Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on debate. Let me begin by thanking my colleagues from all sides of the House for participating in the debate. This is indeed a very important question and a very critical one for producers. Indeed, it is a critical debate for all Canadians whether or not they live in rural Canada or whether they live in urban Canada. This is a national issue with national concerns.
In the debate so far we have heard a lot of comments. We have heard a fair amount of political rhetoric at the same time. I will try in my comments not to engage in that. There are some important messages that need to be sent to producers and to Canadians. It is my intent to do that.
The first message, and I say this on behalf of the government and I say it very loud and clear, is that the Government of Canada stands four square behind our producers. That is an absolute commitment. It is something that we have done since the first case of BSE in May 2003. It is something that we have done since that time. It is something that we are doing on an ongoing basis. It is something that we will do as we move forward.
There has been a lot of talk in the House that this is phantom money. It is not phantom money; it is real money. It is real investments making a real impact on our producers.
There has been $1.9 billion invested by the federal government specifically on the issues of BSE. That has had an impact on our industry. It has provided an opportunity through very difficult times to maintain the industry. Is it at a level that we would like it to be at? No. However, it is certainly providing the kind of assistance that is necessary for our producers.
In addition to that, it is important to note as well that provincial governments have also provided investments to the tune of a little over $400 million. There has in fact been substantial investments made to the industry. Those are appropriate investments. They are important investments and they have helped to sustain the industry through this very difficult time.
As we look forward and contemplate on exactly the type of actions that we need to take, there are three specific areas in which we need to continue to work. First of all, we will clearly continue to work with the United States to reopen the border. That is an important market to Canadians and it is something that we need to do.
There has been a lot of misinformation here. The Conservative Party has left itself with a storyline that just does not match reality. It is trying to suggest that the border was not reopened as a result of mismanagement of the Canada-U.S. relationship.
The facts say very differently. I know that the party opposite when it is caught in a situation where it does not match a fact simply tries to repeat it over and over again, and louder and louder to make it a fact. It is not a fact. This is not a dispute between the Government of Canada and the government of the United States.
The fact is that the Government of Canada and the government of the United States have exactly the same view. The border should be opened and that decision should be based on the sound science that exists today. Both governments feel exactly the same way.
The USDA, the counterpart of my department, is actively supporting that rule and actively defending it. The President of the United States has stated clearly that he wants that border opened. He helped promote the rule change and has said clearly that should congress put in a disallowance motion, he will in fact veto it.
That is an unprecedented step for this President. It represents his willingness to expend significant political capital in the United States to make that happen. The storyline as presented by the party opposite has no basis in fact. We are two governments that share exactly the same view and we share that view in large part because of the strong work that has been done by the Prime Minister, other members of cabinet, members of my caucus in dealing with the United States, and with officials who have helped us arrive and helped the Americans arrive at the conclusion that having the border opened based on science is the appropriate step that ought to be taken.
Second, in terms of talking about actions as we move forward, is the absolute need to continue the transition measures that we put in place in September, essentially the set aside programs both for feeder cattle and for fed cattle. That program has worked well. It represents, to use the expression of the party opposite, real money going to real producers in a timely manner.
But more important, it has allowed a balance in the number of cattle that is available for slaughter at any one time and the amount of slaughter capacity that is available. That has created a recovery in price in the marketplace and it has been significant from the lows that we experienced before we put this program into place last August to where we stood a couple of weeks ago.
Money has been provided to producers from where it should come from, the marketplace. Those set aside programs put in place by the federal government and by several of the provinces have created an increased price that has provided new revenue and important revenue from the marketplace to producers. That is a fact. It is a reality and the industry will be the first to say that it is a program that has worked well and one that I believe is a transition measure that needs to be continued.
The next area that we need to work on is to continue and build upon the transition program that we put in place in September 2004. What that attempts to do, and I know it is very difficult for minds across the way to grasp this, is to reposition the industry so that it can be profitable with or without a border opening. Again, something very much asked for by the industry, seen by the industry in terms of what we did, and very much accepted by the industry as the appropriate thing to do.
When it comes to judging the appropriateness of the programs or the effectiveness of the programs, I intend to listen very carefully to what the industry has to say and to act on its recommendations. It is what we have done in the past and it will be something that we will continue to do as we move forward.
There are two important messages I wanted to send and clearly that is one of them, that this government stands behind our producers. There is a second message that needs to be sent. I know some hon. members across the way have sent this message as well and it is an important one to send. I am going to relate it to some of the comments made by some U.S. senators, not by all U.S. senators. There were senators on both sides of the debate. The vote almost split right down the middle. Some senators made some comments that Canada's regulatory regime was not effective and did not warrant classifying Canada as a minimum risk region.
Those comments were simply wrong. They were inaccurate. They were based on wrong information. They were inappropriate. They provided a message that was simply not so and after seeing such a debate in the U.S. senate, that it is absolutely appropriate here in the Canadian House of Commons to respond to those U.S. senators and simply say to them they were wrong. The science indicates they were wrong and the situation is dramatically different from the one that they painted in the U.S. senate. I want to make that comment clear and unequivocal.
If we look at the reality, the systems we have in Canada and the United States are very similar. In fact our regulatory regimes and the measures that we have taken are almost identical. The exposure which brought BSE into the North American herd took place on both sides of the border. When we take the fact that cattle had moved freely for a long period of time after that exposure between both of those countries, the criticism that they would make of Canada is a criticism that they would have to make of the United States. Quite frankly, the rest of the world is listening, including markets like Japan, and they are simply wrong in trying to paint a picture that is not reality.
We have a very strong regulatory system in Canada. A point that needs to be made, and I would suspect that all members agree with this, is that animal health is protected by a regulatory regime and human health is protected by a regulatory regime. We have a safe beef and cattle supply in Canada. It is safe for Canadians and it is safe for consumers around the world, and that message needs to go forth loud and clear because it is the truth, it is the reality.
As a country, we have been very open and transparent. We have not tried to hide in any way what we do. After the incidents of late December and early January, as the minister, I invited anybody from every country to come to Canada to observe what we did in terms of our feed ban. The Americans did come. They did an independent review of our feed ban. They worked very carefully with our industry as they did that review. They issued a report which said clearly that our feed ban was an effective feed ban, one that worked and ensured animal health and human health. That is not our regulatory regime speaking, although we say that. The Americans, through an independent review, have said that about Canada. I think the U.S. senators in their debate should have listened to that.
Our system is strong because of the types of measures we have taken. In the early nineties, once the discovery had taken place, we put in place strong import regulations from affected countries. In 1997 we put in place a ruminant to ruminant feed ban. That is considered the appropriate and best way to ensure there will be a decline and an eventual elimination of the low level of BSE which may be contained in the Canadian herd.
In 2001 we put in a cattle identification system. We enhanced that later in 2004. As a country, we are the best in the world through the identification system we are building. It is a system that will give us a competitive marketing advantage in addition to the animal health issues with which it can deal.
In 2003 there was a decision to remove all SRM from the human food chain. That is the gold standard around the world as the accepted manner to protect human health, and Canada follows that step. Just last year we indicated that we would put in place an additional measure of removing all SRM from all animal feed, and that too is an appropriate way of ensuring that the level of BSE declines and goes out of the herd.
Unlike what some U.S. senators said, clearly we have a strong regulatory system in Canada, a system that keeps animal health and human health safe. That is absolutely critical for our Canadian consumers and for our producers. Our producers can and have travelled the world making a very clear and important statement that we have a safe beef and cattle supply.
Our rules are sound and they are based on science. They are recognized clearly by the Americans and others for what they are.
There are other issues, and I want to talk briefly about some of the things we need to do.
I have mentioned the repositioning strategy. I believe we need to build on that strategy.
We have had much discussion about capacity and we have talked about that in a number of different ways. We have seen a 20% increase in capacity. There are plans on line to talk about going to a 30% increase, but it is more than just reaching certain macro numbers. It also will be important that we develop slaughter capacity on a regional basis to ensure we have slaughter capacity in the appropriate way across the country. As well, we need to ensure that the slaughter capacity is available for the different types of animals. We not only need this for the cattle side for older animals as well as younger animals, but we have to deal with slaughter capacity for other ruminants as well. As one of the members has mentioned, we tend to talk about this in terms of cattle, but there are also other ruminants. We need to deal with them also because they are having difficulty in this respect.
Specifically, we saw two smaller new plants open up. Assistance has been provided to those. As we move forward, there have been many suggestions on how we can make our program for helping slaughter capacity more effective. We have listened very attentively to those comments, and I want to thank members who have provided a number of suggestions on how we can do that.
We need to continue to deal with the issue of developing new markets. The Deputy Prime Minister talked about a number of successes in developing those. It is important for us to continue that kind of success.
I have had an opportunity to travel personally to a number of potential new markets. We need to continue to do our work in that respect. The two things have to go hand in hand. It is important that we process more of our own product in Canada, but we also need to ensure that we have new international and additional international markets to sell it into. We are determined to ensure we do both those things because they are both important.
It has also mentioned by some honour members, and I agree with them, that we have to deal with the issue of the size of a herd and with the age of a herd. As we move forward, it will be absolutely critical that we deal with those two issues. We intend to work very closely with all parts of the industry to deal with those specific issues.
I mentioned earlier that we needed to deal with the other ruminant sectors that have been impacted dramatically by the border closure.
I am quite pleased that we are having this emergency debate today. It gives me an opportunity to make those two very important points, and I just will wrap up by reiterating them.
First, the Government of Canada fully stands behind the industry. We have been there since May 2003. We have invested a substantial amount of resources and we will continue to do that. Second, we have a strong regulatory system in Canada that protects both animal health and human health and we have the best product in the world for consumers, not just in Canada, not just for the United States, but for all the globe.
