Mr. Chair, this is the first time that I have the opportunity and the privilege to rise in the House of Commons. It is with great enthusiasm and pride that I am taking this opportunity to salute and thank warmly the people of the riding of Compton—Stanstead. I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, but it is, in my opinion, the most beautiful riding in Quebec. I invite you to come and see for yourself. I will be honoured to be your guide.
Having said this, I want to bring you back to the riding of Compton—Stanstead, because a number of the concerns that our constituents have result, in part if not in full, from decisions made in this House. While the riding has a large urban population, much of it is covered by forests and farms, particularly dairy farms.
As regards the softwood lumber and the mad cow disease issues, which have been dragging for so long that the situation has become dreadful and unbearable for a large number of producers. They feel totally abandoned and left to fend for themselves by Ottawa, by the federal government, by those who make decisions in this august chamber. These decisions have a direct impact on their daily lives, but they are made by people who do not know anything about what is actually going on.
Speaking of cows, I point out that I will now deal more specifically with the impact of the mad cow issue in my riding, across Quebec especially, and mainly on the cull cow and the feeder cow farms.
You know as we all do that, in May 2003, the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in Alberta led rapidly to an embargo by the United States, which was followed by other countries, causing extremely serious problems within Quebec's beef industry.
We can well ask how a cow that falls sick in Alberta, 5,000 kilometres from Quebec, can have such devastating effects there. We are told that mad cow disease is contracted through the use of contaminated food, such as animal feed containing ruminant by-products. However, this practice has not been used in Quebec for quite a long time. Why then must Quebec producers be penalized for something that is not their concern? In this matter so incredibly badly managed by the federal government, not only the cow is mad, and I will try to respectfully illustrate this.
If we go beyond political partisanship, we see that science indicates that Quebec producers have the best record in Canada in terms of management and disease monitoring for their herds. It is probably important to point out that Quebec cattle farmers have been prohibited from feeding animal meal to their cattle since 1993, well before the federal ban in 1997. Quebec producers find the current situation particularly frustrating since they have been abiding for a very long time by a whole series of restrictions to ensure that their cattle are disease free and that their products are of the best quality possible.
Although this is grossly unfair to our producers, it is nothing new. This kind of unfairness is well known and has to do with Quebec's specificity. Of course, it bothers some people when we say that Quebec is “different”. The rest of Canada would rather think it is only a catch phrase, something said in jest or so much bravado. Why is it so hard for them to believe that Quebec is different not only in terms of our culture, our values and our language, but also our agriculture? Farming in Quebec bears little resemblance to farming in western Canada. When you insist on national legislation and approaches, you can expect some major bumps along the way.
I will quote anyway the fine words written by the Prime Minister of Canada during the recent leadership race in the Liberal Party of Canada:
Every time I speak with farm producers, I realize how extensive the farm sector is in Canada. Different regions focus on different products; the risk factors are not the same everywhere; the level of diversification, added value and intensification varies considerably from one province to another; the age and attitudes of producers must be taken into account, understood and incorporated into the policy development and program implementation process.
This is from a letter addressed to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
At first glance, one might think that these were the words of someone with a clear view of the farming reality in this country. I am sorry to disappoint you, but that is not the case. Going back at least 25 years, federal policies have consistently ignored this diversity, and the single principle that overrides all others is that, since a Canadian is a Canadian no matter where they live, any agricultural program must therefore be the same for everyone.
I will keep to myself the qualifiers that come to mind in connection with this kind of social and economic aberration. Still, one must recognize that there have been countless interventions in Ottawa based on a model so broadly used that it really applies to nobody.
The new agricultural policy framework that was just cooked up for us in Ottawa fits perfectly into that category. Here is an agreement that is being forced upon the provinces and that they did not have the choice to approve to get their share, even though it misrepresented the initial agreement, which was much less centralizing. I am drawing inspiration from remarks made by Laurent Pellerin, the president of Quebec's Union des producteurs agricoles, who, to my knowledge, is neither a Bloquiste nor a sovereignist, but who may well become one at the rate at which our producers are being attacked, and given the kind of financial strangling of Quebec that has been going on for years in a number of areas.
Here I would like to say something to limit an impression being allowed to spread, no doubt because it serves the interests of those behind the rumours. I have heard frequent criticism of the senior officials drafting agricultural policies from the comfort of their offices, without ever setting their feet on site. In my humble opinion, this criticism is unjustified in most cases. In fact, it seems obvious to me that policies generally originate with the political world, and thus with politicians.
This fact, no doubt straightforward, struck me when I heard the throne speech. This is a speech that is supposed to reflect the intentions and orientations the government has in mind for the coming months. Yet, as we have heard numerous times this past week, the Government of Canada is the Prime Minister and his team of Liberal MPs, elected by a scant 33% of those who exercised their right to vote on June 28 across Canada. Those are the rules of the game, and I accept that.
If I detour via the throne speech, it it is because I have discovered the following two main thrusts in it: the incredible number of federal intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction, and the steamroller effect of all-powerful centralizing machinery driving this government and leading to the present impasse in which agriculture in Canada and in Quebec now finds itself.
Ottawa has come up with five different aid programs so far in an attempt to remedy the effects of the crisis. The needs of Quebec producers are not being taken properly into consideration for the simple reason that the intervention model is based on a reality that is foreign to Quebec and unacceptable, particularly in its latest version, to the cull cattle and feeder calf sectors. Yet, with a bit of effort, and a modicum of good faith, it would be so easy to make the corrections required at this particular point in time.
I would have a number of suggestions, recommendations, even supplications, to pass on to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food and to the minister and his team, in the hope that they can find a few minutes to examine them between celebrations.
In my opinion, the first question to ask is this: is there real political will to settle the mad cow issue? I speak of political will because it is clear to me that this is a political issue, a political embargo, where it is evident American protectionism is being used to punish Canada for having dared to refuse to go to war alongside the Americans in Iraq under the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction. It is obvious that their real objective was to get their hands on the planet's main oil supply, right under the noses of the international community, which barely dares speak above a whisper. Can we force our neighbours to listen to reason or are we doomed to domination by the imperialist wishes of our American friends?
I cannot believe that Canada, if it pulled up its socks, could not find reasonable solutions for everyone. Our Prime Minister recently went to Washington to discuss the mad cow situation with President Bush and to try to find solutions. Our Prime Minister came home with a bill for US$5.5 billion for helicopters, but absolutely nothing new on the mad cow issue.
This is not exactly what we call having a backbone. If Canada has so little negotiating power with this almighty neighbour, we can understand that our defence minister seems so anxious to get involved in the star war with the American president.
I received a distress call from a red deer producer. These people proudly showed their farm to us, but their message was one of despair. This despair was very troubling because these people, like many others, really feel on the verge of losing everything they have built up by the sweat of their brow for years.
It is the same for the neighbour on the left or on the right. It is the same everywhere. These people raise red deer. They are professionals, just as dairy producers with 20, 30 or 50 years of experience are professionals that our country should be proud of.
These red deer producers make a living by slaughtering animals sometimes. To slaughter a red deer, they must use a federal slaughterhouse. However, the federal slaughterhouse in the area refuses to slaughter the red deer because —
