Debates of April 21st, 2016

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy Industry

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member believes in a sustainable solution. We want to ensure the sustainability of the industry and of supply management. That is our primary concern.

The debate has to do with issues that are overlapping between Canada and the United States. The Prime Minister raised this issue during his last meeting with the President of the United States, and we are working on finding a solution.

I repeat what I said earlier: we want to find a sustainable solution, not a band-aid one.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his impassioned speech on the subject matter here today. I share his passion. I think everyone who is currently sitting here shares a passion for agriculture, rural Canada, and seeing the rural economy grow.

I am wondering if my colleague could share how he thinks this government could support agriculture and help grow the rural economy.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for acknowledging my passion. I am quite familiar with this area, since I was the parliamentary assistant to the minister of agriculture in the Quebec National Assembly. I hold farmers in high regard. I have a lot of respect for them. They are exceptional business people.

Our government has already been supporting them. For example, with respect to sustainable development, we invested $13.75 million in agricultural research, including $1.75 million for the dairy research cluster. Furthermore, there is a significant investment of nearly $1 million in traceability, which is a safety measure and helps the industry to remain competitive internationally. This is part of what we are being asked to do by other governments and by all Canadians who want access to good-quality products.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

As I hear others who are speaking on this issue validate their informed comments with their lineage in agricultural history, I would like to give a shout-out to my agricultural family, from dairy farmers to wheat farmers. Everyone is busy right now, getting the machines ready and getting into the fields. This is a very busy time. I salute them.

I would also add that in my informal discussions, not in political discussions with my colleagues here, these are the same people who are very disconcerted that there is no political will. There is a simple solution that must be addressed in the short term for the viability of family farms. Then, a long-term solution can be finessed, if the government chooses, with proper consultation.

We have seen this problem escalating for a few years, and the political will that was not forthcoming has made our dairy farmers cynical.

It is very disconcerting. Canadian consumers, and those who work in the farm and agriculture sector, including family dairy farms, are confounded by the Canadian government's lack of enforcement of Canadian cheese compositional standards. It is as simple as that.

Dairy farmers, like the Jobins in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, are hard-working, resilient, dedicated members of our communities. Dairy farmers of Canada are disappointed that there was no mention of the safeguarding of their industry in the throne speech or in the budget. These are the same people who are very confounded with the lack of action by the government in its time here, since it did make a commitment during the election phase and it did identify in its 100-day plan addressing this issue.

There is an aligned and cohesive position on this issue of diafiltered milk, which is regarding food security and consumer awareness, as well as protecting a regulatory environment that Canadian dairy farmers accept and operate in. Canada's dairy farmers speak with one voice on diafiltered milk. The Canadian government is allowing this responsible and important industry to be undermined.

Ironically, this motion has been tabled to stress the point that it is not necessary for the government to take its time to develop and pass complex or new regulations and definitions. The solution is actually very simple. The Liberal government needs to enforce the very standards that do exist today. It is that simple.

Where is the conviction and the earnestness now that the Liberals hold government? It is very disheartening to hear the cries of our Canadian families who rely on the dairy industry for their livelihoods being ignored thus far by the government.

During the 2015 election campaign, Canadian dairy producers called for the problem of diafiltered milk to be solved within the first 100 days. The Liberals promised to review the existing “standards, rules, and practices regarding the importation of food products,” including dairy proteins, “to ensure they serve the interests of Canadians”.

They promised to solve the diafiltered milk problem, which is costing our dairy producers millions of dollars. Unfortunately, the Liberals are continuing to drag their feet. Once again, we are seeing that it is political will. It is starting to look like a broken promise. However, the solution is simple. It is a matter of properly enforcing the compositional standards for cheese for all Canadian producers.

The diafiltered milk problem has been going on for at least two years. It is an American product that was exclusively designed to circumvent Canadian laws. It is part of a larger family of concentrated milk proteins. No American processor uses diafiltered milk in its products. None. It is imported and used by Canadian processors in place of milk, leading to huge economic losses for our dairy producers. It is also misleading Canadian consumers.

Canadian producers lose an estimated $220 million per year, $15,000 per producer, from the importation of diafiltered milk. Our producers are worried. Not only has Canada signed trade agreements that undermine supply management and compensation, it is also letting the problem of diafiltered milk drag on. What does this insinuate? That is a troubling question.

I could segue and do a debate on softwood lumber at this point, but I will keep it to diafiltered milk.

It is important that we are concise and that we are enforcing existing standards. Even if we were going to identify a long-term plan, here and now we have to adhere to our standards. These are sovereignty and food security issues, highlighted in the most exemplary fashion.

Our producers are worried, as I said, about our trade agreements that undermine supply management and compensation. It is clear that we have the Liberals following the Conservatives, and they were trying so hard to differentiate themselves at election time. This is the time for them to seize the moment and, as a government, give a demonstrated effort with this opportunity to remove the cynicism that people have with more and more broken promises.

Under the cheese compositional standards for Canada, it is required that a minimum percentage of the protein used in cheesemaking be sourced from milk. Members can see why I talk about the cynicism. We are splitting hairs here, and whom we are letting split hairs are American suppliers who are undermining a Canadian system. This is why we have to act now.

Some processors have taken to using milk protein substances as part of their required minimum percentage of milk when making cheese, instead of using it as part of their allowable percentage of added ingredients. This is inconsistent with its classification at the border, where the ingredients are not even considered under the dairy chapter of the customs tariff schedule, entering the country tariff-free. As a result, more ingredients are being used in cheesemaking than are allowed under the cheese compositional standards. This is resulting in less Canadian milk being used, and a loss of revenue for Canadian farmers.

Having said that, we know that what is happening right now is very disingenuous. The use of diafiltered milk, which is not really milk, is disingenuous. It is surprising that this issue is being ignored and that it has come to this.

My colleague for Berthier—Maskinongé has formulated an excellent motion. This is something that our government can embrace with confidence.

These standards have been in place since 2008, and they continue to go unenforced to the detriment of Canadian farmers.

Today is our time to act. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the Liberal government to put its own words and hope into action. I urge it to do so today.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my riding is extraordinary and vast. It also has a large number of dairy producers. I would like to reassure the House and the dairy producers that we are working harder than anyone in the House to find a long-term solution that will give our producers the help they need to develop their farms.

This afternoon, we had a good opportunity to come to an agreement with the NDP on a motion that would allow us to work together on a long-term solution to the problems facing dairy producers. Unfortunately, the NDP decided to reject our request. It clearly demonstrated openness on our part and it would have made it possible for us to work together.

Why is the NDP refusing to work with us to find common ground on this amendment?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am actually very disappointed with the turn of phrase in that question.

Our motion is very carefully formulated so that the government can immediately effect the remedies that are needed. Whatever the government chooses to do in the long term can take proper consultation. What we are saying right now is that what is happening is eroding the dairy industry because of the semantics, the grey area, the lack of enforcement, and the lack of management culture.

What is happening right now is that the industry is being eroded, so a long-term plan will not be necessary. The government has to address this now if it truly believes there is any weight to having a long-term plan because this is so complex. I am suggesting—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but we have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the motion is acceptable and we are thinking of supporting it. I imagine that if the Conservatives are prepared to back the NDP on something, it probably means that there is a certain logic to the motion.

I do not understand why the government is stubbornly refusing to work with us to settle the situation right now and not later, since we have the solution.

The Liberals are making producers lose thousands of dollars every month by telling them that they are going to study the matter a bit longer and that they will perhaps come up with something one day, after doing consultations and after producers lose more money.

Why not settle the problem right away? What solutions will the government put on the table? We have not heard any today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that if he has any other questions, he can always rise so we can give him the floor.

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe I reiterated before that this is a very well worded motion. It is a no-brainer to me. Everyone can see what the solution is in the wording: a short-term solution that is very important, and it is actually becoming more and more urgent.

There is no political will. New Democrats know what needs to be done. If I were being extremely cynical, and I am trying not to be as I am new in the House, I would believe that there is no political will because somehow there is a ramification or layers somewhere when we talk about trade agreements perhaps. I hope that is not the case. I hope that those kinds of issues, if they are recognized, can be addressed in the long term and that right now the government will begin to recognize the urgency of doing this, or there will be no industry to address for the long term.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the motion put forward by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé in the House today is incredibly important.

I want to give a shout-out to the hardworking farmers in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. For those members in the House who do not know, the Cowichan Valley is worded after the first nations band that lives there, and it is referred to as the warm land. We have a beautiful climate on that part of Vancouver Island.

I am honoured to be a part-time farmer myself. My wife and I have a small, three-acre farm. It is very small scale compared to what some farmers go through, but it does give me a bit of insight into just how hard farmers work.

I could not be more honoured to be a member of Parliament who comes from a riding that supports farms and that has a real link between the people who buy produce and the people who produce it.

Let me look at the Liberal government's track record on this. I want to start off with the Speech from the Throne. Some hon. members have already mentioned that there was not one mention of the word “agriculture” in the Speech from the Throne. To me that signals a big omission. It signals that agriculture does not figure heavily in the government's view of going forward.

Following up on that, the budget released on March 22 devoted only a scant two pages to agriculture, and one of those pages simply mentioned the existing growing forward 2 program, which was launched in 2013. The budget devoted one out of two pages to mentioning a program that already exists, and that just does not signal to me that there is a serious commitment by the government.

Now, I do acknowledge that there are Liberal members of Parliament in the House and in the Conservative Party and the NDP who do care deeply about agriculture. We have heard a lot of passion in the House already, but when it comes down to actual action, that is for me what ultimately speaks louder than words.

We have heard the Minister of Agriculture in the House quite a few times. He has said that the government supports supply management, that it understands the importance of compensation, that he is fully aware of the problem, and that it is in discussions with the dairy industry. That is all well and good, but this problem has existed for a number of years now.

With respect to the Liberal MPs who do stand passionately on this issue, after six months of being in government it is time to stop blaming the Conservatives and to actually own up to the problem.

Some Liberal MPs are having trouble distinguishing between the legislative branch of government and the executive branch.

The Minister of Agriculture is in charge of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The Minister of Public Safety is in charge of the CBSA. We have two government agencies that have different views on the import of this substance. Nothing needs to actually be changed. We on this side of the House are simply asking that the government follow the rules that are already in place. It is a simple request.

The Liberals did promise during the election campaign to review the existing standards, rules, and practices regarding the import of food products, including dairy proteins, to ensure that they serve the interests of Canadians. Our motion is simply asking that they conform with that commitment made during the election.

I would also like to take some time to look more closely at the wording of our motion. Part (a) of the motion calls on the House to:

...recognize the magnitude of the economic losses to Canadian dairy producers from the importation of diafiltered milk from the United States, which totalled $220 million in 2015;

That is $220 million in just one year alone, or an average of $15,000 per producer.

It has been said already in the House by my hon. colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh that diafiltered milk is designed to circumvent Canadian law, because when it comes into Canada it is imported as a concentrated milk protein and it is not subject to border fees. However, when producers of cheese use diafiltered milk in their product, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regards it as the same as milk. It is treated by one agency as milk but by another agency as not milk.

We are simply calling for harmonization of these two views, and it is well within the capacity of the executive level of government, so it is time to stop beating around the bush, take some action, own up to the problem, and stop blaming the previous government for the issues.

In cheese-making, there needs to be a minimum percentage of protein sourced from milk. There are rules and regulations for how we make cheese in this country, but diafiltered milk and milk protein substances are less costly and they come from heavily subsidized milk.

The second part of the motion is “recognize that each day of government inaction contributes to the disappearance of a steadily increasing number of family farms across the country”. This is very true. For losses of this magnitude, small family farms are the ones that get hit the hardest. It is the big ones that are able to absorb these costs, and that has been a trend in Canada. We have seen the disappearance of the small family farm, and often those are the cornerstone of our communities. They certainly are in my community of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Not all producers of cheese have access to diafiltered milk, so there is an imbalance there as well. The overall effect of not changing this policy is that we are using less Canadian milk in our cheese and dairy products. It is not working well for those hard-working dairy farmers across this country. It is a very unfair regulation, if we are not going to be changing it. I do not think we want to become a country where only the biggest farms are able to survive and a family business is no longer profitable.

Part (c) of the motion is “recognize that the entire industry is standing together to call for the problem to be resolved immediately”. Earlier this year when I was at the Dairy Farmers of Canada reception, I noticed a lot of Liberal members of Parliament there. I noticed the Minister of Agriculture and the parliamentary secretary. It was all well and good for them to stand with the association then to get their pictures taken, but they completely ignore what the industry is calling for.

Wally Smith, who I am proud to say is from Vancouver Island, really close to where I live, said:

...all of Canada’s dairy farmers speak with one voice on diafiltered milk. We are collectively disappointed with the lack of action on enforcement of the cheese standards.... The Government does not need to pass a new law or new regulation and the solution is simple. The Government needs to enforce the existing standards.

It is quite simple to me.

Part (d) of the motion calls “upon the government to keep its election promises and honour the commitments made since the start of its mandate”, now six months long, “by immediately enforcing the compositional standards...”.

With respect to the Liberal MPs who moved an amendment to the motion, I agree with my colleague. It would have watered down what we are ultimately trying to do in the motion, and I agree that it was the right choice to disallow that amendment and go with what we are proposing on this side of the House.

On a final note, I want to note the importance in Canada of food security, and I would like to acknowledge the incredible work that the NDP has done on this issue for many years. We had Malcolm Allen and also Alex Atamanenko compile an important report called “Everybody eats: Our vision for a pan-Canadian food strategy”, and we recognize the importance of treating food security and agriculture in a holistic approach. We cannot look at it piecemeal. We have to see the system as a whole. That is what has been missing in Canada for many years. We lack a pan-Canadian food strategy.

One of the important parts of that is making sure that the government operates on a level playing field, that the law is equal for everyone, and that the laws that are in the books are actually being enforced. That is what gives producers in Canada peace of mind. It gives them the ability to produce their goods and to know that they have economic security.

In closing, I would like to say that I could not be prouder of the motion coming forward, and I am glad that the NDP is taking an initiative on this. We on this side of the House will be standing with our farmers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have listened all day to the debate between the Conservatives and the NDP, and the many concerns they have raised. This issue was not created by the current government. It was the former Conservative government that allowed the issue to fester. As a result, we find ourselves in the situation we are in today.

I do not recall the New Democrats raising the issue back when they were in the official opposition. I do not recall the former leader of the official opposition, the current leader of the third party, raising it back when it was starting to pick up ground. Where was the concern then with respect to farmers?

The Government of Canada has been forthright on the issue. We are saying that we support supply management. We are aware of the situation and we are working toward resolving it.

The member had the opportunity to support an amendment. Why did the New Democrats not support that? It is a very simple question.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I already answered that question during the course of my speech. I do not support a watered-down amendment. What our original motion calls for is the correct one.

The comments with respect to not handling this issue and that we inherited it from the Conservatives reminds me of the old rhyme: Liberal, Tory, same old story. Those parties are great at blaming each other but not taking any responsibility.

I do not care what was done in previous Parliaments. I am standing here right now in the 42nd Parliament trying to take action. However, I am not on the executive branch of government. It is up to it to take action.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed by the comments my colleague just made. Up to that point, his intervention was not too bad.

He has to admit that the Conservatives did not invent diafiltered milk or create the problem producers are facing today, specifically that a product was specifically created to circumvent the rules. That is the problem.

When members on this side direct their attacks at us instead of the government, I feel like they are missing a good opportunity to try to convince the government to act right away for producers.

Why does the hon. member not direct his questions to the government benches? We are not the government anymore.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will agree with my colleague that we have keep the focus on the present government. I am trying to keep my comments to that subject.

I have highlighted this many times. Six months have gone by. It is time to stop living in the past and start living to the present. The NDP is trying to do that. We will continue to support that as the debate goes on in the House today.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of great debate in the House today. I am happy we are having it. However, farmers need action now. They are tired of promises. They are tired of talking about consultation and the work that is being done. We all know the solution. It will not cost anything. It just means the government has to do its job. I am sorry, but you guys have to stand up for Canadian farmers and ensure they have a livelihood and a future.

Therefore, could the hon. member talk about the importance of the government working and standing up for Canadian farmers? It is something that it has to do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. I would remind the member that she is to address her questions to the Chair and to not address the government as you.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend knows this very well. She has done an excellent job on this file. She has asked a number of questions of the Minister of Agriculture on this. However, the answers we get are completely unacceptable. There is no ownership of responsibility with respect to laws and regulations needing to be changed. Rather, it is we simply need to follow the laws now exist on the books. We are looking for the government side to own up to the problem, fulfill its mandate, and work on behalf of Canadian agricultural producers.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, even though I have a lot to say, I will share my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

We have heard all kinds of things during today's debate. We heard some good things, but mostly rehashed talking points. The answers from the government side, regardless of who gave them, were always the same and obviously prepared beforehand. They were worded in such a way as to not really mean anything, so that no decision would be made. Unfortunately, that is the government's position: it does not want to make any decisions.

Sometimes, as members of Parliament, we need to learn to pipe down and listen. It is not always easy, because we parliamentarians tend to be quite loquacious. However, I decided to listen to dairy farmers from my riding and to let them speak. I asked them to tell me how I could defend their position today, and they answered.

I would like to read three short letters that describe what life is like for farmers in Mégantic—L'Érable.

The first letter says: “Dear Sir, There are many problems. As you know, farmers are busy people who work long hours every week. An 80-hour work week is a common occurrence. Given the abundance of both dairy farms and sugar bush operations in our area, these days [during maple-syrup season], we are working over 100 hours a week.” These are the people we are talking about today.

The letter goes on: “On top of balancing this workload with our family life, we must deal with stress, an overload of work, and loss of income at a critical period, brought on by [the difficult situation caused by the] diafiltered milk problem. We even have to fight to get the federal government to enforce its own laws. That, to me, is unacceptable.”

The producer goes on: “For many people, winter is a time to replenish their coffers before they need to spend large amounts on seeding and harvesting. Unfortunately, that was not possible this year. There is a record number of auctions taking place this spring, because people cannot afford to go on or have lost their love for agriculture.” That is alarming.

The letter continues: “After defending our system...we now have to ensure that laws are enforced at the borders. Who knew that becoming a farmer meant choosing a life of poverty?”

I am moved when farmers from my riding write things like that.

She goes on to write: “We just want a decent income so that we can reinvest in the local economy and properly care for our animals. We are one of the most profitable industries in terms of money and jobs, and that is all without subsidies.”

That is wonderful; here is a system that lets people work without having to subsidize them.

In her words, “in 2015 we lost over $15,000, and 2016 looks just as bad; $15,000 is about the annual salary I pay myself.”

This is not a lot of money. We must keep that in mind.

She continues: “I am a young farmer, part of the next generation. I have all sorts of plans in my head that unfortunately I will have to put off. Farmers are fed up with being taken advantage of. It seems that everyone feels they can dip into our wallets without asking. The Conservatives promised compensation for losses from the [European Union agreement]. However this is not included in the federal budget. I can tell you that there will be a sharp increase in the number of farmers with depression. Farmers are at the end of their rope and feel discouraged. Classifying diafiltered milk as an ingredient is something that needs to be done yesterday [not after meetings or further consultations]. Drink a glass of that and tell me if it is milk”.

I will not, but it is a good question. Maybe we should get the processors to drink a glass of diafiltered milk so that they can see that it is not milk.

She closes by saying that, “Big companies are pocketing the cash, and taxpayers are seeing none of it. Considering how much profit they make in a year, I doubt they need even more to survive, but for us, this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back and forces us to shut down operations. This is an emergency. Thank you for fighting for us and for doing everything you can to make sure that this problem gets solved as soon as possible”.

That was a letter from Ms. Ruel in Saint-Ferdinand.

That is what is really going on behind the rhetoric. That was one of my constituents. I asked her to explain the reason for her distress, and she did. She shared her story so that members of Parliament would know what is going on. She opened her books and her heart.

At Ferme Kobert in Saint-Pierre-de-Broughton, Bertrand and Colette had this to say: “Our farm has been losing about $4,000 per month since the beginning of the year because of this. It goes without saying that this situation is causing serious financial problems. We cannot pay our debts and our bills. We are putting off projects”.

They go on to say that, “By 2020, protein concentrates will have to find domestic buyers. All of the provinces will have to work together to find a solution”.

They add that, “A lot of farms could disappear. Do we still want family [dairy] businesses?”

That is what Bertrand and Colette of Saint-Pierre-de-Broughton want to know.

Alain Brassard is another producer in my riding. He and his brother, Yves, run a family farm with about a hundred cows. Alain and Yves are the sixth generation of Brassards on the land. They still believe in the future, and they are going to invest in their farm this year. There is even a seventh generation of the Brassard family waiting in the wings. They deserve our congratulations, and my colleagues have an opportunity here to show support for the Brassard family.

I had a good talk with Alain. He understands that, in a global market, things have to change. For him, the solution is simple: action is needed regarding the composition of cheese.

Producers can use two ingredients to make cheddar cheese: good cow's milk and milk ingredients. The latter can be concentrates, powders or isolates. They are all milk ingredients. However, they are not milk as we understand it. When making cheddar, the use of milk ingredients is limited to 17%. Therefore, usually, it has to have a milk content of at least 83%.

If consumers want to know whether the cheese they eat contains milk ingredients, they have to read the label. If the words “milk ingredients”, “milk substances”, or other synonyms are found on the label, that means that the cheese they are about to buy contains a maximum of 17% of milk ingredients. I urge everyone to read the labels.

Some cheesemakers in our regions make their cheeses only with milk, 100% Canadian milk. Unfortunately, the labels no longer tell us everything, since the introduction of diafiltered milk. There is a mysterious process that transforms diafiltered milk when it crosses the Canadian border.

When trucks full of diafiltered milk cross the border, the product is considered milk protein concentrate, so it is not subject to the supply management protection measures. However, when the same truck with the same diafiltered milk arrives at the factory, and no one has touched it, the concentrate suddenly becomes milk.

Processors use it the same way they use the milk produced by our farmers in our regions. It is not magic; it is more like the 12 labours of Hercules. Milk is milk. The Canada Border Services Agency does not consider it to be milk, but the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does. Try and understand that.

What does this mean for consumers who want to know what their cheese is made of? To the 17% of milk ingredients, processors can add a large quantity of American concentrate in the form of diafiltered milk, without having to indicate it on the label. It is therefore impossible to know whether our cheddar is made from 100% Canadian milk or not, because milk is milk is milk, but it is not milk according to the federal government. It might be, but no one knows any more.

To come back to Alain Brassard's farm, he is simply asking that the compositional standards for cheese that were put in place by the Conservative government be upheld.

It is a vicious circle: diafiltered milk creates a surplus among our dairy producers, and those surpluses are the responsibility of the same producers who must process it into milk concentrate and then sell it at a lower price. It is nothing but bad news for dairy producers.

The Brassard farm's request is simple: enforce the minimum percentage of Canadian milk in cheddar, which is 83%, as well as the compositional standards for cheese.

There you have three stories that clearly demonstrate that this is a very serious issue. We are not here only to debate. We are here to stand up for our farmers. I hope the government will take action as soon as possible.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech, which was based on the testimony of real people who earn their living from this industry. I give him credit for working so well with the people who elected him.

Since my colleague joined the party that was in power a few months earlier, I cannot help but think that he had conversations with the bigwigs of his party before the election about solutions to this glaring problem.

What changes would my colleague make? He must know, since he lives in an area where lots of people talk to him about this, and he has colleagues who were in government. What needs to be done? The plants that produce diafiltered milk, near the U.S. border, certainly were not built yesterday, or on October 19.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a great question.

There are definitely solutions and things that need to be done. It is quite simple. The Conservatives set a cheese compositional standard whereby our cheddar cheese must be composed of 83% milk and 17% milk products. Even the farmers want that.

Accordingly, this Conservative measure currently in effect should simply be respected. We must ensure that the people at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and at the Canada Border Services Agency talk to one another so that they agree that milk is milk, and even if it is not milk. You know what I am trying to say, but they do not seem to get it.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am listening to the debate with interest today and I thank the member for bringing the matter forward to the House of Commons so that we have the opportunity to debate it today.

I represent the riding of Fundy Royal, which is considered the dairy centre of the Maritimes. I have talked to farmers and I understand this is a very significant issue, as does our government.

I would like to ask the member opposite if he could explain something to me.

I also sit on the agriculture committee, and yesterday we had witnesses there from the Dairy Farmers of Canada as well as from the Canadian Young Farmers' Forum. They were there to testify. However, because of the conversation that was dragged on by both the Conservative and NDP members of the committee, we did not get to hear from those witnesses.

I would like to hear if he has an explanation as to why we are not able to talk to them when they are there.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, in baseball, we call that a meatball, and I am going to hit a home run.

No one was able speak yesterday because the government imposed a gag order and no one could do anything. We cancelled our meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We had to turn witnesses away in committee as well, because we had to rush back here. The government was so keen to fix a problem that does not exist. That is the truth.

[An hon. member]

Yes, yes, yes!

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague. This is a serious matter, and when constituents take the time to write to an MP, we know it is a very serious consideration. I would like to thank my colleague for reading out those letters, because those are the people we need to hear from.

I would like to ask my colleague how serious it is in his riding, because when one gets three letters, there is obviously a mountain of opposition because it is not being moved more quickly than it is.