great question after the other less than great questions that I have just received.

The member's question gives me the opportunity to explain what the minister has done for agriculture in the short time that he has been the Minister of Agriculture. The government and the minister have worked tirelessly to open new markets for our Canadian beef. I ask members to please pay attention to the list of markets we have opened access to: Japan, Mexico, Hong Kong, Egypt, Russia, Macau, the Philippines and the United States. We did what the Liberals failed to do: we reopened the U.S. border.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked the list that the parliamentary secretary just read out to have included some other places in Canada, and more specifically in Quebec, that the minister had visited, such as Abitibi-Témiscamingue. I would like him to pass that message on to his minister. We do not often see him in our area, and our farmers would like to see him.

Here is a good example.

We have a plan in my riding. We want to complete the processing cycle of beef and pork—from the farmer to the market. But there is no slaughterhouse. Well, there is one. There is a facility, in Fugèreville, and $4 million was invested in that facility, which is all set to operate, by the way.

The Conservatives have been in power for two years, and for two years we have been writing to the two ministers. But we have not even received an acknowledgement of receipt saying that the plan was being reviewed.

Does the minister read the letters we send? Will the farmers of Témiscamingue—because I am talking about Témiscamingue and Abitibi-Témiscamingue—at least be able to have the missing link, the slaughterhouse in Fugèreville?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter, as the member said, is that this government takes the agricultural situation in Quebec very seriously. The government has appointed a secretary of state who is exclusively responsible for agriculture and who hails from Quebec.

The member questioned the two years of action and I listed off the countries. He wants even more. Let us get at the truth of the matter. What have the Bloc members done in the 17 years they have been around here? Nothing. They mentioned they were going to be beside these people demonstrating and doing all kinds of wonderful things and that is good, but how does it help farmers to go demonstrating?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this emergency debate tonight. I congratulate my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for forcing the issue. I just wish that as we approach the middle of February we did not still have to speak on this issue.

The government has absolutely failed to act in a decisive and constructive way to deal with the hog and beef crisis. Farmers, fellow Liberals, other opposition parties and I have been raising the seriousness of the hog and beef crisis since last fall, but the government failed to act.

I know that most economists are saying that the government has failed to act prudently in its fiscal management and that its financial reserves are basically blown, but governments, even though they manage the finances of the nation incompetently, have a responsibility to act in a time of crisis, as the previous government did with SARS, with 9/11 and with BSE. The government should not deny farmers their rightful assistance in time of need just because the government itself has been incompetent in its fiscal management.

In fact, governments at all levels have encouraged farmers to increase production, to become more efficient, to invest in technology and to export. Farmers lived up to that responsibility. They produced, and they produced efficiently, to the point that last fall producers were really exporting about 60% of the hogs, or pork, and 50% of beef, or meat.

The bottom line is that the producers lived up to their end of the bargain. It is time that the federal government lived up to its responsibility.

I know that a lot of the previous minister's time was spent attacking and undermining the Canadian Wheat Board. It seems the current minister is spending a lot of time on it as well. Some people are telling me that the Conservative government is better at destroying than it is at building. Certainly in regard to the Wheat Board issue it is trying to destroy the Wheat Board. It is even in the process of trying to destroy the Canadian Grain Commission.

But for heaven's sake, let us not allow the government to destroy the beef and hog industry by neglect. The minister has a responsibility to spend some time on this issue, regardless of the ideology of the Prime Minister in his wont to kill the Canadian Wheat Board.

To its credit, the all party standing committee did recognize the crisis and did in fact act. We held hearings. I will get to some of those points in a minute, but I want put on the record a couple of things that were said at committee and the dates on which they were said.

On November 26, 2007, Brad Wildeman, chair of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said:

There truly is a crisis occurring at this moment in the livestock industry. It's both an income crisis and an input cost crisis. Both pressures are occurring at the same time.

There are many factors creating this situation, and thus there needs to be a combination of actions forming a solution. I would also add that I sense a crisis of confidence in the industry.

At that same hearing on that same date, Mr. Curtiss Littlejohn, director, Canadian Pork Council, stated:

The Canadian hog producers are facing a financial crisis that is unprecedented in terms of cause and unparalleled in terms of negative outlook. Simply put, prices are collapsing, input costs have increased dramatically and cash losses are mounting at such astonishing rates that entire communities, including producers and their input suppliers, face financial ruin. Most disturbing is the observation that no positive market correction in the foreseeable future seems apparent.

We now know there will be a market correction by the summer or late fall, so it is not hopeless. However, the industry needs assistance in its liquidity capital to get through this period of crisis so it can seize the opportunity again.

There are a number of recommendations in this report, and I will not go into them. They are available. They are in the December report, which was, as my colleague said earlier, a unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I congratulate all members of that committee because they did their work in a non-partisan way and came up with solutions.

The farm leadership was speaking in those quotes. Farm leadership tries to be diplomatic, but I have talked to members on this side of House who received calls directly from producers and they were not so diplomatic, and understandably so.

People are calling in tears. People are seeing their life's work go down the drain. All the parliamentary secretary can talk about is political rhetoric. People are losing their homes. Generations that have served on those farms are losing their life's work. That is unacceptable.

In a community close to home, in a five mile circle, 13 hog producers have gone out of business. That is the situation. People are losing from $40 to $70 a hog. Some of them are losing up to $3,000 a day. Every day that goes by, they lose more and the government fails to act.

The beef industry is in very serious trouble as well. One producer told me that in the spring he sold cattle for $1,400. Last fall he sold them for $900, a $500 loss. Again, the government fails to act. We are seeing fourth, fifth and sixth generation farmers go under, family farms. As I said, it is a loss of heritage and it is unacceptable.

Farmers in the hog and beef industry have done the honourable thing. They are producing food for Canadian society and others around the world. They are the price takers in the industry. Everybody else in the industry is doing not too badly, but farmers are price takers and are losing their shirts. They are the generators of wealth in this industry. If we lose them, we virtually lose the industry, and we could lose our food security as a nation.

What does the government do as this tragedy gets worse day by day? It does absolutely nothing. Conservatives can use talking points that come out of the Prime Minister's office, but talking points do not put cash in the pockets of producers. It is time the minister acted and acted responsibly.

Yes, we recognize the rise in the dollar had some impact. So do higher feed costs, as the parliamentary secretary said. It is a positive sign that grains and oilseed producers are getting fair returns. We want to see that, but there has to be balance in the industry. It has to be complementary to one another. We want to see them continue to earn profits.

Part of the reason for the higher costs and the escalation in prices is the push for ethanol. We support the push for ethanol but, for heaven's sake, as politicians we also have to accept responsibility. If government policy of doing the right thing for the environment and greenhouse gases is pushing up the prices of inputs for one sector in the livestock industry, then this place, and especially the government, has a responsibility of assisting farmers in their time of need.

Again, it is time the government started to act and act responsibly. It is a matter not just of farmers and their families; it is a matter over the longer term of food security for people who live in the cities and urban centres of this country. Do they want to depend on imported food for their tables? I think not.

Canadians want Canadians to produce their food, to have the quality food, the safe food that goes on our table. I want urbanites to understand that because of the government's lack of action, we are losing our right to food sovereignty every day.

The report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture was tabled in the House in December. However, as I said, the government failed to act on the recommendations. All farmers, all organizations stated that they needed a solution before Christmas.

Why has the minister failed to act? Is it because the Prime Minister does not care? Is that the reason? Is it because there is no political will to support farmers? The parliamentary secretary said that the Conservative caucus was full of farmers. Where are they? Why are they not speaking up? Has the Prime Minister got a gag order on them like he put on the Canadian Wheat Board and like he now has tried to put on the Canadian Grain Commission? Are those backbenchers in the Conservative Party voiceless? We want to hear them speak up. We hear them talk at committee, but we do not hear them say something has to be done immediately.

Is there no money there producers because the Conservative Minister of Finance has managed the finances of the nation so incompetently? Is that the reason? Or is it because the minister just wants rationalization in the industry? Let the market do its thing. Let us lose producers and the big and the strong will survive. Is that the position of the Conservative government? It sounds like the economic theory that the Prime Minister used talk about when he was head of a former organization.

We are talking about rural Canada. These are the lives of people and it is time the government acted.

We heard the parliamentary secretary's words earlier. He said that the minister made an announcement. He announced money at Christmas time. He raised expectations, but the money did not flow.

One producer wrote me a letter about that money. Cindy Duncan McMillan said this:

I find it interesting to read [the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's] assurance that his government is doing a great job of looking after producers. Tell me, if it's such a great job, why does it hurt so much?

That is the reality. If the government will not act, then this financial liquidity problem will rebound right through society as a whole.

I said earlier that there was tremendous potential for this industry down the road, but the industry had to survive between last fall and probably next fall.

I watched in January, hoping against hope that the minister would come through. He did make four announcement. He announced the $600 million agri-invest program four times, but that does not do any good to hog and beef producers. Why can the Conservatives not understand that? Taking money out of one pocket from the government and paying the government back on the other is not putting money in the pockets of producers.

What did we do as a committee? We called the Canadian Pork Council and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association into a meeting on January 29 to hear what they thought of the program. Was it working?

I will deal with the pork side. Here is what they had to say. The parliamentary secretary said things were working? Let us hear what they had to say on January 31. Mr. Stephen Moffett, director of the Canada Pork Council said:

To carry on, then, to answer the second question—how we think the government has responded to our requests and to this very severe situation—I can tell you that we are pretty disappointed at this point by the response from the government.

The president of the Canada Pork Council said:

Let me be clear that the December 19th response was a cruel joke to many of our producers. There were false hopes and false assumptions and false expectations that simply weren't deliverable.

There is the answer on what the government has done. Those are the folks who understand what is happening on the ground, and the talking points by the PMO just do not cut it.

On January 31, I believe the minister in response to a question in the House, two days after the pork council said that, said that he met “this morning and with the Canadian Pork Council. They are quite happy with the direction we are going”.

When for heaven's sake is the minister and the government going to listen? When are they going to try to stop baffling us with baloney? Enough of this malarkey. People are hurting out there. They need cash. They need it now. They needed it in December. It is time the government delivered.

There are though some things that can be done. I said it earlier and I will say it again. I wonder if the government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary are living in la-la land or wherever these days.

Let me give them some suggestions. I could read letter after letter, as could any member, of hurt, pain and tears. Farmers are seeing their life's work go down the drain and unnecessarily so. There are all kinds of ways the government could act. I will raise a few.

The government could put cash in the hands of beef producers immediately by making a special 2007 CAIS advance payment of up to $100 per cow and $150 for feeder cattle. The parliamentary secretary talked earlier about doing away with CAIS. Changing the name of CAIS to agristability does not change the program. He should understand that.

It could put cash in the hands of hog producers and implement an immediate short term loan for Canadian hog farmers to improve cashflow as markets adjust. The government could put on an immediate priority basis on 2006 CAIS payments and 2007 CAIS payments targeted and interim advance payments for all hog and beef producers.

The government could amend the security require so farmers did not have this money drawn back. It could delink CAIS payment offsets with advances given. It could extend time restrictions on advances. It could allow hog and beef producers to be given the option of having the top 15% of CAIS or the new agri-investment program for at least 2007 and 2008 and maintain the $600 million agri-investment kick-start already announced. In other words, give them the option of what would work best for them.

Why does the government not consider those suggestions? It could defer not only interest payments, but also clawback on all CAIS overpayments to hog and beef producers until December 2008.

The federal government has a duty and a responsibility to act, as the previous Liberal governments understood. We acted on potatoes, PVYn. BSE, poultry and on ad hoc payments for the grain and oilseeds industry when the safety nets did not do the job. Using the safety nets as an excuse is just unacceptable.

Simply put, the current government has not demonstrated any intent to respond to the farm crisis and this is absolutely unacceptable. We ask the government tonight, in this emergency debate, to take from this discussion the responsibility to act and get money out to producers now.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Before I go to questions and comments, I received a written question asking whether hon. members have to sit in their own seats. During an emergency debate, the answer is no.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[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 listened to my hon. colleague's speech and there were a lot of things to which I take exception.

I really take exception to a lot of the political rhetoric. I take exception to a lot of the quotes he has taken out of context that were made at committee. The thing that really went over the top was when he quoted a letter he received from a lady by the name of Cindy Duncan McMillan. He pulled at everybody's heartstrings with that wonderful letter from that person.

I would like to tell this House, and I would like to tell every Canadian, every farmer who is out there depending on the agriculture critic for the official opposition, that this person, Cindy Duncan McMillan, happens to be the Liberal candidate in Pontiac.

How much integrity does the member bring to this discussion if he is using candidates? The irony of all this is that this is going on while the Liberals are having an auction to spend time with some of his colleagues.

I want to ask him a very specific question. I just quoted eight bilateral agreements that our minister made since his appointment. In 13 years, the member and his party had two. What does he think of that? That is what I would like to ask him.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on some of the comments the member made, but let me answer his question directly.

He should be thanking Andy Mitchell, who was the previous minister, for laying the groundwork so that the Conservatives could get to those agreements, just as they should thank the previous minister for really doing the negotiations on getting the border open, because it was supposed to open in June 2006 but the Conservatives just could not get the job done until 18 months later.

I think it is pretty darn degrading for the parliamentary secretary to attack a beef producer as if that lady did not have any rights to write the minister or me or anybody else. Whether she is a candidate or not is beside the point. It is beside the point. She is a beef producer and she has written a letter.

I will read another letter that was written to Minister Ritz, and maybe the parliamentary secretary could--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Malpeque should perhaps wind down his reply so that we can have other questions, but what drew my attention is that he named another member of the House by name, and with all his experience, he should know not to do that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laval.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague from Malpeque, whom I thank for his speech.

In recent weeks, we have had to sign a slapdash agreement because the government had promised money for the manufacturing and forestry industries. That money was promised as blackmail. Now we see that the beef and pork producers will be receiving money under a program that will only come into effect in April.

Does he not have the impression that the people of Canada and Quebec are being somewhat held hostage in the various programs that the government wants to institute? Does he not have somewhat the impression that this is the case both for beef and pork producers and for the manufacturing and forestry industries? We are seeing a strong trend. Could he answer me on this?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question by saying that not only have Canadians been held hostage by the government, as we quite obviously can see in terms of its performance on the agriculture file and especially as it relates to the beef and hog industry, but the rural backbench members are being held hostage. The backbench members are almost like a bunch of trained seals. They must be held hostage by the Prime Minister's Office too. We have heard the talking points from the PMO tonight from the parliamentary secretary, but we really have not heard much substance.

I guess that is what worries me about the government. It is pretty good at messaging. We saw the message from the minister in December that he was going to do something, but where was the delivery? It just did not happen.

There is talk of an election in the air, and maybe, just maybe, as the Conservatives did for the forestry sector, if you remember, Mr. Speaker, they even tried to buy your province in the last budget. It did not work, of course, but they did try to buy it. That is what we can expect from that kind of a government.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his passionate plea on behalf of farmers and pork producers. We have all been approached by pork producers lately and have heard their pleas for our assistance. I am very pleased that the hon. member has taken that seriously.

I also had the privilege of meeting people from the Canadian Pork Council at the industry committee last week and what they are asking for does not seem unreasonable. They are looking for repayable short term loans.

We have seen what happened in the manufacturing sector. Is it a matter of ideology that the government will not provide short term assistance for these people? I would also like my colleague to explain that once we have lost this industry, we cannot just get it back again. A farm, after going bankrupt or whatever, cannot set up and start over the next day. That is something we have not mentioned and it is very important for Canadians to hear.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has worked hard on this file as he has worked hard on the Canadian Wheat Board file and the Canadian Grain Commission file.

To a great extent I believe it is a matter of ideology. I said in my remarks that maybe this is the minister's or the Prime Minister's way of letting the industry rationalize; just let it rationalize, let the market do its thing and we lose 50% of producers and life will go on and rural communities will be less. Maybe that is the minister's objective, just to let that happen. That is if it is an ideological question. That is certainly a possibility.

One of the members from the government side said earlier that we were asking for money and to heck with whether they are countervailable or not. I do not think anyone heard me say that in my remarks.

I will admit that I that thought at one point in time that maybe it would be good to put farmers first and trade priorities second. That is what individual producers are saying out there. They are saying what good is the trade agreement to them if at the end of the day they are broke and out of business. We have to look at that. There are ways of doing it that it is not countervailable. I outlined about seven or eight points tonight. There are ways of doing it.