Pauline Picard

[Arts and culture, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the greater Drummond area's reputation as an economic force in Quebec is already beyond dispute.

But today, I am pleased to tell hon. members about the numerous excellent cultural activities the region offers. For example, the Centre culturel de Drummondville has been nominated for the ADISQ gala for the fifteenth time in thirteen years. This year's nomination is for top entertainment presenter of the year, in recognition of the excellence of its programming and event marketing.

The centre received the same award in 1989. This year, it is in competition with Rouyn-Noranda's Théâtre du cuivre, Joliette's Centre culturel, Laval's Corporation de la salle André-Mathieu, and Haut-Richelieu's Société pour la promotion d'événements culturels.

Drummondville is also in the running for album of the year--original soundtrack. Michel Cusson has two albums in contention, Séraphin, un homme et son péché and Bunker, le cirque .

My best wishes to all these nominees from my area.

[Employment Insurance, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on October 1, the interim measures put in place by the federal government during the implementation of the new employment insurance regulations will expire for the Gaspé Peninsula, North Shore and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean regions. Without these transitional measures, hundreds of seasonal workers will no longer be eligible for benefits.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that the negative effects of this government's cuts to employment insurance must be alleviated? These transitional measures must be extended to take into consideration the socio-economic context experienced by these regions, where seasonal workers—

[City of Drummondville, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to draw attention today to the work of the economic stakeholders of greater Drummondville. In less than 10 years, Drummondville has become a real model of economic development in Quebec, not to mention all the awards in a number of sectors that have come its way.

In 15 years, the number of manufacturing plants has risen from 288 to 547. Of those, 40 or so relocated from abroad.

Over the past 10 years, Drummondville's population has increased about 34%, five times the Quebec average. It has become so prosperous that taxes have been cut, and it has paid down its debt as well. The key to all this success: teamwork.

The success of greater Drummondville depends on a balance between economic and cultural development, between the business and the political worlds. Thanks to the efforts of all involved, I am proud to say that Drummondville has become the envy of other areas.

[Income Tax Act, September 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the debate on Bill C-48 to amend the Income Tax Act regarding natural resources. This bill will undoubtedly cause a lot of grumbling, because it also concerns the tax rate for the oil and gas industry. It is a very complex bill, but I would like to get people interested in one aspect that everyone understands and is familiar with, the oil and gas industry.

If this bill is passed, the oil and gas industry will see its tax rate drop significantly. I can already hear the reaction of people in the riding of Drummond and, I think, of people throughout Quebec and Canada, as well as of a number of associations that defend the rights of consumers and taxpayers. They will certainly not be happy to hear that there is a plan to significantly reduce the tax rate for big oil and gas companies.

The government's decision to grant oil and gas companies a significant reduction in their tax rate is unusual, to say the least. It is very special, indeed. Looking at the situation, we see that the “poor” oil and gas companies really need a significant reduction, with the astronomical profits they have made in recent months. The government even gave them an income tax credit of $250 million. In the meantime, the price of gasoline was going up at the pumps. I am sure the whole population was grumbling. And they even told us about these tremendous profits in their annual reports.

The last budget contained new provisions giving these companies $250 million in tax credits. That takes a lot of nerve when there are still 1.5 million poor children in Canada, and when the pensions of senior citizens have not been indexed—in fact, $3 billion has even been taken away from them. There is also the employment insurance fund which has been pillaged to the tune of $45 billion. Income tax rates for taxpayers are still very high, and $250 million in tax credits is being given to big oil and gas companies who are making a profit. It is incredible.

We can understand why the government is giving suffering industries a tax break. There are some major industrial sectors in Canada and Quebec that require assistance. But we cannot understand giving it to sectors turning a profit, such as the oil and gas companies with their sky-high revenues.

In his February 2000 budget, the Minister of Finance announced his intention to reduce the statutory corporate tax rate applicable to resource income. He wants to lower the rate from 28% to 21%, which constitutes a 7% reduction over five years.

If we look at the resource sector overall, taking into consideration other allowances applicable to this sector, the effective rate is not 28% but 22%. Setting the figures and percentages aside, the truth comes out. CAmagazine , the official magazine of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, recently reported,

From a federal tax perspective there will be winners over the phase-in period. The winners will be companies with high royalty rates, such as oil and gas producers operating in Western Canada.

The Bloc is not the one saying this; these people are not members of the Bloc. This is the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants saying that, over the phase-in period, some companies will be winners when it comes to federal tax, and that these winners will be companies such as the oil and gas producers.

The magazine goes on to state that,

However, in such provinces as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and the Maritimes... the elimination of the resource allowance deduction for companies that benefited from the resource allowance results in an increase in the overall effective rate.

Ultimately, these measures will benefit all economic sectors. However, in the short term, some sectors will be winners and others losers. The winners will be the companies working in the tar sands, oil and precious metals. The losers will be companies in natural gas, potash and diamonds.

Consequently, the hon. Liberal member who preceded me should take a closer look at this issue. I know that there are diamond mines in the Yukon and that this bill, far from helping the industry he represents, will not benefit diamond mines.

Hughes Lachance, senior tax director with KPMG, says that if it were only for the first two provisions of this legislation, the oil companies would be losers. But these are not the only changes. For oil companies, the royalties they have to pay to the provinces or the crown amount to large sums of money. In 2007, they will be allowed to include in their expenses 100% of the royalties paid to the provinces. For the mining industry, where royalties are generally low, this third provision does not significantly reduce the tax burden.

The Minister of Finance estimates that, once fully implemented, the overall program will cost him $260 million in uncollected taxes. A very large portion of this tax relief will go to the oil companies.

The impact of this bill on the oil and gas industry will actually be a 12% income tax decrease. That is incredible. Let us take a look at the consequences.

According to the Mining Association of Canada:

[when] all is said and done, the disappearance of the Resource Allowance will likely result in higher taxes paid by the mining industry, even if we are able to deduct provincial royalties and mining taxes.

The association states further that the federal government is undercuttingthe good work by Quebec and the provinces to make mining investmentmore attractive. I hope that the people opposite heard this. The Bloc Quebecois is not the only one saying that Quebec's efforts are undermined, so is the Mining Association of Canada. As I indicated earlier, not many of their members are likely to be card carrying members of the Bloc.

As for the oil and gas companies, they are no worse off. Let me quote statements from the oil companies themselves:

Petro-Canada, on page 1 of its quarterly report to shareholders for the second quarter, says:

Petro-Canada announced today second quarter earnings from operations of $455 million, which include a positive adjustment of $96 million for Canadian income tax rate changes.

Shell Canada, in its quarterly report to shareholders for the second quarter, says:

Shell Canada Limited announced July 23,2003, second-quarter earnings of $178 million... Earnings included a one-time benefit of $54 million from a future income tax revaluation following announced income tax changes.

Esso Imperial, in its quarterly report to shareholders for the second quarter of this year, states:

During the second quarter of 2003, tax rate reductions enacted by the Federal government and the provincial government of Alberta and settlement of various tax matters benefited results, mainly in the resources segment, by $109 million.

In other words, the three major oil companies are announcing additional future profits of $250 million. These reductions in the future taxation of corporate profits already earned are a one time occurrence.

I would also like to discuss the mining sector in this connection. The federal government implies that the new tax structure being proposed will be simpler because it will rationalize the way it is observed and applied, encourage investors, make the Canadian mining sector more competitive, and support investment, innovation, productivity, economic growth and job creation in Canada.

The mining industry does not feel that the tax reform program is fully achieving those objectives. Spokespersons for this sector indicate that the provisions for gradual reduction announced in the 2003 budget are too complicated and will be hard to implement.

The planned 21% tax rate will apply to revenues from non-resource activities in 2004, while for resource-related activities it will run until 2007. As a result, during the period from 2003 to 2005, the difference between the resource and non-resource tax rate will be: 3% in 2002, 4% in 2003, 5% in 2004, 4% in 2005, 2% in 2006 and finally 0% in 2007.

The Mining Association of Canada believes that the difficulties arising out of the 2003 budget and Bill C-48 demand a prompt solution, involving the federal government along with the provincial and territorial governments.

The association also feels that the proposed changes to federal income tax impact heavily on numerous mining activities in Canada and will add to the combined federal, provincial and territorial tax burden on companies, thereby affecting their bottom dollar.

A simple solution, proposed by the Canadian Mining Association, which benefits producers of minerals and metals, would be to keep the resource allowance deduction while reducing the federal corporate income tax rate from 28% to 21%. This measure would eliminate the difference between the federal resource and non-resource tax rates without necessarily changing the provisions for revenues collected under the territorial and provincial tax systems.

I know that this is very difficult to follow because this is a very complex bill. It will also be very complicated to implement. This is not fair to taxpayers. Take the oil and gas industry for example; every day taxpayers have to use their cars and they see the price of gas climbing. These are often people who earn average or low incomes and who do not benefit from the same tax credits that the oil companies do. However, the oil companies play with the price of gas and eat into low-income families' budgets. Working people or parents often have to travel to their job by car and have to pay for gas, but they cannot benefit from tax credits.

Yet, companies are granted huge tax credits, like the one we saw recently. These are tax credits to the tune of $250 million. And their tax rate should be cut significantly again? There is something illogical about this bill and that is why the Bloc Quebecois is voting against it.

[Agriculture, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps on telling us about his famous agricultural strategic framework, but what is needed is not that, but an assistance plan.

The Fédération des producteurs de bovins has made it clear: the strategic framework the minister is so anxious to sign does not meet the needs of producers. They want a specific assistance plan.

Why is the minister so insensitive to the drama that is going on in the various regions of Quebec?

[Agriculture, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, even if the U.S. embargo on beef has been partially lifted, producers are continuing to lose money and are desperately calling for help. The assistance plan ended on August 31, and the Fédération des producteurs de bovins finds it totally unacceptable that the government is refusing to announce phase two.

What is keeping the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food from answering the appeal of the government and the cattle producers of Quebec, and from immediately implementing a second phase of the assistance plan for the cattle industry, which has been so hard hit by the mad cow crisis?

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First, I want to answer the question about dairy cattle. I had spoken about this earlier.

Yes, it is a problem. It is not just about beef cattle. This is about all farmers. Whether they raise dairy or beef cattle, whether they are processors or consumers, everyone is affected by the mad cow crisis. It is not limited to the agricultural industry; it affects us all.

It was also said that numerous calves and heifers were sold at a good price to American cattlemen prior to the crisis. Those sales represented 10% of a dairy farm's total income. They constituted almost 75% of the amount that cattlemen deducted from their sales figures for their families' welfare. As a result, farmers do not have this money for their families. We are talking about their basic needs, not about money for a pension fund or a pension plan.

Earlier, in the Standing Committee on Finance, I heard a Liberal Party member ask a question of the representative of the Canadian farmers association. He mentioned a long-term tax credit. Yes, but you have to have money to get a tax credit. You have to pay taxes to get a tax credit. However, this problem is not something that will happen in a year's time; it is happening now. At this moment, people do not have the means to keep their business afloat, let alone their family.

What means should be considered, to answer the question? The Liberal government is basking in billions right now. The provinces, which are responsible for meeting the needs of their residents, should not have to beg on bended knee for the money they need to support their industry and their economy.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am totally flabbergasted to hear comments like that. I am quoting people like the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Jacques Desrosiers, President of the Association des engraisseurs de bovins du Québec, and Laurent Pellerin of the UPA. I have also quoted people from my riding, people from Saint-Joachim-de-Courval.

Of the 22 municipalities in my riding, 20 are rural. All summer I have crisscrossed the various areas and rural municipalities and the remarks I made are based on authentic numbers. I verified them with the farmers and with people like the presidents of the Association des engraisseurs or the UPA. And I have just been told I have been providing inaccurate information.

It is true that the problem has not yet been solved but what he said about consumers is not true. Let him come into my riding and see if beef consumption has gone up. People do not have the money they once had to buy beef. The price of beef to the consumer has not gone down. It is the same as before, despite the fact that producers are selling their beef, and their cows, the culled cattle, for lower prices. I do not know where he got his figures, but I know that mine are not the same. I would like to sit down with him and go over them, because mine have been verified.

It is really insulting to hear the parliamentary secretary accuse us of providing inaccurate information when we did some serious research. I do not know where he got his figures, but I have my doubts about them.

I would like to come back to the minister's attitude yesterday, when he met with the ministers of agriculture. They have to get down on their knees and plead with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and tell him there are people who have needs and who are being forced into bankruptcy; some are even having nervous breakdowns. I hope he watches the news, because this week we saw a western farmer who was in tears and he is not the only one there in this situation. People are very worried right now. There are even some who are threatening suicide. It is starting to get serious.

We were just told that $1 billion is available but an understanding cannot be reached with the provinces because two or three of them do not want to sign the agreement. First, the provinces have to be brought to their knees and, once the government has the upper hand, then they will get the $1 billion. Such an attitude makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the parliamentary secretary should apologize for accusing the opposition parties of providing inaccurate information. If he thinks he knows the truth, well, he is the only one. It is like the marching soldier who thinks he is the only one in step.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate proposed by the Conservative Party, regarding an issue of great importance to our economy and vital to Quebec's economy. We are talking about mad cow disease.

Just yesterday in the House, the Liberal government, through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, refused to add a second phase to the financial assistance program for businesses affected by the mad cow crisis, which has continued since May 20.

The Quebec government is demanding—and the Bloc Quebecois has tirelessly echoed that demand—that the federal government provide additional funds to the Financière agricole du Québec for the creation of programs to enable its farmers to survive this crisis. They need the basic necessities.

The federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could not have been clearer. The answer is no.

In response to my question yesterday, the minister simply said that the government had money—over $1 billion—to help farmers under its agricultural policy framework, but that it would not do anything until the provinces signed the agreement. In other words, it is knowingly using a catastrophe to blackmail the provinces. It prefers to let farmers suffer, although their revenues have dropped dramatically since the lone case of mad cow was detected in Alberta.

The Conservative Party motion demands:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Prime Minister should convene and lead a multi-party delegation including representatives of the industry to Washington at the earliest possible date to discuss with officials of the Congress and the Government of the United States all possible means to fully reopen the U.S. border to shipments of Canadian livestock.

Going to the United States is one thing but, until then, the goal is to ensure that our farmers do not go bankrupt. We must ensure that they have the necessary funds to survive.

The situation is so bad that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is calling upon the government to inject no less than $195 million in additional compensation to farmers affected by the ban on our beef exports. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to note that I am not the one saying this, but I am reporting that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is calling upon the government to inject no less than $195 in additional compensation. That is something he ought to have in his notes.

Just to provide some idea of the magnitude of the problem, the price of cull cattle, which was around 55 to 60 cents a pound prior to May 20, is now around 18 cents. If that is not a problem, I do not know what is. The beef cattle producers are not the only ones in trouble now, so are the dairy producers. The whole food chain is involved, from farmer to processor.

People can no longer manage to feed their animals, and now are being threatened with bankruptcy as well. We do not want anyone trying to tell us there is no problem and we do not know the true situation. Fifteen percent of Quebec's entire dairy production is in my riding. I have talked to many farmers, and everyone is hard hit by the situation. There is a great deal of anxiety. Some people are losing sleep over it, because of their uncertainty about what is going to happen if a solution is not found quickly.

The drop in cull cattle prices, coupled with the fact that some producers got no compensation because phase one of the federal program did not apply to them, has had a huge effect on this important sector of our economy.

They can boast about injecting money into the program, but it was just the first phase. Not everyone was compensated or had the chance to turn to the Financière agricole for a loan to sustain their operation until the crisis passes. How long will it take to resolve this crisis—a month, two months, three months? No one knows. Will farmers be able to hold on any longer? Can they hold on for another three months?

The Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Françoise Gauthier, was here yesterday to hear the official no response from her federal counterpart. Yesterday and today the national news reported that Quebec's minister had returned to the National Assembly with a flat no. She believes she will be able to sign a policy framework agreement with the federal government by Christmas. That is only three months away.

Let us come back to the content of the motion by the Progressive Conservative Party. The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion, which proposes sending a parliamentary delegation to our neighbours to the south. The problem is, who will lead the delegation?

The complex and unique situation, to say the least, that is brewing within the governing Liberal Party is such that we are ending up—I feel I must say this—with a type of two-headed monster: a prime minister who is no longer the leader and a leader who is not yet the prime minister. That is how ambiguous the machinery of government has become.

We feel that representatives from Quebec and the provinces should be added to this delegation. The presence of MPs from various parties would be all the more useful because the Liberal government has not done a good job of defending the interests of farmers, especially those from Quebec, since the beginning of this crisis.

The Bloc plans to be part of this parliamentary delegation going to the United States. Count on me to explain what is unique about the system in Quebec and to work on having the U.S. ban fully lifted, at least for Quebec. If Ottawa does not defend Quebec, the Bloc will.

The minister says there is no example of a territorial approach for an embargo—what we call regionalization—but he must have a really short memory. Canada took this approach last year by imposing a ban on chicken from three U.S. states. It can very well promote the partial lifting of the ban, but the situation is far from being resolved.

The effects of the crisis are still being felt and agricultural operations are having to deal with substantial quantities of livestock that have accumulated since the crisis began on May 20. Let us remember that, despite the partial lifting of the ban imposed by the United States, the amount of beef crossing the border represents only a portion of what was exported before the ban was put in place.

This partial lifting, which excludes live cattle, has not translated into a return to normal market prices for certain products. The price of beef is 65% lower than it was before May 20, 2003.

Producers, who continue to suffer despite the partial lifting of the ban, still need help. Products which can now enter the United States constitute only about 35% of shipments.

Since the beginning of the crisis, the Bloc has avoided being alarmist about public health measures. We wanted to give the government a chance. Four months after the ban was put in place, it is clear that there has been more talk than action from the government. Measures ought to be taken, in the direction of regionalization rather than centralization, which is so dear to this government.

Curiously, while we have been debating these important issues, he who is now the boss but not yet prime minister has stayed out of the debate. It would be interesting to hear the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard on this topic. What does he think of the current government's attitude with respect to producers' demands? What does he think of the blackmail being used by the Minister of Agriculture who wants to shove the agricultural policy framework down the throats of the provinces?

I recently took the opportunity of an open house day organized by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec to visit a dairy farm in my riding, owned by the Lupien family in Saint-Joachim-de-Courval.

As I had already done with a beef producer, Jocelyn Autote, I spoke with the Lupien family about the impact of the crisis on their sector. Beef producers are not the only ones affected; the dairy industry has been as well, as I have already pointed out.

According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, on August 7, “We are losing close to a million and a half dollars daily as a result of the American embargo on our meat”. Dairy producers also sell cattle. They need to replace about 25% of their herd annually. The cull cows, those no longer producing enough milk, are sold for meat. Some 70% of cull cows were exported to the U.S. or Mexico before the ban.

Many calves and heifers brought good prices from American producers. These sales represented about 10% of the income of a dairy farm, but close to 75% of the amount of farm income producers set aside for maintaining their families.

It is estimated that, in Quebec, approximately 12,000 steers could not be slaughtered before August 31, the last day of the federal-provincial assistance program. Some farmers took them to auction but, despite their insistence, ended up taking animals that ought to have been headed for the slaughterhouse back to the farm. As a result, they were deprived of financial assistance from the federal government, because this was only for slaughter cattle.

This explains why, at the September 22 federal-provincial meeting of ministers of agriculture, Quebec was calling for Ottawa to add phase two, retroactive to September 1, to the compensation package for businesses affected by the mad cow crisis. The Liberal government refused to do so.

Both beef and dairy producers want to see all border restrictions lifted promptly, but they are sensible enough to realize that the financial impact of the crisis will continue long after the ban has been lifted.

To quote Jacques Desrosiers, President of the Association des engraisseurs de bovins du Québec,“The money we lost cannot be reinvested in our businesses. We generally buy a lot of cattle in the spring, but this year we put a stop to it, so that has slowed down our production for the entire year”.

Those most in danger of bankruptcy are small producers and next generation farmers. Every time an agricultural sector is hit by a crisis, the number of farms decreases. The reason is simple: the smallest producers often do not have the means to get through hard times and are swallowed up by the larger producers.

The President of the Syndicat des producteurs de bovins du Centre du Québec, Alain Laroche, said on August 28:

The cattle industry, which generates 20% of the jobs in central Quebec, is on the verge of a catastrophe. The situation is a cause for concern for the next generation. It will be impossible for young people to buy a farm, even a family farm. Young people will go down with their farm...People must be told that we can no longer make ends meet.

The mad cow crisis has lasted over four months. What can be said about how Liberal government is handling this problem? The Bloc Quebecois has done its own analysis of the situation, and it can be accused of having some bias. But let us look at what observers outside the Canadian political scene think.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is pleased with the way the Liberal government has handled the mad cow crisis. Here are the comments of a neutral foreign observer. Jean-Philippe Deslys, a French specialist in bovine spongiform encephalopathy, who was in Montreal on August 22, could not believe that Ottawa had not learned from the mad cow crisis in Europe. He said:

Because, faced with this crisis, Canada has behaved like all other countries affected, before it, by this strange disease, with France and Great Britain leading the pack. It is making the same decisions and the same errors with, ultimately, very predictable repercussions on consumer confidence and the economy.

How does he describe the way the federal government has handled the crisis? He thought it showed more concern for the media than for public health. He said:

One might have expected, in the context, that decisions would be made to protect the beef industry economically. But no: the authorities went into an administrative mindset, especially in terms of management of the crisis in the media, instead of taking a scientific or public health approach. And in the end, the repercussions on the economy are not what one would have wished.

There are other people who do not share the Liberal government's views. The President of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, speaking about the agricultural policy framework, said, “We are not satisfied with this. Quebec has 25% of Canada's population, 20% of its agricultural production, and receives only 10 or 11% of the envelope”. He said this in a telephone interview.

He is worried about uniformity in implementation. “Not to recognize that there are differences in agriculture [in Canada] takes a lot of imagination”. Mr. Pellerin condemneded the “hypercentralizing approach” of the agricultural policy framework. The President of the UPA intends to demonstrate over the coming months that the framework “does not improve the situation at all...Time will tell that it does not work”.

In this context, Quebec finds itself facing yet another demonstration of the effects of the fiscal imbalance. The consequence is that Quebec might be forced into signing the agricultural policy framework.

“You know the state of our public finances”, said the Quebec minister. “We do not have $130 million to spare, and everyone in the industry knows it. What we have to do is reach a consensus that will allow Quebec to sign this agreement while maintaining as much flexibility as possible to establish our programs”.

Finally, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, on a recent visit to my riding, told journalists:

The mad cow problem should have been regionalized. There was no reason for it to involve all of Canada. When the problem arose in France, for instance, Italy did not panic. Yet, Italians are much closer geographically to the French than Albertans are to Quebeckers.

While only one case of mad cow was diagnosed in Canada, all the provinces were affected by bans imposed by our foreign partners. The U.S ban on all ruminants hit us especially hard, because the U.S. is our main buyer. It is very hard for farmers, slaughterhouses and labs that specialize in bovine embryos, such as IND Embryotech in my riding.

While the Bloc Quebecois acknowledged that the American decision was reasonable during the diagnostic stage, we feel that it is unfair to continue the ban for provinces that were not affected.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to point out that, if Quebec were sovereign and in control of its own borders and health policies at this time, it would not have been hit by the U.S. ban. Laurent Pellerin, President of the UPA, said the same thing at a press conference on May 21, 2003:

If we were separate provinces with distinct inspection systems and regionalized commodity marketing mechanisms, there would be just one province having to deal with this problem now.

The current situation is particularly frustrating for Quebec producers who have long had to submit to a series of constraints aimed at ensuring healthy herds and irreproachable product quality.

As far as tracking is concerned, Quebec is well ahead of others, and more and more innovative methods are being developed. I know a slaughterhouse in the riding next to mine, Richmond—Arthabaska, is working on a system that would make it possible to track an animal from birth right to the supermarket meat department.

In conclusion, over and above all the facts and figures about compensation, the columns of gains and losses, there is a human side to this. Agriculture is the men, women and families who devote themselves to providing us with food. This is something that the bureaucrats, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food himself, seem to have lost sight of.

We support the motion of the Progressive Conservative Party, because we have the best interests of the devoted people of our rural areas at heart.

[Agriculture, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, although there was not a single case of mad cow disease in Quebec, Quebec farmers have been victims of the problems experienced in Alberta. Quebec beef farmers have also been hit.

Will the minister acknowledge that they deserve assistance?