House of Commons Hansard #53 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was troops.

Topics

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am happy with my colleague’s question. First, it is the right question. He said that I am negative. They have a solution. It is war. We have a number of solutions. It is those other solutions that he does not want to hear. The other solution is a balanced mission, as the Manley report said. We did not appoint Mr. Manley and his team; they are the ones who did so. Mr. Manley said that it had to be rebalanced, which means going in with more resources for development, diplomacy and democracy.

In terms of democracy, I would note that in 2004, the election turnout was 75%. That is extraordinary. Everyone was overjoyed with it. People said it was a good sign, that the Afghans wanted to try out democracy. But I have the impression that the regime that is being installed has shut them out, because in the second election, two and a half years later, turnout was 30%. That is an extraordinary drop-off. Why did it occur? The Conservatives are so ideologically fixated on the war that it is all-out war. They ask us what we are proposing in return.

Where war becomes necessary, everyone must go to war and we agree with that. When the merits of going to war cannot be explained, we do not agree. There are alternatives such as helping these people with reconstruction, democracy and training.

I would remind the House that Canada has extraordinary expertise in reconstruction and leading peace missions, an expertise that is being wasted.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member continues to show his lack of information on what is actually going on there. In fact, the voter turnout the last time was 60%, not 30%. If he is going to use facts he should at least use the correct ones.

We are delivering on reconstruction development to the best of our ability. It is the Canadian soldiers who are doing that. What does the member think the role of the Taliban is in how we conduct our operations in Afghanistan? It is a simple question. What is his understanding of the role of the Taliban and how it affects us?

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the member is driving at. The Taliban will not be helping us with reconstruction. We have to change our approach. The member is going back to that argument because the Conservatives are not at ease with our proposal, and I understand that. If I were in their place, I would be very unhappy. They are unhappy because they cannot give us reasons.

I also spoke to people there who are involved in missions, who are representatives of aid organizations and not just any organization. They have told us that people are public servants by day and members of the Taliban by night. Who is a Taliban? It is a flawed question. It shows the lack of a strategic understanding of the entire issue, an absolute lack of understanding. It hinges on two things: the Taliban and war.

As with any society, it is not written on your forehead that you are a member of the Taliban. They do not act like bikers, they do not put an emblem on their backs. I will say it again, thousands of people are public servants by day and Taliban members by night. The situation is not at all like the member has described it.

We have to get things right. The Conservatives do not accept this and I understand that they are unhappy about it because they cannot justify their position.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, this forum in the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada is an excellent place to share ideas. Today I guess we could call it a debate. I like to think of it more as a dialogue, a conversation among colleagues, as to what the best course is in reference to the issue of Afghanistan.

While I participate in the dialogue, I am very mindful of the great sacrifices made by men and women of the Canadian Forces. Rest assured, as every member of the House of Commons rises to his or her feet, our hearts go out to the families and to the communities that have been affected by this war.

We in the Liberal Party fundamentally believe that a successful future for Afghanistan is in our national interest. We believe our efforts, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier on, have reflected the values and principles in which Canadians believe.

What are those values? Those values and principles are freedom, democracy, equality, security and the respect of fundamental human rights. Our party believes these values are worth pursuing. We believe our efforts in Afghanistan, supported by a clear United Nations mandate, can be successful.

Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

What has this debate, this journey that we have all participated in taught us about arriving at some compromises among members of Parliament representing different political parties and stripes, but whose focus is very much a Canadian focus? It is that our country, which is blessed with a democratic institution, with the rule of law and with values that we all understand and appreciate, can export those values to a country that is in need. This is essentially the issue in Afghanistan.

However, what have we learned perhaps by an earlier mistake made by the government, where time was limited on the issue of debate and it did not take enough time to consult opposition parties or allow for this forum to take place?

The valuable lesson is that if we are reasonable in our approach, if we are reasonable in our expectations, if we have a bit of trust in each other and if we can focus on a common objective and pool all our resources together, we can make headway, we can achieve those well specified objectives that we all share.

I do not mean to say this in very partisan way, and forgive me if it may sound partisan, but we on this side of the House welcomed the start of the parliamentary debate on the government's new motion on Afghanistan. We are pleased the government chose to use the proposed Liberal motion introduced two weeks ago as the basis of its new motion. However, this comes with a sense of openness and realization that perhaps at all times we do not have all the answers to the issues, that perhaps it is important to listen to other voices, to be open to suggestion and understand that debate and dialogue is precisely that.

We do not all think alike, but if we can take the best of what each one of us has to offer in the debate, then collectively, as a House of Commons and as a country, we can in fact move forward. I will give a few examples of what has been achieved. I sit on this side of the House and will bring my perspective to the debate.

The new motion adopts the principles that the mission must change, that it must end and that it must go well beyond an exclusively military focus. These are principles that Liberals advocated over a year ago, principles that make sense. Perhaps the government had to think a bit about it, but it has now arrived at the same conclusion. That is part of the process of how one arrives at mutually acceptable results.

With the motion as well, the government acknowledges that the mission must change and has used the Liberal description of the mission after February 2009, which will change its focus to a mission of training, security and reconstruction. Given what is going on in Afghanistan, it is understandable that this shift occurs. It is common sense and a shift that speaks to the mission of training, security and reconstruction, which is precisely where we should be as a country.

The government also has accepted the fact that the mission must end. This motion, as presented, sets a firm end date to Canada's mission in Kandahar of July 2011. The Conservative government has also accepted that our presence in Afghanistan must be about more than military.

Key commitments on development and diplomacy, which were absent from the government's original motion, have been imported directly from the Liberal motion. I am not saying this to be boastful. It is to demonstrate to members of the House as well as Canadians that in fact a cooperative spirit exists within the chamber that can move our country forward to achieve the results that we all agree are fundamental in Afghanistan.

I also note that the government has kept virtually all the Liberal motion as it pertains to the need for greater transparency and accountability to Parliament. Unfortunately, the earlier motion was silent on this issue. What I think happened was that through some mistakes, and mistakes happen in politics, the government realized that it had to open up to the Canadian people, that it had to give updates as to what was going on in Afghanistan because people wanted to know.

Canadians want to know why we are there. Canadians want to know when we will come back. Canadians want to know whether we are successful. Canadians also understand we are losing lives in Afghanistan and they want to know we are losing lives for a just cause.

AfghanistanGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Order, please. It would seem there is an expectation on the part of the member that the debate will go on longer, but it will not.

It being 10 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-44 under government orders.

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

moved that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

10 p.m.

Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry Ontario

Conservative

Guy Lauzon ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

Mr. Speaker, our farmers across Canada, the people who put meat on our tables and who produce 23% of agricultural income, need their government to take action to help them get through the perfect storm that is threatening their livelihood.

The Canadian livestock industry is a powerful driver of Canada's economy. Meat products are Canada's largest food manufacturing industry with over $20 billion in sales. The red meat sector is the largest employer in the food industry. Red meats are a major driver of Canadian exports.

Thanks to the Prime Minister's action, the future looks very bright for our livestock producers. The demand for animal protein is increasing globally, specifically in China, India and other emerging markets. Canada has a rich and robust resource base in place to meet that demand.

We have a strong culture of science and innovation, a culture that this government is fostering even further. Our agriculture sector is incredibly productive.

Our livestock producers are competitive. They are innovative and they are positive about the future of their sector. They just need some help to weather the perfect storm that has hit their industry: the high dollar, the over supply and the high input costs. These and other factors have combined to put severe financial pressure on Canada's livestock producers.

If they are to be viable and competitive in the long term and take advantage of the promising market opportunities that are out there, our hog and beef producers need immediate assistance to get through the current crisis and to begin the necessary adjustment. Governments and industry are fully engaged in this issue.

To help hog producers manage disease, the government launched the circovirus inoculation program, under which producers are immediately entitled to $25 million in assistance from the federal government to have hogs in Canada tested and vaccinated.

This is the first of two phases of a $76 million initiative to assist the hog industry in controlling diseases. As well, to assist our slaughterhouses, which are key factors in the equation, our government has invested $51 million to improve the temporary foreign workers program.

First, the new AgriInvest Program will pay out $600 million in federal funds to kickstart producer accounts. Those payments are now being made available to our producers.

The government will make more assistance available to producers through interim payments and targeted advances under AgriStability, the new program based on margins.

Unlike the Liberals who had the poor sense to cut agriculture spending by $400 million in the 1990s, we are taking real action. In December we announced the first step in a national action plan to help Canada's livestock producers.

Through the new suite of business risk management programs, ministers agreed to accelerate access to payments under agri-stability through targeted advance payments and interim payments. We promised to take action and we have taken action.

In total, from late 2007 through 2008, nearly $1.5 billion in cash payments is expected to flow to livestock producers through existing and new programs.

We are also currently working with the provinces to fast track 2008 agri-stability TAP payments, 2008 interim payments and 2007 final payments.

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 payment.

This is real action from this government to give the livestock industry some of the help it needs, because when farmers need help, they need that help right away.

Governments and industry have also been working together to identify ways that would help industry position itself to be competitive in the long term. These include: reducing costs of implementing the enhanced feed ban; increasing livestock, pork and beef sales abroad; and bringing innovative feed grain inputs and products to market more rapidly.

Internationally we are working hard to find new markets for Canadian producers and we are working hard to maximize the markets we are already in. Access to international markets is an important part of economic success for Canada's livestock producers.

Opportunities to expand our agriculture trade relationship are enormous. The world wants our livestock products, from genetics, to breeding stock, to the finished product. The government is working hard to take these products to the world.

We have taken every opportunity to further secure, protect and enhance access to the U.S. and to other key markets for the Canadian 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. We are actively seeking to resume beef exports to Korea and China.

As well, the government has an ambitious agenda for the negotiation of bilateral free trade agreements. Canada is currently negotiating free trade agreements with several important markets for our beef and pork exports, including Korea which is of particular importance. Other markets include Colombia, Peru, the Dominican Republic and the Caribbean.

I am very pleased to report that access to Canadian breeding stock has recently been restored to Mexico as well as to Barbados. This is welcome news for Canadian exporters and is an important step in restoring market access with all of our trading partners.

This government's commitment to expanding our agricultural markets is clear. We are taking action to strengthen opportunities for the sector in global markets. These actions will ensure a strong future for cattle and hog producers.

The world wants our beef and pork products, and we are more than ready to deliver.

The legislation we are proposing is one more sign of this government's commitment to take action for Canada's hard-working beef and pork producers. As I said earlier, our producers know where they are going, but they need a bridge to get there and this bill provides that.

The measures in this bill are based on close consultation with industry which asked for a loan program to alleviate the short term financial crunch those in the industry are facing. The time to act is now or we risk seeing viable, competitive producers shutting down their businesses.

Accordingly, under these proposed amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, a producer will have easier access to up to $400,000 in cash advances under the advance payments program. In other words, producers will no longer have to use these payments from business risk management programs as security for the loans. Instead, they can use their livestock inventories.

This responds directly to demands from the industry to decouple BRM and APP payments, because payments from the BRM programs were reducing the effectiveness of the program by clawing back the dollars available.

Second, we are proposing to expand the triggers for emergency advances under the payments program. We will do this by adding severe economic hardship as a trigger, along with the existing triggers of weather and natural disaster.

For those severe economic hardship situations, the amendments will raise the maximum payout from $25,000 to $400,000, of which $100,000 is interest free.

We are taking action to offer livestock producers repayable advances which could total up to $3.3 billion.

We are also taking steps directly targeted to the hog sector to help those producers who wish to restructure and rationalize in the face of these realities.

What we are seeing across North America is a massive downsizing in the hog herd. This has created an oversupply of cull sows, which has driven the price down by well over half and has pushed processing plants to capacity limits. As a result, producers are forced to delay their restructuring plans.

In response to this situation, the government is investing $50 million in a cull breeding swine program. Administered by the Canadian Pork Council, this program will help restructure the industry and make it more competitive. Producers will receive per-head payments for each animal slaughtered and will be reimbursed for the slaughter and disposal costs.

In addition, the government will work with the industry and review meat inspection user fees to assess their impact on competitiveness of the sector.

The Government of Canada is also working to reduce costs and increase competitiveness under Canada's enhanced feed ban. This complements the federal government's commitment of $80 million to help the industry adjust to new feed standards.

Looking to the longer term, this government continues to work with the sector to secure its competitiveness and profitability. A big part of this is Growing Forward, a new federal-provincial-territorial plan to make the Canadian agriculture sector not just viable, but vibrant. It is a collaborative vision for the sector that is focused on the future. It is a vision for a profitable and innovative sector, a sector that seizes opportunities and a sector that responds to market demands and contributes to the health and well-being of Canadians.

This agreement builds on the best of the agriculture policy framework. It brings our producers the bankable business risk management programs I outlined earlier. It builds on the ideas put forward by producers and others who work in the sector.

The bottom line is that there is tremendous opportunity for agriculture in this country. The global demand for protein is growing, especially in the Pacific Rim, a market Canada is ideally positioned to serve. We have world renowned animal health, favourable climate, superior genetics and an abundant land base to produce the product to meet the demand. The fundamentals are in place and the future is bright. All that is needed is a springboard to get us there. We need to reframe the discussion from one of crisis to one of opportunity.

In supporting this bill, I have given you an idea of the problems that the industry is facing and the significant steps that our government has taken to help our producers get through a very hard time. The proposed legislation is an important part of an exhaustive strategy that will provide short-term assistance and will help hog producers plan for the future.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and to demonstrate their support for this industry, as it struggles to overcome its problems.

In closing, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, this whole government since we were elected in January 2006 have always put farmers first.

I am so proud to stand in this place to introduce this wonderful piece of legislation that will help the cattle and the hog industry to go on to be sustainable and to be profitable for years and years to come.

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

10:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Malpeque.

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

10:10 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Are there questions, Mr. Speaker?

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

10:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

I believe there are no questions and comments pursuant to the agreement reached earlier this day. I am recognizing the hon. member for Malpeque on debate.

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

10:10 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought there were questions.

In any event, what we heard just a moment ago was a lot of rhetoric. As for the last comment by the parliamentary secretary about putting farmers first, nothing is further from the truth.

That member has stood up many times in the House talking about farmers being pleased and about the government acting decisively. We asked the government about this in October. This is now February 25.

This is February 25 and the member stays quiet. Yes, I am frustrated, because I know too many people who have gone broke in the process. As for that member standing there and talking about the government acting decisively, nothing is further from the truth.

Finally today in this bill the government has admitted what we have been telling those members since last summer, which is that their programs are not working, especially not for a livestock industry in crisis. Instead of acting as they should have, government spokesmen continued to perpetuate the myth to the general public that they were actually doing something, as we heard a moment ago.

Following questions in the House to which the minister failed to respond, I raised the crisis in a late show debate on October 30 of last year. It is important to note what was said at that time:

Atlantic Canada is on the verge of losing its hog industry. Many of the most efficient hog operators are packing it in and hoping to get out with some dignity and the minister still sits on his hands.

Their life's work was being destroyed. Third, fourth, fifth and sixth generation farmers were losing their farms, losing their homes and losing their heritage.

The federal government, as I said at the time, had a duty and a responsibility that previous Liberal governments understood and acted on. They acted on potatoes and PVYn, on poultry, on ad hoc payments and on BSE, but the Conservative government fails to act and continues to perpetuate the myth that it is doing something.

It was October of last year when this crisis was raised, and vividly, for the government's attention. It failed to act. Week after week, we and other opposition parties in the House raised questions. The non-response from the minister and his government was, to be blunt about it, just unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, and we just heard it a moment ago, it is not unusual for the government to say something that we cannot believe. Worse, in November, the Minister of Finance released his economic statement and again ignored the livestock crisis. There was absolutely nothing for an industry in crisis in the November economic statement when the government had high surpluses at its disposal before it started to squander that surplus away.

Any government should use prudence so that it has reserves in place to assist industries when they are in trouble, whether it is manufacturing, agriculture or forestry. However, the government, with its incompetent Minister of Finance, has squandered those resources and those surpluses. I do not know whether the money is there or not, but the money was there in November and should have been utilized to assist this industry in crisis.

On December 3, many of the points were raised again in debate in the House to suggest that the government should be acting rapidly. Even in a western paper, the StarPhoenix, Kevin Hursh, a consulting agrologist and farmer, said something that I want to quote because I think it is important:

For the past decade, the agricultural industry in Saskatchewan has gradually developed a more healthy balance between livestock and grain. Grain is still king, but the cowherd has expanded. While the number of hog producers has continued to drop, hog numbers in Saskatchewan are up substantially.

All that is now at risk. Those of us in the grain business shouldn't feel too smug. There won't always be such a strong international market for our feed grains. If we lose a big chunk of the livestock industry, we'll also lose a large part of the domestic feed grain market.

He went on to say that he felt “the cattle and hog sectors would go forward to government with a united front” with proposals for assistance that would not open them up to countervail action. He closed by saying, “Hopefully, governments will listen”. Those were the key words: “Hopefully, governments will listen”. But as we now know, the government did not listen and it did not act and every single day some producers went out of business in this country.

That parliamentary secretary stood and said what he just said as if nothing happened, as if no family farms were destroyed, trying to leave the impression that his is a government of action that puts farmers first. Absolutely nothing is further from the truth.

A Senate committee and a House of Commons committee tabled reports in December and still there was no action on the part of the government. Finally on December 19 we had an announcement by the minister of a so-called action plan, but as we warned at the time it was not an action plan that would work.

There are three points I need to make. First, the minister called the United States Secretary of Agriculture to get his approval. This is the first government in Canadian history that allows the Secretary of Agriculture in the United States to determine what our agriculture should be. That is absolutely the wrong approach. Second, the minister raised expectations and false hopes. Third, the program could not work without legislation and could not provide the financial liquidity the livestock industry really needed.

What really angered producers was that every time the minister and his parliamentary secretary could, they would re-announce that old $600 million kickstart program, which for the livestock industry was basically inaccessible. That is why we have the legislation here today. That is why the government is coming forward with Bill C-44. It is finally admitting that the proposal on December 19 really did not work and required legislative amendment.

For the minister and his parliamentary secretary to get up time after time and say that farmers were happy, the program was working and the government was taking action was just throwing salt on the wounds of those producers who were suffering out there. The bill certainly shows the mistruths in those answers, especially those from the parliamentary secretary.

In fact, when the standing committee--and I note that the chair of the committee is listening--called the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council before the committee on January 31 to gain their response to the government position, they laid it out fairly clearly. The president of the Canadian 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.

In other words, the program was not working, but all we got from the government was deny, deny, deny, and the parliamentary secretary, as is his way, and as he did tonight as well, on January 29 stated: “That money is flowing toward cattle and hog sectors as we speak”. We now know that not to be true. The money was not flowing to hog and beef sectors “as we speak”.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would apologize to this House and to producers who now know what he said was not true.

There is even further evidence of that in the frequently asked questions paper that the department provided with this legislation. I will read question six from the document:

Why go the legislative route? Isn't this just more parliamentary brinkmanship?

The answer:

The legislative changes are necessary to get these advances out to the producers who are in dire straits. If all parties worked together, we can do this very quickly.

What is the government going to do for the 15% of producers across Canada who have gone because of the government's lack of action? What is the government going to do with the almost 40% of the industry in Prince Edward Island that have left because of the government's lack of action?

We have called. Farmers have called. We have had an emergency debate. Months have gone by since this issue should have been dealt with: September, October, November, December, January, and we are at February 25. It is a little late. Every day some family farm bites the dust because there has been no real concrete action that would mean dollars in producers' pockets.

Thank goodness for the ideas and cooperation from the opposition or we would still be waiting. The impression the government tries to leave is that it is the opposition that is holding things up. We have cooperated. We tried to get this bill through. We have tried to encourage the government to come forward. We have offered to be cooperative in the emergency debates at committee to get the legislation through and actually get dollars in people's pockets. That is what we are doing tonight. We are trying to get Bill C-44 through so the money can get to producers.

The holdup all along has been the minister and the government in terms of burying their heads in the sand and thinking they had done something when that something really did not mean anything to the actual producers who really need the money.

It is kind of interesting that finally on Friday we got a call from the minister that there is now an emergency to get this through before the budget. Do the Conservatives think there is an election coming and they have to own up that they have not done what they ought to have done? It is rather interesting that we are debating this bill tonight and the briefing is tomorrow, after we have debated and passed the bill.

The leader of our party asked me and Cindy Duncan-MacMillan to hold some quick and dirty hearings on the livestock crisis and come up with some recommendations, which we did. We tabled those recommendations last Monday. I want to go through those recommendations.

I will admit that the bill the government has proposed does move one step forward, but there are a lot of steps that have to be taken in terms of a livestock crisis recovery strategy. For instance, on the agri-invest, or the old CAIS, or agri-stability, with losing 15% from the agri-stability as a result of the agri-invest, what the livestock industry is asking for is to make that optional to producers so that they can either use the agri-stability program or have the option of agri-invest. That would help them out in this time of crisis. There is nothing in this bill about that proposal.

Let me just go through some of the recommendations so that they are on the record. Maybe after a few months the government might come forward and seize on them. That is, if the Conservatives are around in a few months. They may be long gone and we will not have to worry about this inactive government anymore.

Here are some of the recommendations.

Put cash in the hands of beef producers immediately by making special 2007 CAIS advance payments of up to $100 per cow and $150 for feeder cattle.

Put cash in the hands of hog producers and implement an immediate short term loan for Canadian hog producers to improve cash flow as markets adjust with the loan program secured by long run future business risk management payment programs to be negotiated with hog producers. That is basically what this bill does tonight.

Put, on an immediate priority basis, 2006 CAIS payments and 2007 CAIS targeted and interim advance payments for all hog and beef producers.

Work with all parties to determine how the livestock advance payment program could be improved and be accessed by the hog and beef producers including amending the security requirements, which is in the bill and we support that.

Unlinking or decoupling CAIS payment offset with advances given.

Extending time restrictions on advances and the bill, I believe, does that as well.

Allow all hog and beef producers to be given the option of having the top 15% CAIS or the new agri-invest program for at least 2007 and 2008 and maintain the $600 million agri-invest kick-start already announced.

Defer not only interest payments but also clawbacks of all CAIS overpayments to hog and beef producers until December 2008.

Establish immediately a working group to develop a livestock production insurance program to provide hog producers equivalent coverage given to crop producers and help them to address margin declines due to disease outbreaks.

For the sake of not only the agriculture sectors but also Canada's forestry and manufacturing sectors and exporting industries, look at and examine their monetary policies.

There are measures that need to be taken in the medium and long term, as well. Market competitiveness is the key for hog and beef producers.

For farmers in this country, significant regulatory hurdles and a non-level playing field relative to our competitors in the United States and elsewhere impedes our producers success in markets. Specifically, the livestock prices strategy should also include some medium and long term initiatives.

These would include the following.

Realigning Canada's regulatory inspection fees and cost recovery rates such as those applied to border measures, traceability and food inspection to be competitive with Canada's major trading partners.

Working with the CFIA and industry groups to significantly improve approvals for new medications.

Establishing a new dedicated trade directorate that could pull together resources from the CFIA, Agri-Food Canada and International Trade Canada to focus maximum resources on market access agreements for Canadian livestock production.

Establishing a new trade quick response team to rapidly defend against industry trade challenges.

Eliminating supplemental imports of beef above current trade commitments in Canada.

Working with all provinces to significantly reduce interprovincial trade barriers such as meat inspection, a chronic barrier to innovation and entrepreneurship as producers face a bewildering disarray of different provincial standards and regulations.

That kind of livestock prices recovery strategy, as we proposed a week ago today, is composed of suggestions from farmers for farmers. It addresses both short and long term challenges.

We believe those initiatives, if put into action, would in fact help our industry become innovative, more economically sound, put it at a more level playing field with our competitors around the world, and do what needs to be done for the long term potential of the industry.

I am disappointed tonight that it took the government six months to finally come to the realization that it needed to at least take a step in the right direction to assist our industry that is in trouble.

I encourage the government to consider some of the other proposals that I have put forward here tonight.

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

10:30 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also take part in this debate on Bill C-44, which the Bloc Québécois fully supports. Admittedly, there is an emergency and, as a farm producer keeps telling me, all this is not the workings of the Holy spirit.

Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who spoke earlier, one got the impression that the government is taking action today to solve a problem that arose just yesterday. That is my greatest fear in this situation because, while we support Bill C-44, the government must certainly not assume that the problem is solved, that it can wash its hands of it and that all is said and done.

The optimistic remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had me fearing the worst. Just this afternoon, the worst did happen at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. With the help of opposition members on the committee, I managed to get a motion approved, asking that the chair of our committee send the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a letter urging him to respect the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food concerning the crisis in the livestock industry. But the Conservative members, the government members of the committee voted against this motion, arguing that this bill would solve the problem. Far from it. Just because we support the bill does not mean that we believe the livestock crisis is completely over and that there is no longer any problem. It was really pathetic to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food earlier try to persuade us that all is fine again, that everything has been fixed and that the government did all that with its magic wand. That is not true, and we must be very careful.

We definitely have some reservations. We have some questions about this bill. Will the government follow up on the recommendations in the unanimous report I mentioned earlier by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which was behind the emergency debate I instigated on February 13?

Will there also be consequences for Quebec since this bill falls under the agricultural policy framework?

And how much of the $80 million is new money?

It is all well and good to broaden the definitions, but if at the end of the day the producers are sharing the same amount, no one benefits. According to some sources, this is not new money, but an interest rate reduction instead. We must remember that a loan is still a loan, and we do not want to increase the debt load of producers.

Earlier, I heard cries from the government side when I spoke about the committee's unanimous report. What happened this afternoon does not make any sense. All the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food unanimously adopted a report to help resolve or at least alleviate the crisis in the livestock sector, in the pork and, particularly, the beef sector. All the committee members voted in favour of this report and agreed that long-term measures were needed to alleviate this crisis because they acknowledged there was a crisis and that solutions must be found.

Bill C-44 is not the ultimate and only solution. I think it is completely inconsistent and cynical of the government members to have voted against a motion today in committee that would have had the chair of the committee call on the minister to take action to ensure that the committee's recommendations are adopted. I will list them later on, so we can see how the committee, including members from the government, had a clear view of the situation and were prepared do something to propose logical solutions, demanded by the producers themselves.

Today, because a bill has been introduced, all that is going by the wayside. But the Bloc Québécois will not give up, just as we did not give up when I joined the agriculture committee, which was grappling with the supply management issue. We obtained a unanimous motion to protect the supply management system.

The same is true of our call to use article 28 to restrict milk protein imports. Government representatives and bureaucrats told us that we were going to be crushed by countries like the United States and New Zealand, which would tell us that we had no right to use article 28 and that it made no sense. The country would be put in an embarrassing position, and there would be plenty of problems. Then, out of the blue, the Minister of Agriculture at the time came to the annual meeting of the dairy farmers of Canada and told them that he was invoking article 28. It was no good when the Bloc Québécois was calling for it, but when the government feels an election coming or a demonstration on Parliament Hill, it makes the necessary decisions.

We have to put things in perspective.

On a positive note, I will say that I am glad the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food introduced this bill, which would change the eligibility requirements for the advance payments program, in response to the emergency debate the Bloc Québécois requested on February 13 about the crisis in the livestock industry.

As I said, the government still has a long way to go to make livestock producers more competitive. There was a reason we asked for an emergency debate. Livestock producers are at the end of their rope and have to take whatever help they are offered. That is why Bill C-44 helps matters. But as I told the minister when I spoke to him last Friday, the government still has not responded to the six recommendations in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, entitled “Study on the Collapse of the Beef and Pork Sector Revenues”, which was tabled in this House on December 12.

The report recommends that transitional measures be put in place to alleviate this crisis, along with longer-term measures to improve the competitiveness of the industry. The government does not seem to understand that we are looking for longer-term measures. As with any problem, we have to look beyond the end of our noses. To resolve a problem, we have to ask what can be done in the future to have solutions that ensure the sustainability of a certain sector. That is what we tried to do with this report.

The Bloc Québécois has been very aware of the problems of livestock producers for a long time now. In November 2006, I invited pork producers from Quebec to come testify in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. A year later, in light of the government's inaction, we had to raise this issue again and put the livestock crisis back on the agenda. I also had to request an emergency debate on this matter because nothing was being done.

As I was saying earlier, to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we get the impression that the Conservatives only found out there was a problem yesterday and today they are taking action and resolving the problem. We have to go back much further than that. My colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, has already listed everything the opposition has done in this matter. For a very long time now, alarm bells have been ringing and it was high time the government took action.

I do not know whether it is because an election is in the air, but perhaps some matters will get resolved a little more quickly now. Mind you, I am not complaining. This does not bother me. In any case, when we achieve success for the producers and the people we represent, we are always prepared to hold our heads high in our ridings and throughout Quebec and tell people that we did something good for them. That is not a problem. The minister can also say he got things done with Bill C-44, and I would be the first to recognize that he finally did.

Yet, it took threats of demonstrations on the Hill—which, farmers told us, were in the works—as well as the possibility of an election, before we saw any action. This government has been in power for two years and could have taken action long ago. Members here in this House have expressed their agreement with what I just said.

Some very interesting recommendations were adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I would remind the House that the report was unanimously passed. The first recommendation states:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada deploy ... 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.

The report also states:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in partnership with the provinces and territories, payout the remaining percentage owed to producers under the CAIS Inventory Transition Initiative (CITI) and respect the federal-provincial funding agreement.

Another interesting recommendation states that:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) hold formal discussions with the Minister of Finance to show the impact of the strengthening Canadian dollar on the food producing and processing industry in Canada and to examine ways to relieve the pressure on the industry from the rising Canadian dollar. AAFC officials should report back to the Committee on the result of these discussions.

Of course, this would have allowed us to participate in the debate that arose in all the sectors affected by the sudden surge of the Canadian dollar.

It is our duty to examine this situation and determine to what extent it affects our sectors. In addition, given that pork and beef producers are exporters, it would have been important to study this.

The fourth recommendation states:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that measures be taken to improve the responsiveness of BRM programs when a liquidity crunch arises in the farming sector. Examples of these measures include, but are not limited to:

allowing producers, for the purpose of reference margin calculations, to use the better of the Olympic average, the average of the last three years, or a five-year rolling average;

eliminating the viability test, which requires that producers show positive margins in two of the three years;

increasing the annual contribution limit in the AgriInvest program;

fast-tracking the federal $600 million Kickstart program for producer accounts in the AgriInvest program, so that funds can start flowing earlier than initially planned.

Another recommendation states:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food conduct a complete review of regulatory measures susceptible of putting the Canadian meat industry at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis other countries, and that this information be shared with the Committee.

And the final recommendation states:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada review program funding available to beef producers, processors and renderers to help them with the disposal and storage costs of ruminant specified risk material (SRM).

Those are the six recommendations. Because I only have 20 minutes, I will not read the entire report. However, I can tell you that it is an excellent report that was adopted unanimously. We would have thought that government members would join us in continuing to exert pressure on the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to respond favourably to these six recommendations. Unfortunately, we did not have this opportunity because the members of government are under the impression that Bill C-44 has fixed everything.

However, not everything has been fixed yet. This is evidenced by the fact that, in a press release issued today, the Canadian Pork Council says that it is pleased to see the bill being passed quickly. At least, this is what it hopes, and this is what will happen, because all the opposition parties will ensure that we go through the various stages very quickly, so that the bill comes into effect. However, while the Canadian Pork Council is pleased with this situation, it also makes the following comment, through its president, Mr. Clare Schlegel:

...while the troubles in the industry will not end soon, the federal government and the pork industry must continue to work together to find improvements that help to guarantee the long-term competitiveness of this important Canadian livestock industry.

That pretty well sums up what I said earlier. We are of course pleased that the government has finally decided to take action, but we are concerned about guaranteeing long-term competitiveness, and we are saying that the troubles in the industry will not end soon. The producers themselves just sent us a very important message. That is why we, on this side, will continue to ensure that the recommendations made in the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food are implemented once and for all.

I should also point out that the producers' demands have not all been met. Obviously. One might argue that every industry has specific demands but does not always get everything it asks for. The fact of the matter is that this bill does not solve the majority of problems experienced in the beef and pork industries.

Just last Friday, I met with representatives of the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec at my constituency office. These are people from my region, central Quebec. They came and presented their problems to us. Every member from Quebec received a small pamphlet in which the federation asks the federal government to implement several solutions to help pork producers. The hon. members will see that Bill C-44 does not solve everything.

For example, the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec is asking that the $1.5 million cap under the AgriStability and AgriInvest programs, as well as the $3 million cap on the start-up fund, be raised.

It is asking that the reference margins to provide appropriate support to producers be adjusted in light of the unique nature of the crisis and the persistently poor market conditions.

It is asking that the Canadian product labelling rules designed to ensure that consumers can clearly identify where products come from be tightened up.

It is also asking that a new envelope be set up to support shared cost programs, allowing for regional flexibility in the next generation of agricultural policies.

As we know, Quebec farm producers are calling for agri-flexibility in addition to the AgriStability and AgriInvest programs. We are therefore looking for a much more flexible program for the producers and for the provinces as well.

The advance payments program, which was recently expanded to include stock production, should not use the business risk management program as collateral, thereby forcing producers to pay back advances when they receive payments.

All the MPs from Quebec received a visit from the pork producers in their region pushing these demands. Obviously, I would like to take advantage of this speech to pass this along to the government and make it realize that Bill C-44 is not going to put an end to all this and shut everyone up. Of course the government would rather see the opposition remain quietly seated and not say another word, but since we represent our people we will continue to speak up. It is with a great deal of vigour that I, personally, will continue to defend not only the pork producers, but the also the beef producers who are going through this crisis.

I must say that it was not so long ago that the Conservative government sang a very different tune about this crisis. I am referring to the emergency debate that I requested and obtained on February 13. I agree that some Conservative members made good, realistic presentations. In any case, one such member, the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, was even cited in the Canadian Pork Council newsletter as having delivered an eloquent and interesting speech.

It should be noted that the news release did not cite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food because he had his rose-coloured glasses on. He came here, and all he did was put down the opposition parties, saying that it was all a bunch of garbage, that money had been pumped into the pockets of agricultural producers, and that all was well in the best of all possible worlds. As a result, the Canadian Pork Council did not quote him as having given a speech that addressed the producers' grievances.

It did mention me, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska—I cannot say my own name—because I was the one who called for and got an emergency debate. It also said that the comments made by the members for Malpeque and British Columbia Southern Interior were especially notable. I would add that the Bloc Québécois members for Montcalm, Beauharnois—Salaberry, and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot also gave speeches recognizing the seriousness of the crisis.

On the government side, we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and especially from the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. I promised him that I would print copies of his speech to give to agricultural producers because it was so appalling, lamentable and sad to hear him say that everything was fine in the livestock sector. And that is exactly what I did.

On Friday, when people came to see me to talk about this crisis, I gave them a copy of the speech. After reading a few lines, they were very disappointed in this government member, who refused to acknowledge just how serious the crisis had become. Yet, even his minister realized that something was happening, given that we are now studying a bill that was just introduced.

There was a problem at that time. Fortunately, the opposition is here to make the government understand what is going on. Otherwise, we would still be stuck there and nothing would happen.

All that to say I am very pleased to see this bill fast tracked, so that our farmers may get at least a bit of a break.

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to appear again in front of this full House of all my colleagues who have come to listen to this speech. I realize it is standing room only. I will try not to be it too long because the time is getting late. I will leave the eloquence to those who spoke before me.

Before I talk a bit about my reaction to this bill, I would like to underline what my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska said about our committee.

The motion he had today was very logical. It was something to the effect that we ask the chairman and the committee to respect all of the recommendations that were voted upon.

We underline once again for the government and the minister that these are important recommendations and it would seem kind of bizarre that the government side, the Conservatives, voted against this motion. I did not quite understand that but being new in politics there are a lot of things I do not understand.

I kind of looked at this as an insurance. We have this bill today but we have this insurance to see that all those recommendations are followed. Actually, had we acted and followed all those recommendations in due time, we probably would not be here speaking tonight. Nevertheless, I thank the minister for his action.

I had a conference call on Friday with him, the deputy minister and Mr. Clare Schlegel, the president of the Canadian Pork Council, who was also on the line. As we talked, the minister outlined what he was proposing. My basic question was for Mr. Schlegel and I asked him what he thought. He said that it was a good bill and that it was a good move. I told him that was fine with me because we were there for the producers. The minister had been in contact with someone from the livestock and cattle sectors and they said that it was a good move.

In a sense, I am glad that we are finally moving quickly, that we do have the political will to move and that we have the support of all members in the House. This is a cooperative effort.

Since I got into this business, I have always maintained that I do not care who gets the credit as long as we do something and the fact is that something is getting done. Election or no election, so be it, but at least we are getting out there to help the producers.

However, it is important, as we talk and as we listen to this debate, to put this into perspective. The crisis did not start yesterday. The crisis did not start two weeks ago and we have a reaction today.

We heard from the cattle producers and the pork producers late last November and there was indeed a crisis. We knew all along but we were wondering what steps were being taken and finally we had an emergency meeting. As a result of that meeting, the committee made recommendations, which all parties supported. It would have been logical for those recommendations to have been followed as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, as often is the case, nothing really happened. A lot of words were said and we got the spin that a lot of help was getting out to folks but when they came back to our meeting in January, we heard that this was not the case and that they were still hurting.

There were press conferences and press releases. I wrote a couple of letters to the minister. I must say that when I write these letters I do them in a cooperative tone. It was just a letter telling the minister about the meeting we had and that I would like to once again emphasize that there is a problem and I would like to see what action we are taking.

Many of us asked questions. I asked a question in the House on February 1, which reads:

Mr. Speaker, pork and cattle producers told the agriculture committee that the government has basically abandoned them. Some have called today, February 1, black Friday and others are calling the government's funding promises a cruel joke.

Farms are foreclosing, rural communities are dying and yet no immediate assistance has been committed.

Then my final statement was this. When is this going to end? When is the government going to stop leading Canada down the road to agricultural suicide, which is the term I used?

As we can see, there was a cooperative approach. There was pressure, press releases, questions and the debate that my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska was able to get in the House. Then we laid out what was happening in consultation with our friends in the pork and cattle industry.

It is important perhaps to underline and note some of the correspondence that had gone back and forth over these last few months. I will quote from a letter from the president of the Canadian Pork Council, Mr. Clare Schlegel, to the minister on January 23. He stated:

Over the last four months we have been working with you and your officials to find solutions to the “perfect storm” facing hog producers across Canada. After much debate within our industry, we put forward a series of reasonable requests to respond to the financial dilemma. We do appreciate the speeding up of payments within CAIS or (AgriStability). But, as you are aware, that alone does not come close to responding adequately to this crisis. This has been pointed out to you in the cash flow statement when we met in December.

He went on to say this:

We had asked for unsecured loans to help producers facing serious liquidity problems. We recognize that a loan must be secured, and we have changed our request accordingly. We need your department to immediately provide loans that come after those of secured creditors.

In its current form, the advance payments program is not very useful, because it only serves to put off current loan contracts. The program should be significantly changed and most of the changes would be legislative or regulatory. Could that be done quickly?

He asked, “Could that be done quickly?” He continued:

In addition, none of the suggested improvements to the AgriStability program have been introduced, except for faster payments. This is threatening the survival of some of our best businesses.

I want to emphasize that he said, “This is threatening the survival of some of our best businesses”. The letter went on:

As you know, the Canadian pork industry is a modern, world-class industry. But our future is problematic because of the strength of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. Pork producers are prepared to adapt to the new reality, but they cannot react fast enough.

Mr. Schlegel finished his letter by saying:

Difficult decisions are being made now on the farm. False hope does not help, as your announcement before Christmas created. While many of the provinces have stepped in with individual programs, they await your leadership. It is time for the Canadian government to step up to the plate.

We see this happening little by little. As I go through the file and I see what has happened over the last few months, I wonder why it has taken this time.

I have a very high regard for the officials that work in the Department of Agriculture. They are professionals. They can get the job done. The minister himself told me, “We are not going to go political with this. We are not going to tie it to the budget. Let us do it quickly so that just in case there is an election my officials in March can get some money out to farmers”. We know that the minister can act quickly. The reason this has not been happening is not because of them. It is that somewhere along the line these quick and important decisions were not being made.

There are a couple of points in the provisions of this new bill which I think are really important. For example, the bill expands the circumstances for which an emergency advance can be issued to include severe economic hardship if the Ministers of Agriculture and Finance jointly agree that the hardship exists.

This is a tremendous point. It gives a little flexibility to the minister to say that there are economic hardships. In this case it is the Canadian dollar, but whether it is a rise in the biofuel industry or the world situation, at least the decision can be made to start getting some help flowing to our farmers.

The interesting thing is that the farmers are not asking for aid and handouts. All they are asking for is a little help to give them some security and stability so that they can get loans and weather this perfect storm. They do not want their farms foreclosed. They want to continue to farm until the world situation improves and there is a better situation at all levels.

On November 15 a communiqué came out from the Canadian Pork Council and I will quote a couple of paragraphs. I said that I did not want to speak too long. I want my colleagues to have a chance to go home early and get up bright and early tomorrow so we can get on with another day. The communiqué says:

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 input suppliers face financial ruin. Most disturbing is the observation that no positive market correction in the foreseeable future seems apparent.

That is an interesting point. We should emphasize that for those who think that the market can regulate everything, that the market will make sure that everything works out well for producers. At times we see that is not the case. I firmly believe that we need an intervention from government, not necessarily in the form of handouts, but in this case we need to assist our primary producers.

The second paragraph says:

The situation is critical. The rapid increase in the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. is having an effect that is akin to a major system shock. For 25 years, Canadian pork producers faced a steadily declining dollar. They responded by building an industry that became a world leader in terms of exports and overall competitiveness. That advantage has vanished in a few short months driven by forces completely outside their control.

We talked about the pork industry, but the conditions are relatively the same for the cattle industry. We have probably the best producers in the world. They are faced with hardships because of the rise in the dollar, because of what is happening in the world and also because of the biofuel industry. We have to come to grips with those problems.

If prices are increasing and helping one segment of the agricultural community, which is good from the point of view of agriculture, then what about the effect it is having on another sector? Somehow we have to mitigate that. By working together we will probably be able to do that.

I and my party support Bill C-44. It is a positive step. I am a little disappointed that we have not acted on all those recommendations. I hope that as a result of our support for the bill and as a result of the motion that we had in committee today, we will see quick action by government to implement all the recommendations so we can help producers across the country who are hurting. They deserve no less.

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

I feel like I should say a word of thanks. I feel like I have been chairing the agriculture committee all night. With apologies to the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, I appreciate this vicarious opportunity, but it has come to an end.

Pursuant to order made earlier today Bill C-44 is deemed read a second time, deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

Agricultural Marketing Programs ActGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

It is amazing what the House of Commons can do when everybody agrees.

It being 11:10 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:10 p.m.)