Diane Finley

[Agriculture, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. border has been closed to Canadian livestock for 526 days. Producers now more than ever need immediate disaster relief. Currently the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program requires producers to pay in large deposits just to trigger payouts. This is at a time when producers can least afford it.

When will the minister commit to getting rid of the onerous cash deposit requirement?

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, we have been asked to tone down the rhetoric and deal with the facts. That is an honourable ambition, so let us look at some of the facts.

It is easy to determine where the priorities of the government lie when we have more people on the payroll dunning us for taxes than troops defending our country. There are 54,000 employees at the Canada Revenue Agency and 52,000 troops. That is a fact; that is not hyperbole. The priority is on tax collectors over troops.

In 1993 the Liberal government cancelled the helicopter contract that was already in place at a cost of $.5 billion to Canadians. The promise was that the government would replace that contract with a better contract soon. Guess what, it has not happened yet. That is a fact.

Our Sea Kings are 50 years old. Every hour that they are in the air, they need 30 hours of maintenance on the ground. This is a fact.

Our sub fleet is grounded again and our Cormorant helicopters have been grounded for the second time this year. These are facts, not rhetoric. When the emotion gets a little high, it is not rhetoric. It is justifiable outrage.

[Agriculture, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the last hog trade dispute with the U.S. lasted 15 years. The industry cannot afford yet another lengthy trade dispute. According to the chairman of the Manitoba pork council and I quote:

The duties announced today will have a profound effect upon the nation’s swine exporters.

Why has the government done nothing to prevent this protectionist action from happening in the first place?

[Agriculture, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the United States department of commerce announced unfair preliminary anti-dumping duties on Canadian hogs. This decision means that Canadian hog producers now have to post potentially crippling bonds on their pork exports to the United States.

I ask the international trade minister, is it not true that the government's mismanagement of Canada-U.S. relations may result in U.S. protectionism hurting our farmers once again?

[Tobacco Industry, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers deserve more respect from the Liberal government.

In my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk and in nearby Oxford and Elgin—Middlesex—London, hundreds of tobacco farmers are losing their livelihood as a result of direct actions of the government.

Under World Health Organization rules, when governments force industries out of business they must adequately compensate those industries.

Prior to the last election, the former agriculture minister promised the tobacco farming industry that farmers would be paid for being forced out of business. Not only was the offer paltry by international standards but repeated requests for details about the plan have gone unanswered. What is worse is that tobacco farmers have not seen one cent of these promised funds.

Once more the government has failed to honour its commitments to our farmers. Canada's farmers demand and deserve better.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Madam Chair, earlier this evening I asked the member across the way what the government's position was on meeting the needs of Quebec. At that time it was suggested, wrongly, that I was looking for special treatment for Quebec.

What was said instead was that the government plan was designed to provide equity to all regions of the country, which is laudable, but I have to admit I am bit confused by that. On Friday, the fed cattle set-aside program was launched. It was announced by the Alberta government, which had already registered its producers as bidders, but the Ontario government to this day has no mechanism by which its producers are registered for the bidding process, a bidding process, I might add, which was launched Thanksgiving Monday morning. This first round closes tomorrow, Wednesday, at noon.

The program was announced on Friday, to start Monday and close at Wednesday noon. A call to Agriculture Canada this morning from an Ontario producer looking for information was redirected to the ministry of agriculture for Ontario. A subsequent call to the Ontario ministry of agriculture yielded nothing but a voice mail with no return call. This producer was trying to sign up for this new program for which producers are at this point eligible only until Wednesday noon.

This is my question for the hon. member. If this is equity or if this is supposed to be an equitable program, how is it that producers in Alberta who have already signed up can take advantage of this program but producers in Ontario cannot?

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Madam Chair, as agriculture critic for the official opposition, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the effects of the BSE crisis on Quebec and put a question to the hon. member opposite.

While commenting on the announcements made by the agriculture minister on September 10, the president of the Union des producteurs agricoles, Laurent Pellerin, asked the minister to revise his strategy in order to quickly invest new money in cattle operations, which are on the brink of bankruptcy 17 months into this crisis.

Mr. Pellerin said: “I do not understand why Ottawa and Quebec gave around $150 million last year to support the Quebec beef industry, but are making such a modest contribution this time around. Nothing has changed. Producers are facing as tough a situation as ever”.

According to the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec, the Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec and the Union des producteurs agricoles, although Quebec producers need over $141 million, they will only get between $15 million and $20 million under the new transition measures, which will meet less than 15% of their needs.

I would like to ask the hon. member the following question. How far does he think the federal government should go to support the Quebec industry, which was and continues to be hard hit by the BSE crisis?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is absolutely correct. It is not just the producers who are affected by this. A wide range of people across our country are affected such as producers of farm magazines, people in feed shops, people from whom farmers buy their clothes, their shoes and their groceries. It affects the people from whom producers want to buy a new car but cannot. It even affects whether or not their sons or daughters can take piano lessons. It affects whether or not someone can afford to compete to become the rodeo princess. This comes down to the very fundamentals of life and luxuries.

Everyone within these communities is affected. They are mainly small communities where people depend upon one another. The largest producer of income in the area is the cattle producer or the other ruminant producers. They feed the economy of small businesses, the service businesses, in the area. Everyone is affected by this. It is a loss of income of over $2 billion to the beef industry. It is a gross understatement of the impact that this crisis is having on our country.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, there are several factors to consider here. One is that $38 million will not put the cement in the ground. That is what we need. We need cement in the ground to build the facilities. We need the capacity and $38 million of loan underwriting will not underwrite very much in the way of capacity.

In terms of the administration of it, yes. The CCA said there needs to be a common platform, but CAISP is not a common platform. It is administered differently in provinces right across the country. That is one of the reasons why there is regional inequity in who will get the benefit, how much they will get and when they will get it. With regional variation, not all our farmers are being treated equitably. That is unacceptable to me and to the Conservative Party.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is truly an honour for me to rise in the House of Commons to take part in a debate for the very first time. I want to wholeheartedly thank the fine folks of Haldimand--Norfolk for the trust they have placed in me as their representative in the House of Commons.

Further, it is a great honour for me to stand as the official opposition critic for agriculture and agrifood, and deliver my maiden speech on behalf of farmers and livestock producers right across this great land.

I wish to thank the hon. minister of agriculture and the government House leader for finally capitulating and heeding the Conservative Party's request to hold this important debate tonight.

Over the past several months I have met with a wide range of stakeholders across this country who have suffered greatly since the mad cow crisis hit on May 20, 2003. As a group we have launched a BSE action committee with many MPs from our party and others, seeking the input of their stakeholders right across the nation.

We have talked and we continue to meet with producers and packers, agricultural organizations, numerous government officials and the financial sector to hear their comments and their solutions. Everywhere it is overwhelmingly apparent that the Liberal government's plans have failed to deal effectively with the mad cow situation.

This evening I would like to concentrate on the recent Liberal BSE aid package and its evaluation as reported to us in our consultations. Although producers no doubt appreciate the government's initiative, this plan is long overdue. It is woefully inadequate and administratively unmanageable.

In September the plan was released that can only be considered phantom farm aid. Why phantom? One month after the minister announced this new aid package there are still no application forms available for producers to apply for desperately needed cash. These are phantom forms.

Astoundingly, the Agriculture Canada website link for “Measures to Assist Industry in Response to BSE” does not even list this new program. How can farmers apply for a program that has no application form, and for all intent and purpose does not exist almost a month after it was announced? Many of the funds are phantom too.

The original Liberal plan claimed $66 million for loan loss reserves to increase slaughter capacity. Really, when we dig into the depths of it, only $38 million has been earmarked for financing. The balance is for CFIA inspection.

While everyone agrees that increased slaughter capacity is critically important for the long term viability and sustainability of the industry, $38 million is barely enough to open one plant, get it up and running, let alone stimulate an entire industry.

What is more, as of October 6, 2004, the allocated funding proportions of this aid program were still not approved by the Treasury Board. Much of the $385 million pledged to sustain the industry until capacity is increased includes cash advances from the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, CAISP, and from final payments under the Transitional Industry Support Program, TISP.

For the Liberals to announce final payments under the Transitional Industry Support Program as new money is not only misleading, it is an insult to the industry. The deadline for applications for TISP payments was July 31, 2004, and applications for both components are no longer being accepted. These too are phantom funds.

Lastly, the administrative viability of the proposal is cause for concern. Administrative relief through CAISP is a proven recipe for disaster. Many farmers are still waiting for their CAISP advances for 2003. If that is the government's definition of an advance payment, how long will it take to get a delayed payment for 2004?

CAISP is a disaster, but it is not a disaster program. It is intended to provide income when producers claim-year margins drop below their previous five year Olympic average. Until cattle prices increase through an open border or a substantial increase in slaughter, every year will be a claim year.

What producers need, what the cattle and other ruminant producers deserve, is reasonable, responsive, reliable relief in the real world, in real time, not phantom forms, phantom funds and phantom farm aid. Canadian farmers and producers demand and deserve better. I hope that this debate will provide the government with the input it so obviously needs to aid farmers in this time of need.