Paul Steckle

[Petitions, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from petitioners who draw to the attention of the House and all Canadians that the Auditor General's report submitted to Parliament on December 3, 2002, determined that the cost of the federal firearms registry for long guns at that time was perceived to have exceeded $1 billion; and a recent administrative review verified that the gun registry would cost another $541 million before it was fully implemented; and the fact that eight provinces, three territories, police associations, police chiefs and police officers across Canada have withdrawn their support of the firearms registry for long guns; and that recent public opinion polls have demonstrated that a majority of Canadian taxpayers support the abolition of the firearms registry.

They therefore call upon Parliament to abolish the national firearms registry for long guns and to redirect those taxes to programs in support of health care and law enforcement.

[Petitions, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions signed by hundreds of people in my riding and in surrounding ridings.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to look at the moral values of our society. They believe that the defence of traditional marriage as the bond between one man and one woman is a serious moral good. They also believe that marriage, as a lasting union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others, cannot and should not be modified by a legislative act or a court of law.

They request that Parliament take whatever action is required to maintain the current definition of marriage in law in perpetuity and to prevent any court from overturning or amending that definition.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I listened very carefully to what my hon. colleague across the way said this evening because I am sure that she is very concerned with the way that this money has passed from government into other people's hands. She has intimated that the money has gone into the wrong hands. For some reason, she believes that some of the money has gone back to feed the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not know how that correlation can be arrived at, but somehow I got that message from her message to us this evening.

I wonder if she could tell us how she feels that this money that we believe we delivered to farmers could have been delivered in a more effective way so that the farmers could have put that money in their pockets. I am also wondering whether she could tell us who she thinks made all this money, given that some of the money has gone into someone's hands. Who are those people and organizations that have this money and could give it to the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, would my colleague be able to comment on what kind of commentary the international review panel had in its deliberations? I think that decision has come out. It is now public. Would she have access to that information? If there is that information, could she divulge it to the House this evening?

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I think my hon. colleague's question is very much in order and very appropriate given the circumstances of the past 24 months or so in this country and the attitudes that have prevailed between the countries both north and south. It is important.

The Prime Minister has taken the initiative already by indicating that there needs to be greater dialogue between not only the leaders but from a committee standpoint. The Americans have an agriculture committee and we have an all party committee. This goes across all party lines. As Canadians we need to identify the kinds of concerns we have because, basically, Canadian farmers are not much different than American farmers and Canadian politicians are not that much different either for that matter.

Sometimes it is pretty hard to separate the science and the politics but I think we need to go beyond all of those things. I do not believe that one cow, either an American cow or a Canadian cow, should cause us to close our borders. In an integrated industry we need transparency and we need identification, and Canada has done very well in doing that. In fact, the Americans are looking at us as the model to follow in terms of how we do that, particularly in the way they did their peer review work.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Madam Chair, as the hon. member well knows, Canada does have commitments within the North American Free Trade Agreement. We have TRQs in terms of quotas that we have to honour, because basically those quotas have been honoured, and the beef industry itself knows that Canada has a commitment to those agreements. It was on the supplementary import side quotas that we basically said that we would close that down. There are no supplementary quotas being honoured or being engaged in at this time.

However the 78,000 tonnes that we normally import, that is an ongoing agreement that we have with the Americans. While we are exporting we are also importing. Canada, because of its diversity in terms of geography, imports a lot of beef, particularly into Ontario, because we do not sustain the appetite of the consuming public in Ontario. We simply do not have the beef in Ontario. We have to rely on the west and on the Americans, and much of the western beef, of course, goes to the United States. It is an integrated market so there is a shifting of meat both north and south and east and west as well. That will continue because those are long standing agreements.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Madam Chair, that is probably the biggest question that our committee will have when we resume our sittings, hopefully in the next two weeks.

Profiteering on the part of packers, given that there is limited competition, that the culled cows are no longer going to the United States and have to be slaughtered here, that there is limited hook space, obviously in a time and a climate when basically we are running short of that kind of beef, and when our processors are saying to us “we may have to ask you to look at supplementary imports, at a time when we have all these cows in the country that need to be slaughtered”, I think that it is pretty disgusting.

It is my hope that when the committee reconvenes we will, as a committee, agree to have the packers, who have not agreed in the past, to appear. If we have to as a committee, and I am sure we had that agreement prior to prorogation, we will subpoena some of those people to the committee, because I do believe there is a story to be told. Obviously those people who have the story to tell from the producers' side cannot tell it for the fear of repercussions.

Therefore, we have to find a way where their message can come to us. Whether we have to use the witness protection act or whatever act we might have to use, we will find ways. We have a pretty ingenious committee and I know we are all diligent in finding some resolution to this.

I cannot accept the Competition Bureau's view that simply going out and gouging in this case, because there are no others in the marketplace, that it is fair ball. It is not fair ball. Our farmers have been gouged and raped, and we have to do something about it. We are the only advocate farmers have left. They themselves cannot go to the table because of the fact that there would be repercussions for them in the industry if they did that.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Madam Chair, that is an issue that has been raised a number of times, both to myself and to the committee.

This is an issue that has been an irritant to the American farmers in terms of them being able to place live cattle into Canada year round. It is an issue that I think the minister is looking into in terms of how we can deal with it. I do understand that the climate that we have in Canada does not allow for those diseases in particular to perpetuate themselves in the winter months because of our cold climate.

It is not particularly an issue that is of great danger to our industry. I expect that somehow, in the next number of months or so, we may have some resolution to that issue, trusting that in some part that may be a way in which we can help the Americans to understand that the border needs to be opened.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I just want to note before I begin that I want to extend my appreciation to the House for its cooperation in allowing this debate to happen this evening.

I am also aware that the Chair is very judicious in its practice of making sure we do not recognize those particularly in the House who perhaps are not at our level but are within the House, so I will be very careful to note that those who might be here will not be recognized by myself.

However, there is a huge audience in Canada watching this debate and some of those people are dairymen. Some of those people are somewhere in this city and perhaps are watching as we speak.

As someone who is engaged in the business of farming for my entire life, I know how important this debate is to primary producers. Through this debate we are sending a signal that this is a national issue that must receive attention at the highest level. No one farmer or sector in the industry should face this challenge alone.

Yesterday I received a media call concerning this debate. The basic question posed was: What do I hope to achieve with this debate? Based upon this question I offer my remarks this evening.

As you well know, Madam Chair, BSE is not just a rural matter. It is a matter affecting every Canadian. Furthermore, BSE is also no just an issue affecting food security, but it is something that has negatively impacted our national economy.

Given this, I would say that this debate is about sharing information.

First, with the Minister of Agriculture, yesterday at the Dairy Farmers of Canada annual policy conference, he again restated his desire to consult with stakeholders and with parliamentarians. I believe that it is our duty to fulfil that request by providing the minister with the facts that we have. The minister will then be equipped to take the commentary into consideration as he works with the Americans, the Japanese, the Europeans and even the Mexicans.

Furthermore, in this debate we must underscore the fact that Canadian beef is safe and of the highest quality. Canadians understand this, and we need to reassure and remind our international partners of this issue.

Second, with Canadians who are not farmers, Canadian farmers have a firsthand understanding of what BSE has done to the industry and subsequently to small town Canada, not just to beef but to the dairy sheep and also to the goat industries. There has been a substantial impact on the pet food industry as well as farm machinery dealers and countless other peripheral segments of our economy.

Canadian beef production is worth about $30 billion annually to our economy. The average Canadian I am told eats about 132 times a year with beef on the plate. There are nearly 15 million beef cattle in Canada, and Canada is the third largest beef and cattle exporter on the planet.

It is for these reasons and more that we must act to save this industry. I firmly believe that non-farming Canadians want to understand the complexities of this topic. Canadians have a long history of rallying to help those in need. Also, Canadians want to help our farmers, and I believe that this debate is a mechanism by which we can inform them of how we might do that.

Third, and perhaps most important, I believe that government can relay a very important message to those who seek to unfairly profit from this disaster. While I can accept that every person is entitled to make a living, I do not accept that someone has the right to make that living on the backs of the underprivileged.

Those are the areas that I would like to touch upon during my remarks this evening. I would hope that when we are finished here tonight our farmers will know that every member of the House, regardless of political affiliation, stands with them and that we will take any and all steps required to put this crisis behind us as soon as possible.

Prior to prorogation, I served as the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture. The committee worked tirelessly on all sides of the table to explore this issue and provide recommendations to the government on how to best address this BSE crisis.

While I assume that most members of the House have seen the report, because the recommendations were both instructive and unanimously supported by all parties, I am now going to read a number of them in part at least into the record so that it is there for the record.

The committee recommends that specific risk materials are not included in animal feed. This must be enforced and audited for compliance.

The committee recommends that the government work with the CFIA, the industry and provinces to enhance the existing Canadian cattle identification program by establishing a comprehensive and cost effective national traceability system.

The committee recommends the establishment of a task force that would focus specifically on the trade issues involved in the restoration of export markets for livestock and related meat products.

In order to ensure that increased costs resulting from changes made to inspection, rendering practices and traceability systems are not borne solely by producers, the committee recommends that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food increase the budget of the CFIA. Furthermore, the committee recommends that the minister name an auditor to ensure that additional costs be kept to a minimum and shared equitably among all stakeholders in the livestock industry.

The committee recommends a compensation plan for a culling program, which would include dairy cull cows, that should be conducted according to an attrition rate that would allow the industry to better balance supply and demand. Since such a program will require the development of meat products with greater value added, the committee recommends that the government support the industry through a special assistance fund for the development of new market opportunities.

The committee recommends that the Competition Bureau conduct an investigation into the price of beef at the processing and retail levels.

Given my first purpose for asking for this debate tonight, I would respectfully remind the minister that these recommendations are the product of considerable national consultation.

On the second point, as a farmer and as an MP representing a riding in which agriculture is the primary industry, I would like to thank all Canadians. It should be pointed out that Canada is the first nation in history to see an increase in domestic consumption of beef following a case of BSE. Madam Chair, through you to all Canadians, we thank you.

I have saved my most salient point for last, and that is unfair profiteering. I must say that the packing houses have been subjected to the vast majority of this criticism. Why, people might ask. I will tell them why.

In May of last year, just prior to the identification of the single Canadian case of BSE, according to market reports, live steers were averaging between $1.05 and $1.12; Holstein steers were selling somewhere between 90¢ and 95¢ and cows at 50¢ to 60¢. Today, one year later, relative to live prices, 78¢ is now being paid for steers, Holstein steers are at 25¢ and cows are 18¢ to 23¢. This is only after some stabilization in the market has occurred. The prices had even been lower.

Despite the substantial drop in prices paid to farmers, the price to consumers does not seem to be going down accordingly. Earlier today I consulted with a grocer in my riding who told me that today he is selling strip loin for $10.99 per pound and top sirloin for $6.99 a pound. I asked him to compare the price that he pays for beef today to what he was paying prior to the BSE discovery and he told me that there was no measurable difference.

Now I am no economist but this seems suspicious. Despite the fact that farmers are receiving 40% to 60% less today than they were a year ago, consumers are paying the same amount.

Some might attempt to distort the issue by saying that the cost of disposing of bones, blood and fat has increased, hence adding to the consumer cost. I spoke to a butcher in my riding who told me that, while his disposal costs have indeed increased, they could not begin to justify maintaining the pre-BSE retail prices of beef given the lower price being paid to farmers.

With this in mind, I would direct the House's attention to the committee's recommendation calling for the Competition Bureau to investigate this matter. It should be noted that a letter was sent to the bureau. However the committee's concerns on behalf of farmers were summarily dismissed.

Specifically, the acting commissioner of competition stated that the Competition Act did not provide the bureau with the authority to look into this matter. He then stated that while price fixing is illegal, unconscionable profiteering is not in and of itself contrary to the act.

Statistics are showing that in 2002 the average Canadian ate 48.3 pounds of beef. I would suggest that even I cannot eat that much bull. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food could remind the bureau that it exists to prevent the development of an anti-competitive marketplace. Failing that, perhaps we should address this issue legislatively via amendments to the Competition Act.

I have much more I want to say but I see my time is running out. As my final point I want to thank the committee. Many of the members who worked on this issue are here this evening. I also thank my colleagues in the House, especially the vice-chairs of our committee. Our cooperative relationship is not lost on those we work to serve. I look forward to resuming our work in the near future.

[Request for Emergency Debate, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as you will note, and as you will probably comment in a few moments, during the recess period I made it known to you and to others that I would encourage an emergency debate on the seriousness of the BSE issue, the mad cow disease issue.

I am trusting you will rule favourably that we will, at the earliest time convenient to this House, find it possible to be able to debate that on all sides of this House, because this is an issue that affects all Canadians and primarily our cattle producers in this country.