Diane Finley

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour tonight of splitting my time with the member for Medicine Hat.

As the agriculture and agrifood critic for the official opposition, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and vice-chair of the agriculture committee, for initiating this urgently needed debate on the ongoing BSE crisis in Canada.

It is vital that this debate take place because it is important that all Canadians, including those in urban centres, fully appreciate the absolutely dire situation that the Canadian cattle and other ruminant industries are facing at this time.

Our producers have suffered greatly at the hands of free-trading mercenaries south of the border. They have suffered at the hands of protectionist politicians. They have suffered at the hands of this Liberal government, which has mismanaged this agricultural crisis, one of the worst in Canadian history.

Before I go on, I would like to put this debate in a historical context. It has now been 657 days since the U.S. border was unjustly closed to Canadian cattle and other ruminants. Throughout this time, our producers have endured untold personal and financial suffering.

It is estimated that our farmers have already lost well over $7 billion. Billions more are likely to follow. The ripple effect of these losses has significantly affected the trucking industry, the auction marts, equipment dealers and many other industries that do business with cattle producers.

Rural municipalities are suffering from decreased tax revenues. In fact, many farmers and affected businesses have been unable to pay their municipal taxes.

To highlight the seriousness of this situation, 79 municipalities in western Canada have declared their regions an economic disaster zone. As of December 3, 2004, there were 41 municipalities in Alberta, 26 in Manitoba and 12 in Saskatchewan that had declared their regions an economic disaster zone as a result of BSE.

In this context, the largest calf crop in history occurred in the spring of 2004. During this time 4.7 million calves were born in Canada. On top of all this, after countless Liberal assurances that the border would reopen, assurances from both this minister and the previous minister, Canadian cattle and other ruminant producers have once again had their hopes dashed.

Two recent U.S. court decisions and a vote in the U.S. Senate have delivered further blows to our already beleaguered livestock industry. To add insult to injury, today we have heard allegations that members of the protectionist group R-CALF are currently paying bargain basement prices for Canadian cattle off our very own feedlots.

Yes, the same free trade mercenaries who argue that Canadian cattle are unsafe to eat and that the apocalypse will occur if ever Canadian cattle were to cross the 49th parallel, are the same ones who are allegedly purchasing Canadian cattle right off our feedlots. If this is true it is beyond reprehensible, as they are only taking advantage of lower prices that they themselves created.

Our farmers are reaching the breaking point. They are losing their hope, their farms and their livelihoods.

How has the government responded to the BSE crisis? Let us take a closer look.

The CAIS program is not working, the loan loss reserve program does not really exist and the Liberal government continues to insist that the Americans are our friends in this crisis although it continues to find ways to insult them and disrespect them.

The Liberal solution of using the CAIS program to deliver emergency aid to cash-strapped producers suffering from the BSE crisis has been a colossal failure. Simply combining an income stabilization program with a disaster relief program is in itself a recipe for disaster.

That is why as a short term solution we are calling on the Liberal government to immediately dip into its massive surpluses to help Canadian farm families in need, more in need now than they have ever been.

We demand that the government immediately use the budget's contingency funds to help our cattle and livestock farmers. Further, we are calling on the government to provide tax deferrals on 2004 income for producers devastated by the BSE crisis.

With regard to slaughter capacity, there are currently 17 million head of cattle in Canada. Although slaughter capacity has increased slightly to approximately 85,000 a week, the number of cattle in Canada still significantly exceeds our current slaughter capacity. This massive surplus of cattle continues to result in depressed cattle prices and therefore production costs continue to significantly exceed market prices. No one can make a living that way.

The Liberal loan loss reserve program announced last September was supposed to help stimulate additional slaughter capacity in this country. In spite of this agriculture minister's often bragged about program, slaughter capacity has not increased one iota as a result of the loan loss reserve program.

We know this because we have recently learned that the program is a sham. It does not really exist. The fact that this loan loss reserve program does not exist is an insult to livestock producers so desperately impacted by the BSE crisis. To add insult to injury, the Liberals announced in the budget that $17 million is to be redirected from previous BSE commitments to this non-existent program. The minister is simply offering would-be slaughterhouse investors the sleeves off his vest.

Today in question period I noted that the Minister of Agriculture made an announcement that a loan loss reserve agreement had in fact been reached with the Farm Credit corporation. That is good, but it took six months to get that agreement. Has an agreement been reached with the banks yet? Not at all, but then we have only been waiting six months. Desperately needed are real incentives to increase slaughter capacity for investment and processing plants now.

We have been calling on the Liberal government to provide tax incentives for investment in co-operatives. Providing tax relief on the initial investment in a co-op would stimulate increased slaughterhouse investment and promote a made in Canada solution to the BSE crisis, which is something we have all been looking for. In addition, the government must ensure direct loan underwriting for the development of increased slaughter capacity.

With regard to the impact of the BSE crisis on other ruminant producers, I have said this before and I will say it again, why has this government failed to take any real action in addressing these particular producers' needs? Recently we learned that all four western provinces have developed BSE programs to compensate producers of elk, deer, bison, sheep and goats. Other ruminant, cervid and camelid producers who have suffered unjustly during this crisis have demanded and continued to demand action from the government. So far their demands have fallen on deaf ears. This is shameful.

We in the Conservative Party have asked and continue to ask the agriculture minister to ante up and kick in the federal portion of this funding for other ruminant programs, ones already committed to by the western provinces. Furthermore, as a result of the massive surplus of cattle in the Canadian herd, we believe that a federal cull program is necessary now more than ever.

In light of the continued closure of the U.S. border to Canadian live cattle, a cull program is no longer just an option but a necessity. The cull program should be targeted to animals born before the 1997 feed ban. The meat from these animals should whenever possible be used for human or animal feed as appropriate.

A reduction of the national herd with compensation to farmers would serve three purposes. First, it would provide cash immediately to the farmers. Second, it would relieve farmers of the burden of feeding their cattle. Third, it would decrease the herd size so that market prices could be allowed to rise naturally. It is worth noting that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is supportive of a cull animal program.

I wish to close by saying that our farmers are fed up with the government's empty rhetoric and hollow promises. I and all of my colleagues in the Conservative Party of Canada implore the agriculture minister to secure real relief from the contingency fund for our producers in their time of need.

No one is arguing the safety of our beef. We know it is the best in the world. What we are arguing for is direct support for our farmers and producers. They need it. They deserve it.

[Agriculture, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta and Manitoba today announced $40 million in additional funds to encourage increased slaughter capacity. The Conservative Party called upon the government to provide incentives for growth by providing incentives for co-op investment. There was nothing in the budget.

When will the Liberals provide real incentives for investment instead of offering the sleeves off their vests?

[Agriculture, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the border is still closed to Canadian cattle. It is urgent that we increase slaughter capacity in Canada. Despite the promise made by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food last September, there is still no program. Even more insulting for producers, the Liberals have just promised more funds for this phantom program.

Why is the minister continuing to insult our producers by making promises he does not keep?

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think I need to set the record straight. There has been a lot of speculation and a lot of misquoting in the media recently about the Conservative position and the leader's position. The position is that we will not be supporting this budget but we do not believe that the people of Canada want an election at this point in time.

There are measures in the budget that we have asked for, like dropping the CAIS cash deposit requirement. This is progress. To throw that away would not be a good thing. It would not be responsible government by the opposition.

I thought that I had made it very clear in my closing comments, but since the member is asking what my position will be, let me say as the opposition critic for agriculture and agrifood and on behalf of the farmers and the communities in my riding that depend on farmers, I will not be supporting this budget.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government officials spent a full day saying they would not get rid of the CAIS cash deposit requirement, despite the pleas of hundreds of thousands of farmers across this country. I am delighted that this was included in the budget of yesterday. Finally the government is responding to the motion that was passed by the House by an overwhelming majority.

As to why it was not mentioned in the budget, maybe publicly the government does not want to be seen supporting agriculture. Maybe it does not want its Jekyll and Hyde situation to be seen. That is all right as long as it actually delivers on this promise to get rid of the deposit requirement and it is not just weasel words in the budget. If the government will actually remove it in a timely manner before the March 31 deadline, I would sincerely thank it as would hundreds of thousands of farmers across this country.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his support and kind words, and I have to echo his sentiments.

For a very long time now, we have seen a blatant disregard for our rural communities, particularly the agricultural sector in this country. I come from an agricultural community and we are losing our farms. We are losing the future farmers to the cities because farming is just not viable for them anymore. Their families cannot make a living.

The sad part is that, while those future farmers are leaving, we have no infrastructure in our area to attract jobs that will replace the farm jobs that are being lost. In this budget, every part of this country except southern Ontario, where my farmers are and from where our future farmers are leaving, is going to be getting economic development funds except our region. If that is not forcing our people into the cities, I do not know what is. It is a pretty blatant strategy and I for one will not tolerate it.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the agriculture and agrifood critic for the official opposition, I am honoured to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of producers and farm families across the country, and to respond to the government's 2005 budget.

I am frankly quite dismayed at the continued lack of respect and attention that agricultural producers and hard-working families have received in the 2005 budget. Farmers will get no more cash in their pockets this year from the budget's agricultural programs, or should I say the lack thereof.

Despite Agriculture Canada's forecasts of another year of negative total net income, there are no additional funds for producer income support this year. The $26 million a year in cash advances for livestock producers that was promised is a mere drop in the ocean and it will not even kick in until next year if at all.

The budget has almost $100 million in recycled and reannounced promises. What is even worse is that the money is not even for farmers but for industry. This is money that was not delivered as promised. It is recycled. It is redirected, to use the government's own words. The $80 million of it will now go to managing the removal of specified risk materials and to handling those issues, and $17 million will go to the fabled loan loss reserve program.

I have to wonder which of the government's September promises are not being kept and at whose expense. To highlight the government's lip service to the agricultural community we have recently learned that the agriculture minister's often bragged about $66 million loan loss reserve program is a sham. It does not exist.

The program announced on September 10 of last year was supposed to help stimulate additional slaughterhouse capacity in the country, slaughter capacity that is most desperately needed.

Members of the Canadian Bankers Association testified before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food this week that for all intents and purposes the program does not exist. The admission that the program is non-existent is frankly stunning. It is also an insult to livestock producers so desperately impacted by the BSE crisis.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance announced that $17 million is to be redirected to this non-existent program. The minister is simply offering would-be slaughterhouse investors the sleeves off his vest.

It should be noted that this unprecedented situation has devastated not only cattle farmers but other livestock producers as well. In the absence of any real action from the federal government, all four western provinces have developed a BSE program to compensate producers of elk, deer, bison, sheep and goats.

Other ruminant and cervid producers left high and dry by the minister have demanded and continue to demand action from the government. The 2005 budget would have been an ideal opportunity for the government to show that it has heard the calls of the other ruminant producers. However, their calls once again have fallen on deaf years.

On this occasion, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the agriculture minister this question. When will he ante up and kick in the federal portion of funding for these other ruminant programs already committed to by the western provinces?

With regard to the Canadian agricultural income stabilization or CAIS program, the Liberals seem to be taking a Jekyll and Hyde approach. Just two weeks ago the Liberals voted against our motion to drop the CAIS cash deposit requirement.

The member for Winnipeg South voted against it, as did the Prime Minister, the finance minister, the agriculture minister and his parliamentary secretary. Now in a complete about face they say that they want to get rid of it.

It was the Conservative Party that brought forward the motion. It was the Conservative Party that was pushing for it. The Liberals are now trying to take credit for something that they actually voted against just two weeks ago. We hope they mean that they want to get rid of it this time and we hope, for the sake of our farmers, that they will do something about it and do it soon.

The same day they voted against removing the cash deposit requirement, the same Liberals voted against honouring the commitment they had already made to our agricultural producers. So pardon me if I cynically say that I will believe it when I see it. After all, the Liberals committed $71 million in relief to the tobacco farmers of my area, guaranteed to be delivered by October last year. So far they have failed to honour this commitment as well, so my cynicism is well learned.

With regard to total new funding for agriculture, the budget offers a paltry $130 million. This new money is not for producers either; it is for bureaucrats and consultants. It will not give any farmer the money that many desperately need just to plant this spring. This is shameful. At a time when farmers' realized net income is at an all time low, the government is sending a clear message to producers right across this country that farmers do not matter to this Liberal government. The minister himself confirmed this earlier today when he said that he does not always get what he wants at the cabinet table.

What was desperately needed in the budget was: tax deferrals on 2004 income for producers hit by drought, crashing commodity prices and BSE; tax incentives to increase domestic beef and ruminant slaughter capacity; and the provision of direct loan underwriting for the development of increased slaughter capacity, not to mention crop insurance improvements.

In terms of providing real relief for hardworking families, the steps taken by the Liberals in the budget do not go far enough or occur fast enough to have a significant impact on the well-being of Canadians. The Liberals would rather grow the size of the government than grow the incomes of Canadians. The cost of the bureaucracy has grown 77% since 1997.

Yet, the Liberal tax relief promised in the budget will amount to just $16 this year for low and middle income Canadians. Furthermore, any additional tax relief is back loaded to 2010. This is an outrage. Hard-working families deserve a bigger break than these piddling measures that the Liberal government has promised.

The status quo is not acceptable. With various crisis situations affecting our farmers right across this country at this time, the Canadian agricultural community is in its worst financial position since the years of the Great Depression. Agriculture Canada's own forecast of negative total net income for yet another year confirmed this, but the Liberal budget ignores it. Once again the Liberals seem to be saying that our farmers should just wind down their farms, move into the city, and get real jobs, ones that will allow them to pay more income tax for the Liberal government to squander.

Our farmers deserve more respect than this. Clearly the Liberal government does not value the contributions of hard-working farm families. To put things in context, Ontario corn producers are currently getting less money per tonne for their corn than the city of Toronto is getting per tonne of garbage. That is right, corn is worth more after it has been used than before.

The government must change its priorities. Agriculture is a key economic driver of this country and the security of our food supply depends on farm families who work very hard to provide us with the high quality food that we eat.

Canadians across this country want a safe, secure food supply, and they deserve it. Our farmers want to supply it, but increasingly they are finding it impossible to do so. The government has a responsibility to ensure that farmers receive responsive relief in real time. They do not need phantom funds. They do not need deferred dollars and they do not need the sleeves off of the government's vest.

Farmers across this country need relief and they need it now. The budget has failed to provide it, and for that reason, I will not be supporting it.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a part of Ontario that is a short distance from where the hon. member lives, only about two hours away on the shores of Lake Erie in southern Ontario. It is a very rural riding.

In the budget, funds have been provided for economic development in the west, the far north, northern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. It seems that only southern Ontario does not get this funding.

With our farms disappearing, I am wondering how the member is proposing that we survive without our farms and without development money?

[Agriculture, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what kind of help can Canadian producers expect from a government with a schizophrenic attitude toward the United States? There is no guarantee that the border will be reopened to our cattle. Once again, the Prime Minister is showing his inability to make a decision and stick to it.

Is the Prime Minister deliberately deciding to sacrifice our farmers, or is his government merely incompetent?

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we recognize that the parliamentary secretary has not always been sure where he stands on these issues, and now we have seen it.

I am delighted to hear that both the minister and the parliamentary secretary acknowledge that the CAIS program is not working. This is good news. This is progress. At least they are starting to look at it. My concern is that they are going to look at it too long. We were supposed to have a mandated review of CAIS starting two months ago and it has not started yet. Looking at it is not going to fix it. We have to take action. Things have to be done. We have to get rid of the program.

My leader today described a program that we are recommending, one that is two tier, where we have not only a safety net program in terms of income support for the regular flux and flow of business, but also a disaster relief program. This does not exist at the present time. We have had too many crises in agriculture in the last few years where systems are needed but the plan is not there to deal with them. Who is left holding the empty money bag? It is our producers. This is unacceptable. The government is responsible for providing solutions.