Debates of May 13th, 2020

Canadian Dairy Commission Act

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Kelowna—Lake Country for that intervention. I had the opportunity to visit her region in the early 1990s to deal with the new environmental programs they were using in the fruit industry and the orchard industry. It is a great industry, and a great part of Canada.

The government has a need, as I have said, to support some of these other areas, whether it is through AgriRecovery or AgriInvest in those areas. However, AgriStability is the weakest for the livestock industry for sure.

When we are in a pandemic situation like this, which is not a natural disaster that we would normally think of affecting crop production and orchard survival, there is a very serious need for an immediate set-aside program, and perhaps a per-head, per-day subsidy might be utilized. I do not know if that is what the Liberals are looking at in the AgriRecovery program now, but it would help that sector.

We need to look at all of the sectors of supply. The purchasing power of Canadians has dropped, because everyone has had to stay home and everything else. That affects the industry in British Columbia and throughout our wine-growing areas of Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have just a brief comment to hon. members.

When posing a question, if one is using a citation from a document or quoting, and if that quote happens to include the given name or family name of an hon. member, members are still not allowed to incorporate that into the quote. So that members know for next time, even by citation, members are expected to change it up when they read it, such as the hon. member for Papineau or whatever the case may be.

If there are any questions on that, members can get back to me.

We have one last short question and response.

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the essence of the discussion tonight is just how woefully short the efforts of the Liberals have been, including to assist agriculture.

On this, including the $200 million for the Dairy Commission, how is Canada stacking up in its assistance for its agriculture sector as a whole compared with the money being given by other countries such as the United States?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question because we are just not stacking up at all compared with our U.S. neighbours. I always look at things on a population basis. We have about 37 million people in Canada compared with 370 million in the U.S., so Canada has one-tenth of the U.S. population. The U.S. just put $19 billion into its agricultural industry with a stroke of a pen, and the money is out there. Canada has put $252 million forward. If we were making a parallel effort to that of the U.S., we would have put forward at least $1.9 billion, and our industry in fact asked for $2.6 billion.

Therefore, our industries here on the agricultural side are not even close to being competitive with our U.S. neighbours. That is on top of the fact the new trade agreement is not as plentiful as the old one was, either.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight. I just want to correct the record. The member for Brandon—Souris was incorrect in some of his comments at the beginning about his origins. Wingham is in the riding of Huron—Bruce, smack dab in it. Of course, Huron—Bruce county has some of the best agricultural lands in the country.

I would also mention to him that former NDP member Pat Martin was also not too far down the road from where his relatives grew up. I am pretty sure he is not related to him. Maybe he had it too good in Huron—Bruce and he moved out west. I do not know, but we are happy to have him here tonight.

If we go back in history to the years from 2006 to 2015, those were 10 of the best years that Canadian agriculture has known. It is indisputable and I cannot reiterate that enough.

When the Conservative government came into power in 2006, there was a lot of work to do and we did a number of different trade deals. It really changed the direction and dimension of agriculture. It was not only agriculture, but it certainly benefited from a number of those trade deals. We also did things with red tape and a number of other things that allowed farmers to get out from underneath some red tape and bureaucracy so they actually could focus on their operations. I can think of people not too far down the road from me who upgraded their machinery a few years ago. They put GPS equipment in, and have different rippage and tillage systems for their cash crop. Those were very good years.

It could be a fluke, but it likely is not, but over the last five years there has been a downward trend in the sentiment and reality for agriculture in the country. Farmers have a different outlook on agriculture, unfortunately, than what they did just five years ago, and it is not in just one sector. It is not just in dairy; it is in all of the other supply-managed sectors. It is in the cash crops, beef, pork and in all the other sectors that we would call agriculture. Their outlook is diminished and there is a number of different reasons why.

That is where we need to start this discussion today with Bill C-16. We are not anywhere near where we were just a few short years ago.

Three trade deals need to be discussed as well today: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, what the government now calls CPTPP; and then the USMCA.

When we were in the 2015 election, we came to a resolution midway through it. There was an agreement with TPP, which included the United States. The supply managed sector said that this was setting up for future generations in agriculture. It was a very positive time. It put everything to a conclusion, a finality, and allowed everybody to think about moving forward and about the investments and growth that would be there.

Subsequent to that, we have had a number of issues. Some of them are in direct compensation. I am speaking particularly around dairy. There have been a lot of complaints about that. There is a lot of uncertainty around TPP. With USMCA, there are some ballpark figures. However, certainly the way in which these dollars will be delivered are still to be seen. That is an issue.

What we are dealing with today is something we will call a positive. It is an action that needs to be taken. As the member for Brandon—Souris said, it is not enough for all of agriculture. I wish we could be talking about further compensation for pork and beef, but we are not having that conversation today.

Also, I would like to talk about processing capacity. It would have been fantastic if we could have had something in the bill. I know there has been some money allocated to processors, but I understand it is pretty well for PPE. I do not understand, for the life of me, why Cargill, one of the largest processors in the world, with deep pockets, needs money for PPE. It seems to me it would have its own money for it. Maybe it could have help getting PPE, but certainly it could afford to purchase its own.

I have talked to trucking companies that truck directly to dairy, and trucking companies that truck to other facilities. They are ineligible for all of these programs. They are the ones that do not usually have front-line people on the cutting edge of what is being used for PPE, so that is a frustration.

If we look at the province of Ontario and what has happened in the last number of years with processing, specifically around beef and pork, it is very frustrating. We have seen Quality Meat Packers close. We have seen Ryding-Regency have its licence pulled in December. Right now, there are about 12,000 head of cattle processed each week in Ontario. Of that, 1,500 could have been from Ryding, but Ryding is out of the picture. This is not to say that Ryding was completely innocent with respect to its infractions, but the frustrating thing in the Ryding situation was the cloud of secrecy after the initial violation occurred.

No member of Parliament in this House, except perhaps the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister and maybe cabinet, would know exactly what the issues were at that specific moment back in the fall of 2019. No one knows. I tried to find out exactly what happened, exactly what the final straw was as to why it was pulled, and we do not know. The media does not know. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association does not know. I do not think Beef Farmers of Ontario knows, to this day, what the final straw was. The issue is that once it is pulled, that is it. It has to start back from scratch. That is a problem.

In the future, it needs to be transparent and open, so that if it is the will of the House of Commons to help deliver a financial package or a dollar solution to it, that occurs, because now, for example, kosher beef, almost all of which Ryding provided to Canada, is coming from Mexico. We saw last week in the news that ground beef is coming from Uruguay.

I would challenge the Minister of Health and the ag minister to show anybody on this side of the House of Commons that Uruguay and Mexico are as diligent with their inspectors regarding ear tags and cattle being unloaded at a processing facility with a limp. Currently, if one gets the wrong inspector, the animal is euthanized. It is five feet from being put on the line, and now it is scrapped.

How about traceability? How about the new transportation rules the government has imposed? How about the new rules it imposed at cattle auctions for further processing of horns, etc.? I bet it is not even close to what we put our producers through here, and the fines they get, such as a $1,500 fine if the animal does not have an ear tag so they know what farm it came from. There is a lot we need to do with the CFIA and transparency. There has to be a reality whereby if we are importing beef, those countries have to be held to the same standards we are, or we have to come to an agreement as to what all the standards are.

There also needs to be an investment in greenfield processing capacity, at least in Ontario. I am sure there are other parts around the countryside. Conestoga Meats in Breslau is a great example in the pork sector. It is a kind of public-private partnership. In spite of the pandemic right now, it is doing very well. Farmers have a share of the hooks, and it works out quite well.

The other thing I wanted to talk about, which I did not get a chance to do earlier today, was really to go back to what the member for Brandon—Souris said. To my mind, the minister said that we are going to go with our business risk management programs, and she talked about the calculator. One of her pork farmers received $11 a head. If that is not proof enough to the House that this is not working, every person who has a pig farm in this riding is losing $70 a head because of this pandemic and the processing capacity. They are losing money unless they have a contract, which many do, but some do not.

When farmers are losing $59 a head and the agriculture minister says that AgriStability is going to give $11 a head, what is the point? It is not enough. As I said earlier today, it is not like this is old MacDonald's farm with 10 pigs in the barn. There are thousands of pigs, and the losses are in the millions and hundreds of thousands.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for sharing his experience and for the real detail he went into talking about this issue.

What does it means to his constituents that there was nothing to deal with the processing capacity across Canada and with the impact that will have?

There was the announcement of a $50-million set-aside for cattle and $50 million for pork producers. This will come nowhere near addressing the culling of animals, even for dairy producers. Bill C-16 does not include funds to address the culling of animals resulting from not only the COVID-19 pandemic, but even the increased imports through USMCA.

What impact does it have that there is nothing to address the bottleneck in the processing capacity? How critical is this situation?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the set-aside is good, because, as I said, if farmers are losing $70 a head, the worst thing they can feel is knowing they have to keep paying for something they will lose money on.

Pork and beef farmers do not want to euthanize their animals. They want to see their animals become food. However, the reality of the situation is that if the barn is full and weaner pigs are coming in, there is no space and farmers have to sell their pigs for what they can get for them. That is where we are at. We know the processing capacity in Quebec, for example, where some Ontario hogs are sent, is reduced, and things gets backed up and pigs end up in Manitoba or wherever else.

This is a short-term problem, yes, and set-asides and other things will help, but for the long term, we have our heads in the sand if we are not looking at food sovereignty in this country and our processing capacity in the provinces to process what we have here.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

I would like him to tell me what he thinks of the impact of government's lack of action in terms of providing short-, medium- and long-term support for agriculture.

Around the world, in the United States for example, considerable sums, about $19 billion, have been allocated. There is far greater support for pork producers.

What will happen here? What is the concern in the short term?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the situation is absolutely baffling. I have spent so much time on the phone in the last five or six weeks talking to farmers and other people, and they ask me why the government does not do more for them. They are not looking for a brand new pickup truck in their parking lots. They are looking for an actual conclusion. They have lost a market because of this pandemic. They are not asking for what happened in September. They are not asking for what happened in October. They are asking for what happened from March 15 to today. It is baffling.

They can roughly estimate what they need right now, but it is like there is nobody to talk to. It is so frustrating. Hopefully one of these days the government will wake up and get to the table.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Huron—Bruce say the word “baffling”, and I have to agree with him that this is baffling.

I have heard some of the comments from the Minister of Agriculture that these business risk management programs continue to exist for farmers and farm families, but they ignore the reality on the ground that all of us rural MPs are hearing about from the farmers. They say the business risk management programs are just not working.

I am reminded of a famous Ike Eisenhower quote: “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.” That seems to be the impression we are getting right now from the government. It is an Ottawa-knows-best approach that ignores the realities on the ground.

Does the member for Huron—Bruce have a comment on that?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say once in a while Perth County will give Huron—Bruce a run for its money on farmland production.

The agriculture minister toured my riding just before the election for an announcement. She toured the beef farm of a Liberal supporter. Farmers told her exactly what she has been hearing today. I cannot figure out how we can sit in the House of Commons and say AgriStability and AgriRecovery is our offer. It is ridiculous. If we want to lose our food sovereignty and be completely reliant on the United States and imports from Central America and South America, the goal is being accomplished with the inaction here today.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for standing up for Quebec farmers, of course. All the comments we have heard throughout the debate clearly show that all farmers in Canada are affected. One thing we keep hearing over and over again, in both French and English, is that this is not enough and it is not coming fast enough. We keep hearing that. I want to thank my colleague for standing up for our farmers.

We are here today to debate Bill C-16. Of course, there are other bills worthy of study in the House, such as Bill C-216, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois and also addresses the aspect of “not enough”.

I remind members that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-16. In fact, I would have liked to have seen it go further, because we are talking about the COVID-19 crisis and I heard all my colleagues talk about going beyond what is offered in this bill, which we obviously agree with. This crisis has shown just how essential the agricultural sector is. Of course, it is also essential in normal times. We can also see how fragile this industry is. This fragility was evident last year, in particular with respect to the consequences of agreements.

It was assumed that these agreements would come with compensation, but such compensation was never received, which has hurt our farmers. Add the effects of the crisis on top of that, and it becomes even clearer that farmers urgently need our help. We support what Bill C-16 does. We are absolutely in favour of it. However, I want to join my colleagues in saying that it is not enough.

The subject I want to talk about in the House of Commons today is food sovereignty. We are discussing Bill C-16, which is about milk and our dairy farmers. I represent a very remote region, a rural area in Quebec whose agriculture sector is also suffering. My farmers' presence in the dairy and vegetable sectors has shrunk to almost nothing. Regarding what is being said in the House today, I have to say that it is also urgent for outlying regions or regions that are not normally thought of as farming regions. Since food and sovereignty are issues we want to bring to the fore, the fact that we have farmers in our area is important to me, because our farmers' presence is dwindling.

There is another topic I would have liked us to discuss in the House today. We are talking about agriculture, but we are on the COVID-19 committee. With all due respect to my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, I would have liked us to be able to discuss related topics that would inform the debate and the proposals. Debating a subject that we all agree on is one thing, but we also need to know how to make proposals so we can push things further.

When it comes to food sovereignty, the whole issue of the fishery has not been addressed in the House since the beginning of the crisis. We finally have access to Parliament via the COVID-19 committee. I am seeing major parallels. When it comes to agriculture, for example, we are talking about the market. There is a surplus on the market and it is hurting producers' income. They are uncertain. Doubts remain, and producers are concerned. We are seeing exactly the same thing in this other industry, which is also a food sector. Mariculture and fishing are part of it. These sectors are hurting because, like farmers, they will not be able to dispose of their stock and they will have additional costs.

They will not be able to invest. It will take years for businesses in the fisheries and agriculture sectors to pay off their debts.

We need to talk about debt. I know there are people in my riding who are worried about going bankrupt and who are acutely aware that they are operating at a loss right now. We will have to support them after this is over.

I talked about shrinking to almost nothing. Here, we talk about things and make decisions. Yes, we need to pass this bill, but we need to do more, and we need to do it faster. The future is riding on this.

I do not know if my colleagues feel the same way, but I suspect they do. When an industry is under pressure like the agriculture sector is now, whether it is because of treaties or a public health crisis like this one, we need to think about the next generation. We want food sovereignty, but we have no guarantee whatsoever that there will be a next generation.

The message being sent to young people who want to get into farming or fishing is that no one knows what lies ahead. We need them, but they will not get paid. They will not get any support when they need the government. It will always limit their power and what they can do. The government will not be there for them. This is what I heard earlier, in every language: We will not support them. That is the message. This raises the whole issue of the next generation.

I also want to talk about initiatives and adjustments based on needs. Certain images come to mind. For instance, we were talking about livestock earlier. There are a lot of regulations around animal welfare. That is excellent, but it can cause problems for regions like mine, for example, where we no longer have an abattoir. That is one concrete example.

A farmer from back home comes to mind. He lives in Longue-Rive. A few times over the years, he has thought about simply quitting. He cannot do it anymore, given all the regulations and all the assistance that is out of reach for him.

I am also thinking of all the fishers. It is the same thing. There are fish quotas. They will have to buy equipment, a boat or assorted fishing gear and repair nets. There are a lot of expenses to cover for an industry that is not being supported either, not in the regions or anywhere else. My colleagues in British Columbia or my colleagues in Atlantic Canada might say exactly the same thing about this industry that might not have a big enough next generation.

All the discussions we have here, all the recommendations we hear, all that delays our providing help—all of this stalling—only make these sectors of the economy even more fragile.

I wanted to symbolically include the issue of fishing, which is related to agriculture. To me, these sectors are in similar situations.

Yes, of course we have to help the dairy industry, but we also have to help all the other industries, including the pork, turkey, poultry, egg, fishing and mariculture industries, to ensure that we have true food sovereignty. True food sovereignty requires a next generation that we must support.

I would like our debates to cover broader subjects than just agriculture, the focus of Bill C-16. We are here to help people cope with COVID-19. This will have repercussions for years to come.

I would like us to eliminate these silos—these issues are interrelated—so we can help our farmers, fishers and, above all, our communities.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made many good points in her speech. I saw a report published in The Globe and Mail earlier this week by a grain farmer in Alberta, whose name is Mr. Nielsen. He indicated that he got into agriculture because he loved it, not because he thought it would be easy. The dairy industry is certainly not easy, as I pointed out earlier today.

Mr. Nielsen also makes a comment that farmers face weather, market volatility and costs of input on a regular basis, but they manage for that as much as they possibly can.

The mental health of farmers is something we need to look at too, and I would ask my colleague to comment on that. That article published by The Globe and Mail indicates that 58% of farmers meet the threshold for anxiety and 35% already meet the level of what is classified as depression. Even though they are like that, they love the industry. I was a farmer all my life so I know where they are coming from.

Could my colleague expand on that or does she have anything to add?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I also thank him for letting me speak about mental health as well.

That is of course collateral damage. There are two considerations in our communities. We are talking about agriculture. However, depending on the size of the farm, we know very well that some farmers live a solitary life. It is a huge endeavour that entails many risks, whether it is a dairy, horticultural or grain farm. Farmers experience a great deal of stress and anxiety.

As I said earlier, there were flaws in what the government offered as a result of the agreements. There is compensation that has not been paid. We see what is currently happening. There is even more pressure on farmers, whose work is considered essential. The fact that they are considered essential also means that our help is urgently needed.

This was also among the demands made by Quebec, the provinces and farmers with respect to mental health. They obviously need support, because these people work hard. I had a spouse who was a farmer, and I saw what a life of farming was all about, with all it demands. I saw the stress, but also the desire, since farmers love what they do. As my colleague said, it is a passion. We need to support them.

I want to expand on the topic of rural life. Many rural ridings have high rates of suicide among men, primarily, and among farmers, as we heard earlier. These two aspects combined make this situation even more urgent.

I completely agree that we need to support them on this. Obviously, if we want to help them, we need to provide financial support, because that is where the stress comes from.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments.

Earlier, she mentioned the importance of the next generation and the fact that businesses are heavily in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy.

Does she believe that the federal government should provide direct assistance rather than offering loans to farm businesses that are already heavily in debt? What does she think about that? What message would she like to send the government?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when we want to help an essential industry, and I believe that this is an essential service, we need to do more than offer loans. Obviously, if farmers are already in debt and have already been waiting for help for a year, we need to come to their aid quickly.

When businesses are in trouble, when they are on the verge of bankruptcy, they are unable to repay a loan. That could take years and it puts businesses at risk. Of course, direct assistance would be preferable to send a message to the next generation, which is wondering whether it should continue in an industry operating at a loss that has its share of problems. Even if these people are passionate, even if they have a sense of duty and want to feed their fellow citizens by doing the noble job of a farmer, they need to have the money to be able to do that.

With this crisis added on top of everything else that has happened, I think that we need to give them direct assistance.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16.

This bill makes sense because milk storage has to align with supply and demand. As everyone knows, there is currently less demand for milk, so it makes sense to increase storage capacity.

Quebec's dairy production is integral to its economy. Some 11,000 dairy farm owners across Quebec produce over three billion litres per year. Those farms are worth up to $2.5 billion. The industry accounts for 28% of Quebec's agricultural revenue.

In good years and bad, Quebec's dairies invest over $700 million in maintaining and improving their facilities. Those investments certainly create significant economic opportunities in Quebec.

Quebec's dairy farms employ over 80,000 people. In 2014, they supported 82,661 direct and indirect jobs.

In terms of Canada's GDP, Quebec's dairy industry generates $6.15 billion. That is a lot.

In terms of tax revenue, the industry contributes $1.3 billion to various levels of government.

On the national level, 36% of dairy sector revenue comes from Quebec, making it the primary milk producing province. Quebec is the top province in terms of volume of milk or number of farms engaged in this production.

What is more, dairy production ranks third of all Canadian farming activities with nearly 11% of some $41 billion in total agriculture revenue. That is quite significant. It is only logical to support dairy production businesses in Quebec, but also in all the regions. More specifically in my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, in which I represent the riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, more than 590 farms are tied to dairy production. That is more than 5,100 jobs and economic spinoffs of $272 million a year. More than seven plants are also tied to dairy production and these processing plants provide 800 jobs.

The dairy industry's contribution to the GDP is more than $400 million in the Lower St. Lawrence region alone. It is a very important part of our economy and a lot of jobs depend on it. We must support them. It is very important.

This has been going on since April and we are wondering why the bill we are debating today was not introduced sooner.

A great amount of milk was lost because, among other things, production could not be reduced. There was also less overall consumption. Since April, I have personally had several discussions with representatives of producers, in particular those in the Lower St. Lawrence. They laid out the facts for me. They even had to dump milk. That seemed unbelievable and unacceptable to us. We must therefore ensure that we review storage and adjust the different systems in place.

More specifically, the data we obtained indicated that with schools, restaurants and different institutions closed, consumption dropped by almost 35%. In the end, it makes sense because it is about supply and demand.

Supply cannot necessarily stop. We know that cows are not equipped with a tap or button that shuts off milk production. On the consumption side, I was surprised to see that milk was being rationed by some stores. With COVID-19, they wanted to protect people's access to milk. Some stores restricted sales to a quart of milk per person. When people cannot consume more, rationing leads to problems with demand from the public.

Another surprise we got during the COVID-19 crisis is that CUSMA is going to come into effect on July 1 rather than August 1. That came as a shock to many people, particularly dairy farmers in my region and across Quebec. Moving up the implementation date will be problematic, because quotas are going to go down. Indeed, for dairy farmers, the dairy year begins on August 1 and ends on July 31.

Moving up the implementation date for CUSMA will mean a reduction in milk protein. Dairy producers got the nasty surprise of having to sell their stock in a very short time period: specifically, 55,000 tonnes in the first year, and 35,000 tonnes after that. In the past, the limit was nearly 85,000 tonnes. Canada's dairy farmers estimate they are going to lose $340 million a year, which is a huge amount for that industry.

Those farmers feel cheated. When I talk to them about this issue, they recall their agreement with the government, which claimed to want to support them. When they are hit with that kind of surprise, especially during this time of crisis, what message does that send to our farmers? Does the government want to support them or discourage them? The current deal does not reflect what the government said at the outset. Words must be put into action, and this proves that the government has failed to support dairy farmers in the regions and across Quebec.

I have to point out that the 3.5% quota in CUSMA for the United States represents a loss of production for dairy farmers. Some of the farms in the regions of Quebec are small operations, and we must support them. My colleagues spoke about the next generation of farmers. I have recently heard from farmers who tell me that they are falling through the cracks of the system. They are not eligible for the $40,000 Canada emergency business account because they do not have a payroll of at least $20,000. What will they do? They are worried and do not know if they will make it through the crisis.

Right now is sowing period in Quebec. Although it has been delayed, in particular because of current temperatures, farmers do not have the money they need to buy seed and to plan for the upcoming season. They are thinking about calling it quits and they do not know what to tell to their children who want to take over the farm. These farmers do not feel supported by the government. They feel helpless and are trying to find solutions with the help of colleagues and farmers in the region, but are not finding any. They therefore contact us, their members of Parliament, so that we can speak on their behalf, which I am proud to do today.

This is worrisome. As we experience this pandemic, a historic crisis, we want people to be safe and secure, and also healthy. Safety and security includes food security. We do not want to receive our supplies exclusively from multinational companies. We want to support local businesses and enable farmers to continue by helping them financially.

Earlier, my colleague mentioned psychological support, and I am saddened to see what farmers in my region are going through. There is only one farm outreach worker for the entire Lower St. Lawrence region, which is totally unacceptable and inefficient. We say we want to help farmers. Farmers are very isolated. They work long hours every day and every week on their farms. They may not have anyone to confide in and talk to about their problems, not to mention their financial burden. They really need an outlet for their stress. They should not just be seeing financial problems. The government urgently needs to rectify this situation.

Farmers need cash and financial support from the government. We need to send a very strong message. I will be watching closely to make sure the government adjusts its measures.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, this is more of a comment than a question.

I listened carefully to what the member said. I hear not only his heart, but also his head. I would like him to know that even though I do not know him well, I think he speaks clearly and eloquently and is thinking with both his head and his heart. It is clear that it comes from deep within. I just want to commend him and encourage him to keep going.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am flattered. I thank my colleague for his comments.

I sincerely hope he has heard the heartfelt pleas I have proudly expressed on behalf of farmers in my region. They are at the end of their collective rope because they are trying to find solutions to the problems I mentioned. They need both financial and psychological help, and we hope the government will hear their pleas.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his very insightful intervention. He raised a number of very relevant points.

I too found it moving, and I would like him to tell us about the farmers he mentioned earlier, the ones who called his office to say how bad things were getting and to ask for help and support.

As an MP, how does he feel, and what message does he want to send to the government and the Treasury Board? We need to take advantage while they are here and tell them that it takes money. The $252 million they announced is barely 10% of what was asked, and the overall aid package that the Canadian government is offering to the agriculture sector is proportionately 12 times less than what the United States is providing. Tomorrow morning, in a context of global free trade, our farmers are going to be asked to compete with these people, despite not being on a fair footing.

How does my colleague feel about that, and can he comment on his desire to speak for farmers?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague's comments and completely agree with him.

The message we must send to our producers and farmers is that we are there to support them. Every year 5% to 7% of farms are abandoned by the producers. That sends a very strong message. They are sounding the alarm and we must listen to them and support them.

The money announced by the government represents barely 10% of what was requested. The government is providing $250 million, while the Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked for $2.6 billion. That is totally inadequate. The government needs to be consistent. If we want to support them we must have more targeted measures and financial programs that are specifically designed for them.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not long ago we all saw pictures of farmers dumping milk, and it was a lot of milk. I was quite shocked when I saw those pictures, and I am sure many other Canadians were as well. I have learned that this waste of Canadian milk is one of the impacts the COVID-19 pandemic is having on our economy and our agriculture sector.

Because restaurants and other retail vendors have had to close their doors, or have seen a dramatic decrease in sales, the overall demand for milk and milk products has been greatly reduced. This is why 30 million litres of milk had to be dumped over the last few months. What a waste, and what a huge impact the loss of sales must be having on the Canadian dairy sector.

I would like to recognize the hard work of my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. My hon. colleague, a farmer himself, has worked tirelessly for years not only to represent his constituents but also to fight for the needs of the Canadian agriculture sector and farmers right across the country. He has also been a vocal advocate for the protection of the dairy industry and the needs of dairy farmers, especially in the face of the constant attacks on this sector during the negotiations of the most recent international trade deals.

It is from my hon. colleague that I learned of the importance of protecting this vital sector. It is also from him that I learned how slow the government has been to respond to the pressing needs of dairy farmers and their families. Five weeks ago the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture supporting an appeal from the Dairy Processors Association of Canada to the government to take the very action proposed in the very short bill that is before us today.

While the numbers may be slightly different, as the original request involved slightly higher numbers, the idea was exactly the same. We also know that Mathieu Frigon, president and CEO of the Dairy Processors Association of Canada, made the same request last month.

Why did it take the government so long to respond and finally come forward with a bill that would provide the necessary assistance? That is the question on the minds of many Canadians.

Why does it take so long for the government to respond to the needs of Canadians during COVID-19? How on earth did it take over five weeks to produce this very simple bill, a bill that would provide critical assistance not only to the entire dairy industry but also to the dairy farmers and their families? Canadians must wonder just how much damage dairy farmers have had to suffer because the government was too slow to respond.

Of course this is just one example of the government dragging its feet. The government's response to the COVID-19 crisis has been characterized as a patchwork of initiatives and programs designed largely to cut people out instead of making sure no one is left behind. Announcements are made with no or only sketchy details to back them up, and the resulting programs end up being so complicated and chaotic that the people who need them have a hard time figuring out how to access them.

I am sure I am not the only member whose office has been overwhelmed with just trying to get the proper information about the eligibility criteria of various assistance programs so we can help the many desperate constituents calling our offices for help.

Yesterday's announcement was a series of initiatives to help Canadian seniors, and it is a good case in point. Many members in the chamber have been getting a barrage of calls and emails from seniors describing the hardships they are facing due to the COVID-19 crisis, and they are imploring the government to help.

As the NDP critic for seniors, I have been working non-stop since the very first week of the crisis to persuade the government to pay attention to the needs of seniors and to take action. It took eight full weeks to get the government to respond. We all know that only happened because we negotiated an agreement on our last unanimous consent motion and we put the government's back to the wall. What a shame it took that kind of effort to get the government to pay attention to the desperate needs of Canadian seniors.

That being said, while we are happy the government has finally recognized Canadian seniors need help during the pandemic, it is too little after the government had committed to help seniors without delay. On support for persons with disabilities, the government has been silent so far.

Again, the government has come up with a program short on details and missing the mark on what is needed. By offering a one-time payment, the government is ignoring the shortfalls seniors were dealing with before the pandemic, and the needs of Canadian seniors that will still be there next month.

What happens next month? Will all Canadians get assistance next month when they face the same increased costs for groceries, transportation and medication, just to name a few?

When asked yesterday, both the Minister of Seniors and the President of the Treasury Board basically threw up their hands and said they would have to figure that one out. How does that make any sense? How are Canadian seniors supposed to feel assured when the federal ministers responsible admit the assistance being provided is too low?

Let me get back to the bill at hand. The bill is about increasing the credit limit threshold for the Canadian Dairy Commission, from the existing $300 million per year to $500 million per year, in the existing buyback agreement the CDC has with producers to manage storage. This will allow the already struggling dairy industry, which has been hit hard by successive trade deals in recent years, some breathing space in the form of certain products like butter, various types of cheese and milk powder. Those products with a longer shelf life can be purchased by the CDC in larger quantities, then bought back under the existing agreement by producers when market fluctuations normalize within a set period of time once the COVID-19 crisis is over.

Pierre Lampron, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, is quoted as saying:

Never have we seen such fluctuation in demand for milk from one week to another, and despite the best efforts to manage production to align with consumer needs, bottlenecks resulted in milk having to be disposed at the farm, something no dairy farmer wants to see.

New Democrats are glad to see the government finally take this step. Farmers have been waiting weeks for this support. After everything the government has done to dairy farmers, it is the least it can do to support them during a pandemic. Instead of investing more to help our agricultural producers during this crisis, the government is letting them down. Many still are not eligible for support programs.

If it were not for the concessions being made through successive trade deals like CETA, CPTPP and now CUSMA, we would not have a surplus of American milk flooding Canadian borders, leading to the current Canadian supply glut and necessitating the recent dumping of 30 million litres of liquid milk. We have a supply management system in Canada, and this unprecedented supply glut in Canada speaks to the need for negotiations to take our food sovereignty seriously when engaging in future trade talks.

That is why the agreement the NDP negotiated with the Deputy Prime Minister regarding future trade deals is so important. Parliament will, for the first time ever, be able to review future trade deals in advance of ratification instead of merely providing a yea or nay vote after the deal is done. However, it is important to discuss the concessions that were made because of CUSMA to our supply-managed dairy sector. We are giving up a few percentages of our market, as we did under CPTPP and CETA.

The Liberals constantly say in the House that they are the party that defends supply management and are the ones who brought it in. However, now we have started to see more cuts. The problem is that when we were negotiating CUSMA and opening up parts of our markets to the United States, especially in supply management, in a sense what the government asked dairy farmers to do was pay the price for another jurisdiction's overproduction problems.

When I say that, I mean that I am really baffled when I see corporations and businesses in Canada that make material or produce milk, do our farming or do anything, and taxpayers have to pay them a subsidy not to do their maximum production.

I find it baffling that we have to allow other countries to bring their products in so that our farmers, such as the ones we are discussing today, cannot produce to their maximum.

I would like to make an illustration by using this as an example. The state of Wisconsin produces more milk than the entire country of Canada. As it does not have supply management, it has wild fluctuations in price and many farmers have been experiencing bankruptcy down there. There are serious concerns about mental health. They do not have the protection there, and in a sense we are trying to open up our market because of the U.S. demands. We are trying to pay the price for their over-production.

It goes further. Under clause 3.A.3 of CUSMA, we have now agreed to establish threshold limits on exports. We have put those threshold limits on things like infant formula, milk protein concentrates and skim milk powder. This means that Canada has agreed to absolutely limit exports in those categories. Furthermore, if we exceed those thresholds, we are subject to a punitive tariff, which would essentially price us out of the market.

Currently, we know that the dairy industry is pleased to get this support, but I understand there is anxiety about events set to occur this summer. The implementation of the new CUSMA on July 1 is expected to cause difficulties for the dairy industry unrelated to COVID-19, and are certain to add to difficulties caused by the pandemic. The difficulty arises because the implementation date of July 1 does not coincide with the start date of the dairy industry's fiscal year, which is August 1. Export limits on certain dairy products such as skim milk and new tariff-free market access to foreign dairy products are supposed to have been phased in over several years. Effectively, this all means that the first year of that process will only be one month long, between July 1 and August 1, and Canadian dairy producers will lose about 11 months of transition. It has been estimated that the situation will cost the dairy industry tens of millions of dollars on top of the costs of the other concessions.

Talks are under way to have the government provide some sort of compensation package to help the agriculture sector affected by the new CUSMA, but those talks have been stalled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. What baffles me is that taxpayers are going to be paying for something that our Canadian farmers can produce, but we have to ask farmers to dump that and we will pick up that cost. This is not acceptable. The government needs to focus on providing relief to our agriculture sector and our farmers and their families, and not delay any further talks to provide compensation.

Of course, we support quick passage of this bill. It is important that we provide assistance to our dairy farmers and those in the dairy industry as soon as possible. It is my hope that there will be no delays in getting this aid out of the door as soon as possible.

Let me also say that it is critical for the government not only to develop programs to help all Canadians through this COVID-19 crisis, but also that this assistance be provided in a manner that is accessible and available. Too often, we have seen critical delays in the development of programs, even after they have been announced, and confusion about the availability criteria and difficulties for people easily accessing the programs. The government needs to do a better job thinking about how its programs are constructed. Canadians in need are paying the price for the government's disorganization.

Later today, I will be meeting with some representatives from the labour movement whose members are experiencing just such a problem. Unionized workers across Canada who had negotiated supplementary unemployment benefits are unable to access those top-up funds because of the risk of being cut off from the CERB program. This makes no sense, and is unacceptable. So far, appeals to fix the crack in the CERB program have fallen on deaf ears. The government needs to fix this problem and any other similar problems that have been identified with eligibility for CERB.

I am glad that we are moving today to help those in the dairy sector, but there is much more work to be done. I do not think anyone assumes that this pandemic crisis is going to end any time soon. The government needs to act now and to act quickly to make it clear what assistance will be available in the coming months. Canadians are depending on it.

I thank everybody for listening.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that it is the job of opposition parties to hold the government to account, and it is the job of opposition parties to push for more and better all the time. I get that. I understand that, but let us look at what really happened.

I want to go back to the member's comment when he said, “Why did it take so long for the government to respond...to the needs of Canadians?”

The reality of the situation is that, in a matter of one month and three days, we went from the World Health Organization declaring a pandemic to having money in the bank accounts of 5.4 million people. Of course, the government cannot accomplish that all on its own. It is done with the incredible work of the government agents who work to implement these programs. Some of them probably worked day and night. Some of them probably came in and worked on this project, who had absolutely no experience on how to do this, but rose to the occasion to deliver on behalf of the needs of Canadians.

Would the member recognize that one month and three days from declaring a global pandemic to putting the money into 5.4 million bank accounts would not at least constitute a small measure of success that the NDP could accept?

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of good work is being done by many people on the Liberal side, many people on the Conservative side, the Bloc and the NDP. Everybody is trying to do what they can do. What bothers me, what bothers Canadians and a lot of us, is that the Prime Minister is out there working hard every day, making news media announcements because of pressure that has been put on him. He comes out and gives people hope, and then we have no idea what the hell that means. We try to find out information, but the telephone lines are plugged and our offices are working more and more to try to get that information. Even the ministers do not know.

All I am trying to say is that if we are going to try to come out with plans and have announcements to affect the people and help Canadians, let us make sure that we have all the details in hand and not two weeks later when everybody is working, and then we find out who has fallen through the cracks.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech today, and to my Liberal colleague along the way, I know everyone's trying to work hard, but he talked about a month and three days, when our American cohorts put that same amount, or way more, on a parallel basis, out in three days, not a month and three days.

I just wanted to say that we continue to work at trying to improve these programs. A fine example is what we are debating here today. The dairy industry deserves to have this to make sure that it does not have to destroy the product that it has processed. All of the input costs are in that process, and it would be a shame to have to throw it out.

I want to say that in so many other areas, we have heard the government say, “Here is 10% of what was asked for,” and maybe it will give them some later. To your point about how we just do not know what is coming next and the uncertainty of that in dire straits, when they have already seen what has been asked, leaves everybody in a state of flux. I wondered if you could expand on that.