Charlie Angus

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was not at the meeting when the minister was in a neighbouring riding, but all my farmers were in New Liskeard. Of course there was enthusiasm. Farmers wanted to believe this would work. I wanted to be as enthusiastic with them when I went back. I told them that a lot of things were on the table.

The problem with the CAIS program is that if farmers hold back their inventory, that completely changes their reference margins and so they are penalized. The vast majority of the most affected farmers could not sell. There is a major discrepancy in how the CAIS program values what is considered the inventory and costs, and how producers actually face costs.

At this point, the CAIS program cannot respond to the beef crisis. We are in desperate straits. If this were a year ago, we could redesign a whole program. At this point, we need to be looking at giving farmers the debt relief they need. I support the idea of $200 a head for a set aside. I support those motions. However, in terms of what farmers have suffered and in terms of their immediate losses, the CAIS program has not delivered.

How would I restructure it? We are going to have to look at farmers' overall debt and find a way to target what they should have made and respond. We need to have people answering the phones when farmers get their letters of rejection. There is nobody in Ontario to deal with this, not as far as I can tell. If there were staff somewhere out there to deal with these emergency cases and emergency rejections, maybe the program would begin to work. Right now, the only things going out to communities are rejection letters.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. We have been hearing amazing press communiqués about this fantastic package. Like the hon. member, when I phone home, I cannot find anybody who has benefited from this package.

I have been dealing with the minister's staff on cases and we have had no response. There is no response because the CAIS program will continue on as a program for which it was originally set out. I finally pushed one of the CAIS officials who said to me that it was not designed as disaster relief. If it was not designed as disaster relief, then why is it being applied to the biggest single disaster in Canadian agricultural history?

Every farmer who we know who has suffered a major loss from BSE, who has seen a major downturn in inventory, is being told they do not qualify for CAIS, yet they have put money into it. If these great moneys have gone out, I have not seen where they have gone nor has the hon. member. Therefore, all I can assume is what we have heard in the House since September 10 is the big whopper.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak about the families of northern Ontario, particularly families across rural Canada. As we know, these families are living through the worst economic crisis in Canadian history, much worse than the dust bowl because it only hit one region of the country.

As I always do, I prepared for this speech by phoning home. I spoke with producers who I had not had a chance to talk to in a week or two to see if there had been any changes. What I heard was a very depressing and damning indictment of the September 10 BSE package. Perhaps the clearest response I got was from the wife of a cattle rancher, who I phone often. She said, “I don't think my husband is going to phone you back this time. He says all we hear is talk and nothing is changing”.

I spoke to another farm woman and asked if she could give me an update on what kind of CAIS program money was going into the region. She said four words, “Zero, zero, zero, zero”. There was none. It had not come into the region. The only thing people were receiving from CAIS were rejection letters.

Thinking maybe she was wrong, I phoned another woman, who is very connected in my region of Timmins—James Bay. She said that she had not met a single family in the region, who had applied under CAIS program, who had received anything more than a rejection letter. Yet day after day in the House the minister stands and spins a lot of great numbers about how great the CAIS program has been. Unfortunately, farm families cannot feed their cattle or their children on sound bytes. The CAIS program is not disaster relief. It is simply a disaster.

We have a situation now where farmers who have been forced to hold back cattle or who have been unable to pay for new cattle because of the financial losses they took in 2003 now have been ruled ineligible for CAIS because there has been a change in their inventory.

One producer told me that the CAIS officials told him that because his inventory in 2003 was so markedly different, they would have to affect his reference margins for the last five years. He took his hit from BSE, and what does CAIS have to offer? Zero, zero, zero, zero.

I have talked with dairy producers who have put up $35,000 to be in the program and they are ineligible for anything. In fact, the word among the dairy producers who I know is stay away from CAIS.

It has been nearly two months since I challenged the minister to meet first-hand with the Algoma cattle farmers who came the night of our emergency debate. I commend the minister for stepping out and meeting with them. At that time, there was a lot of talk about how we would make this work. In that time, they have heard nothing back. In fact, I just phoned Algoma this morning. Ten of the eleven farmers who were involved had not even received letters from CAIS. They know what they will get when it comes: more rejections.

For almost two months, I phoned the minister's office to speak with him, or with his staff or with CAIS program representatives with regard to a producer who had received a letter of rejection from CAIS. The bank is moving in on him now. After weeks of calling, we were finally told by the so-called MP's hotline that they were having logistical problems; logistical problems meaning that they do not have any staff to deal with the massive volume of rejection letters. In the last correspondence we received, we were told they would get to this file “as soon as we can”. We are talking about third and fourth generation farm families who are going under.

In terms of the set aside program that is being offered, I find it shocking that our buffalo ranchers are not eligible. We know the buffalo market is up to 240,000 head, most of it based in western Canada. They are not eligible for this program, yet they have taken serious hits from the border closing.

We are talking about trying to build our export markets overseas. Meanwhile, we are stuck with 240,000 head of bison, most of them in western Canada, and ranchers cannot even get their markets into eastern Canada. While we are talking about foreign markets, where are the incentive programs and the work to help restore the buffalo economy by getting sales into eastern Canada?

We have been talking a lot about slaughter capacity. I have heard the minister use the phrase “market distortion”. The only market distortion I see in terms of slaughter capacity is the market distortion that has been created by the giant packers. The money they are paying out is a disgrace.

We talk about loan guarantees. Loan guarantees will not build a plant because we are not in normal market times. Loan loss guarantees will not help the dairy producers who get 16¢ a pound for cull cows. They will not help the farm families who now have been told that they cannot ship to Levinoff. The packer is closing its plant rather than agreeing to a modest floor price. We have no action from the government on this issue.

One giant packer has made a move which is a major threat for cull producers across Canada, and we have heard nothing from the government. We have asked for direct action, but we are not getting it. Excuse me, the government has taken decisive action in one area. It shut down the plant in North Bay which dealt with cull and other cows that came out of northwestern Quebec. It shut that plant down to Quebec farmers.

We are in the middle of the greatest agricultural crisis in Canadian history and the CFIA is holding to the letter of the law. How do we tell that to the farmers in Abitibi—Témiscamingue? I know my colleague asked the question earlier. He did not get an answer and I doubt that I will get one either. The government is taking no efforts to stand up to the giant packers, which are squeezing our producers. The only action that has been taken is to shut down small regional plants that try to intervene to help the backlog, interprovincially.

I have tried to figure out why we have had such a small movement on implementation of these programs. Farmers I talk to say that they do not know where the programs are. They have not seen any money. It seems as though we have been stalling and delaying. I am very pleased the Bloc has brought forward its motion because it raises the issue of why we have seen so little concrete results on the ground.

If I were to look at this cynically, I would say that it would be in the interests of the government to gamble that the border would reopen, that we could delay these programs a little longer until they did, that Canadians would think the matter was settled and that it would just write-off that $5 billion loss to our farm families across the country.

We have heard a lot of talk in the House that there is a plan for dairy, but I have not seen it. We had a $200 million export business in breeding that has gone. If things do not change soon, we will lose that forever. We talk about the kind of money needed to support dairy. On paper, a dairy farmer might be worth $200,000, $150,000 or $400,000, but that money is continually flowing through. If he has to hold back inventory and if he does not get money for the cull cows, that is money that will not go to make payments. If payments are not made, the bankers will start to move. We are seeing the bankers moving on different operations now.

When we talk about emergency measures, one of the most important emergency measures we will have to see, given the absolute failure of CAIS, is debt and tax relief for the farmers who have to get out of the industry because they cannot hold on any longer. We know that the soonest these producers will see any realizable money is September of next year. Considering the loses they have taken, that is not good enough.

Another farmer gave me a very straightforward analysis of this crisis and the larger crisis of rural Canada. He told me that in 1972 the price of bread was 39¢, and there was 4¢ of wheat in the bread. Today, the price is $1.39 and he still only gets 4¢ for wheat on each loaf of bread. He said that his costs had gone up 400%. He does not have any other options, except he has a CAIS letter of rejection to take to the bank. That is four generations of equity gone in 16 months.

We can say that we have a long term and a medium term solution, but really we do not have any solution on the ground. It is not going to the producers. If the hon. minister wants to go to northern Ontario with me or wants to go anywhere else, we can knock on doors of farm families and see how CAIS is working for them. If I heard positive CAIS stories, believe me, I would stand up in the House and say it. I want to send a positive message because our farmers need to hear that,. However, they have not heard anything positive, and I cannot come in here and lie.

I invite the minister to come with me. Wherever the hon. minister wants to go, I will go. I will knock on whatever door the hon. minister tells me to knock on to meet producers who have received CAIS payments. I have not met any yet.

I will close with a little story. I was up in the great town of Cochrane, Ontario, which is in my riding. It used to be one of the largest agricultural regions in northern Ontario. Most of that agriculture is gone, except for beef. I was at the fall fair. Farmers told me that in the summer they had their farmers' markets, and all the tourists come to visit. However, there are no farmers at those markets anymore. They now sell the little Phentex booties and some other knick-knacks. A woman tourist said that she had come to farmers' market, but there were no farmers. She asked where they were, and one women said that people did not want farmers, so there were none.

We are here today to debate this. We have had more emergency debates on agriculture since 1999 than on any other single issue, and things continue to get worse. I do not want to hear other numbers from the minister. I want to know where the CAIS program dollars are going and who is receiving them.

[Agriculture, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is another supersized helping of a big whopper from the government.

The prices for cull cows are not going up, and the CAIS program designed to help this has been an absolute disaster. I have been phoning the minister's office, trying to get help for a number of farmers who are going under. Guess what? It does not even have staff in place to deal with them.

Given the absolute failure of this program, why will the government not put in immediate money for debt and tax relief for the farmers who are going under?

[Agriculture, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, George Bush came and went, and the border is still closed to Canadian beef. Meanwhile Canadian farmers are having to feed their cattle for another long winter.

If cull cattle could talk, they would tell us that they were more concerned about dying of old age than ever getting mad cow. Even if the border does open some day, we know that cull cattle will not be crossing stateside.

Why will the government not admit that it has no plan in place, practically, to deal with the immediate crisis in cull cows?

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak to the motion brought forth by the hon. member, who I like to say sits up here in the cheap seats with us. I have seen his commitment and passion for this issue. To see it brought forth to the floor so quickly is a real testament to the House.

It is an honour to be in Canada, being the grandchild of immigrants. My grandmother was a mining widow in Timmins and we spent our summers in the graveyard because that is where the widows went. They were all immigrant women. I grew up with an understanding of Canadian history that was not in the books because we spent our days in the graveyard, big long fields of the dead, and old women would walk among the graves.

Row after row were Ukrainian and Yugoslavian names. The men were all dead by the age of 41. That was a fact of life in the mining camps of Timmins, Kirkland Lake and Sudbury. They died of silicosis. In every one of those families, their children ended up becoming schoolteachers, doctors or lawyers because the first generation that came here, who lived hard and died hard in very difficult conditions, knew that their children could have a better life. The families that I know who came from that are what made Canada what it is today. It is a real testament to what we are looking at in terms of the situation in Ukraine.

As a new member, I am new at so many things. One of the very first things I found myself dealing with was the issue of interns. It happened very soon after I got in my office. There was a young woman from Ukraine who came to work for us who could hardly speak English on her first day. I remember when I first met her, how committed those young people from Ukraine were on this trip. They followed us around to what sometimes seemed like long and pointless meetings.

They would sit up in the gallery and watch us. Sometimes we are not the most dignified place, and sometimes I wonder what exactly we accomplish here, but I realized that they believed. They believed that this House could teach them something to bring back with them. They believed that this parliamentary system worked. They believed perhaps more than a lot of our own young people.

Night after night when I would come back to the office, I would hear about what was happening in Ukraine because of the concerns they had about the democratic elections, and whether they were going to be able to reproduce it there. In our business here we are so busy we do not have a chance to sit and talk. I remember the interns talking again and again about this upcoming election. I think of them now because they are back in Ukraine. What are they taking from the experience they saw here?

There are days when we sit here in the House, four parties. We have one party that is dedicated to breaking up the country. We have at least four parties that have sometimes very different views on where we should be going. There are days when we are not the most dignified and there are days the insults are hurled, but this is a place where the whole country can trust that we can come and debate. Sometimes that might not seem like a great amount, but it is a fundamental of human society. We have a forum where we can come despite our political differences and work together.

What we are called to do at a moment like this is to witness. We are at a crucial moment in history. The Ukrainian community is looking for support around the world. They are looking, at a time of great crisis, for democracies like Canada to stand with them. I feel very proud to stand in the House and see the unanimity that exists between all parties on this issue because it does not matter what our particular views are on spending, saving or tax cuts. We are agreed on the right to free and open debate. It is a fundamental of our society and it is a fundamental of the human condition.

I am very honoured to be part of a system that respects that. We must do everything we can as a Parliament. We must make it as clear as we can on the international stage that we support the people of Ukraine for a free and democratic society. That is their right; that is what they voted for. That is what they are looking for and we must stand with them.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the premise that is being put forth here is where it will end.

The hon. member has many more years of experience as a legislator than I do. If we look at the concept of voluntarily removing urea formaldehyde, of allowing people the choice whether or not they want to use CFCs and aerosol spray cans and perhaps the idea that people should be able to choose whether or not they will continue to use leaded gasoline, we made decisions as legislators throughout the past. I would ask the hon. member, did he see some terrifying decrease in personal freedoms as a result of those decisions?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, those are very good points, although I am not sure who made the comment about saturated fats being the same as trans fats in terms of impact. There is a 4 to 10 times greater impact from trans fats.

In terms of the agriculture industry, I share the hon. member's concern. I am very concerned about where we are going to go with canola because it is a Canadian success story. A lot of our agriculture producers are seeing great opportunities not just in Canada but internationally. That is why I feel that the motion we have on the floor is a good one because we are discussing this issue with the canola producers now and they are seeing ways of moving forward with this.

That is how we have to do this. We cannot just say that we are not going to look at that and jump without looking. We have to work with our agriculture producers.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments spoke to where we are going with this motion. It was not the NDP that deemed trans fatty acids dangerous to health. It was the scientific community of North America, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the World Health Organization.

As legislators, we recognize that this is a serious issue. The job of lawmakers is to decide at what point to intervene and at what point not to. Surely we all agree about intervening when it comes to increasing laws against drunk driving or speeding. I like to drive fast, but I drive at the speed limit. It is important to have seat belt laws, but some people say that it is an infringement on choice. Many times I have left my driveway only to stop, put my seat belt on, and start again because legislators have said it is important.

There are many isolated reserves in the area I come from that do not have grocery stores or fresh food. Children are being raised on trans fatty foods. They have a high rate of diabetes. This is having a big effect right throughout our health system. It is incumbent upon us as legislators to take this forward and discuss it, which is what we are doing today, and take it to a legislative review so that we can see how to bring this forward in the best way possible.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

The hon. member has obviously never had the cooking of my father, otherwise she would refrain from making such comments. In fact, if the hon. member talked to my daughters she could hear the disparaging things they say about me bringing home food in a bag on Fridays, food that has already been cooked. But I digress, and I wish I had not been not thrown off my topic.

What I would like to say, though, is that we are seeing a deskilling throughout our communities. It is a terrible deskilling because children going to school are bringing processed foods with them every day. They are drinking Coke for breakfast. We see it even in rural communities where one would think that the old traditions of the daily meals would stand. Instead what we are seeing is a continual reliance on these kinds of manufactured foods and it is having a devastating health impact. It is affecting our children.

I think it speaks to a major cultural shift, because we think of food as a central part of our culture. It is not just health. It is who we are. It is the history of where we are as a people.

If we look through the Bible we see that meals are the central focus of so many of the important events, from the Passover to the feeding of the 5,000. Where we would be in the western world if the apostles had the last supper in a drive-through at Tim Hortons because they were late trying to get to Jerusalem? We would be left without.

I am saying this in dead seriousness, because on top of the deskilling we are seeing in our culture, we are seeing an increasing speed in our culture, so there is the inability to get home and cook because people are working longer hours or people are away. I know myself, because I pretty much live in my car these days, that when it is my turn to cook I am more inclined to buy something that has been precooked, which is not necessarily a good thing.

What we are seeing is that families do not eat properly. Especially we are seeing that children do not eat properly. I think when we talk about food choice we have to think about children because they are the ones who are being affected. I would like to talk a little about these health effects.

Are you signalling that I am down to one minute? Oh, Mr. Speaker, I was just getting started. I will skip over most of what I had to say here.

I think that the issue of where we are going is very important. I share the concerns of our members across the floor about choice, about how if we bring in this rule does it mean we are going to bring in that rule? I do personally share that concern, because I have a problem wearing a helmet when I ride a bicycle. That is probably why I do not ride bicycles.

But what I do see is that we have had major changes. When we had the discussions about getting rid of lead in gasoline, people said all kinds of jobs would be lost, but we got rid of it. We got rid of CFCs and aerosol sprays and we were better for it. We got rid of red dye number two. There are certain times when as legislators we are called to move forward and say, “Yes, this is in the interests of the general health and this in the interests of our children”.

I think that together we will be able to bring this forward without unduly impacting the industry and agriculture of our districts.