Gilles Duceppe

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, we have made lots of specific proposals, still more in our speeches today. We made proposals throughout the campaign. They now have only 21 members in Quebec because they are too arrogant.

I will point out to his colleague that he has just demonstrated something: he is as much of a hypocrite and a coward as the minister. Indeed, the minister was scheduled to speak at 9 o'clock this morning in Quebec City. He would have had time to speak, board a plane and would arrive as we are speaking to make his speech. That is nothing but lies, nothing else.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, there are two aspects to what the member told us.

On the one hand, one can look at concentration from the point of view of both the farm and the slaughterhouses. These are two separate things. In Quebec, there are many farms left which are not owned by big corporations or else there are big farms, as small farms would have disappeared, although a sizable number of them do disappear every year.

The problem with slaughterhouses is a major one, on the other hand, and this is what Quebec is debating today. The Union des producteurs agricoles is now trying to acquire a slaughterhouse.

I have met with Premier Doer of Manitoba, who is thinking about this issue. It is vital that we arrive at a floor price or any other means, such as a tax, during this period and until the end of the crisis, to make sure that people receive what they are entitled to. I have seen farmers receive a 7¢ cheque for a cow. Imagine what these people are facing. This is cause for despair.

It is all the more cause for despair because they see ministers who do not have the courage to go and meet with them and who invoke all kinds of reasons going back to the 18th century. It no longer takes two months to travel to Quebec City. It does not even take one hour. They could get a move on. The courage is lacking.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting question. I think it reflects what is being said here. There have been countless plans. It seems this is the find of the century.

In Quebec, for over 20 years, there was a plan that ensured the financial stability of farmers and the Financière agricole worked much better. Then came the plans. To this day, no federal plan has lasted more than two years. These people are plan experts. There are plans and nothing else. The money is spent for the most part on plans, paperwork and processes, but it is never directly committed to those in the field.

That is the problem with this arrogant Ottawa knows best attitude, these Liberals that fail to honour their responsibilities, that are scared today, for example, to go to Quebec City, that tell us that there are no planes between Ottawa and Quebec City when in fact there are Challengers. They should take the plane. There is one at his disposal. I offer him the plane that I booked, if he wants it, if he has enough courage and dignity.

He should have enough guts to face the people over there. Stand up and come with me to Quebec. I will go with the member. Okay?

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, this is the height of hypocrisy. Yesterday, that minister refused to go to Quebec City because President Bush was here in Ottawa. The President was in Halifax. The minister was here and he could have gone to Quebec City. I call that taking liberties with the truth, to use a polite term.

This morning, he could very well talk, immediately, take a plane, fly to Quebec City and come back. I have a plane at my disposal. If he wants to, he can go there. If he has not understood that, he has not understood anything. He could have gone there himself or sent an other minister. No, they have not gone there because of their cowardice and fear of the reception they would get; there is no other reason. This morning, in the newspapers, we could see it.

This is what producers are saying about that minister; the only tie he has with agriculture is that he is a chicken, pure and simple. That is what he is.

He is telling us about cuts; well, indeed, let us talk about cuts in the realm of agriculture. We can see it in budget after budget. Today, there will be other Bloc speakers who will show that the current Prime Minister, when he was finance minister, cut agriculture budgets in half. I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the UPA, as well as with farmers from the rest of Canada. They all say the same. That is the current situation. We will prove it to him conclusively.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Now, they just woke up. When we talk about cowardice, they recognize themselves.

The Quebec minister of agriculture, fisheries and food, Ms. Gauthier, asked the federal government to ensure that the Agricultural Products Marketing Act is implemented in order to have a floor price. This would have helped Quebec's whole agricultural sector, including producers. The federal government had the power to do that, but it did not, because some provinces were opposed to such a measure. When the time comes to help Quebec, if certain provinces are opposed, this government does not make a move. However, when Quebec has difficulties, it matters little that the solution also benefits others.

A series of assistance plans were proposed. A figure of $366 million was mentioned. According to Quebec's federation of beef cattle producers, only $90 million has been received from Ottawa since the beginning of the crisis, under the specific measures taken. The government cannot take all the budgets for agriculture and say “We gave x number of dollars”. This is an exceptional crisis and it requires exceptional measures.

If we add to the federal compensation the $60 million received from the Quebec government, producers have to absorb losses of some $241 million, after compensation. There is no direct aid to make up for the drop in the price of cattle, and there is no interest free loan program either.

Speaking of the centralizing vision of the federal government and the lack of recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness, Laurent Pellerin said:

The needs of Quebec's dairy farmers are neglected for the simple reason that the intervention model is based on a reality that does not exist in Quebec and which cannot be applied, especially in its final phase, to the cull cow and calf sectors.

Cull cows, bulls and calves all have four legs, but that does not mean they are one and the same. In his position, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should at least understand that.

The producers who raise cattle for meat are concentrated in Alberta. They receive compensation for all the animals they slaughter. Fifty per cent of dairy production is in Quebec, where most cattle producers are dairy producers, who slaughter cows that do not produce enough milk. Those cows are called cull.

Each year, producers renew 25% of their herd. Unfortunately, the federal aid package compensates them for only 16% of their herd. This means that, since prices have dropped by 70%, they are getting compensation for only two-thirds of the cows they slaughter every year. The federal aid package has to be improved.

Recently, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said he recognized the problem. After 18 months, he told us there was a problem with cull. We questioned him and, as usual, his answer was, and I quote:

“I have a plan”. It is a six-point plan or a seven-point plan. It is always a plan, but never a solution. That is the problem with the Liberals.

If the minister recognized the problem, why did he not do something 18 months ago? If he understands, why is he afraid to go to Quebec City and tell producers he understands and explain what he plans to do? He would rather not leave Ottawa, and it is a sign of cowardice.

We are told the border will open six months from now at best, because it will take 90 days to sort out the proposed settlement between the two countries so as to reflect the American legislation and the available budget. After that, there will be a 60 day public consultation period. Only then will we know if the proposal has been accepted. It will not be accepted any earlier than six months from now, if indeed it is accepted at all. But federal programs will not last that long. Most of them have already run out. Even the last one that was announced on September 10, 2004 will run out on February 29, 2005.

In the meantime, people are losing their farms. Some have committed suicide. But people across the floor are indifferent. For them, this is just a matter of figures, statistics, and neat six-point or seven-point plans with no solutions. They are bureaucrats to the core. We do not need them. What we need is specific steps. By that, I mean real direct assistance programs providing immediate help. We need action right now, not six months from now, and we do not need a plan dependent on another plan dependent on yet another. We do not need a process within a process within a process. We are fed up with this. Farmers need a solution now. That is what they were waiting for this morning in Quebec City. People in Ottawa keep hiding instead of talking with Quebec producers.

We want an interest-free loan program to be set up. This requires no federal funds. This would help people. We want the implementation of a real program for cull animals covering overall herd renewal, which is approximately 25% annually, and not a program covering only 16%.

We must also consider veal calves and finishing calves. We must improve the existing programs for producers of cattle and cull cows. The latest program covers only 15% of the needs of Quebec producers. As I mentioned earlier, barely $90 million was provided. The existing programs must be extended, at least until the borders re-open.

There is an alarming situation. People are losing their way of life, people are losing their farms, and we turn a cold shoulder here in Ottawa.

This is an extremely important industry in economic terms, but it is more than that. Every country needs a healthy agricultural industry. Every country needs to have an agricultural industry able to feed its own people. This is fundamental. The bureaucrats here do not understand that. We also do not like this unchanging attitude in Ottawa that Ottawa knows best. It is the same everywhere. Whether it works or not, the same rules apply across the board, instead of trying to adapt and take a humane approach in this crisis that is affecting human beings. These people have devoted their lives to this. They work seven days a week, like few others in our society. They are at the end of their ropes. They have no future; they will lose everything and they are desperate.

We must provide help with programs that meet their needs. I want to share a statistic. Last year, the annual income of producers across Canada was in the red. In other words, they worked 360 days a year—that is the reality—and they ended up with less money than they started. They paid to work. They generated negative incomes. That is the situation. In the meantime, the minister has a plan, another plan that never works.

Therefore, I urgently request that exceptional measures be taken in view of this extraordinary crisis. To refuse is simply irresponsible and cowardly. The refusal to take part this morning in the UPA convention is an irresponsible and cowardly act befitting a minister who can only be described as a wimp.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I wish to be the first to rise on this motion today, to speak in a very important debate about agriculture in Canada and Quebec, which has been hard hit by the mad cow crisis.

This crisis has occurred because of the decisions made by a finance minister who has now become Prime Minister. Few countries have abandoned the agricultural sector as much as Canada in the last 10 years, This situation is unhealthy because in a period of crisis such as the one we are now experiencing, this is the time when producers need help from the Canadian government.

According to figures from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the federal government has cut its agricultural spending in half over the past 10 years. Ottawa's intervention in this crisis consists in establishing pan-Canadian measures that do not meet the specific needs of farmers in Quebec. The source of this problem is the American decision to ban Canadian and Quebec beef from the U.S. because there was one mad cow in Alberta.

Nearly a year ago, when the current Prime Minister was beginning his job, we were told that progress would be made, the problem would be solved, and relations would improve. President Bush has just left Canada. Little was said about either softwood lumber or mad cow. President Bush said quite a lot more about the missile defence shield. But in terms of progress, nothing was done.

For 18 months we have heard that the solution was coming. It is getting closer. Those who keep repeating that make me think of people who say they can see the light at the end of the tunnel but do not realize that it is from an oncoming train.

I would like to talk now about health practices in Canada. It should be obvious that the situation is much better in Quebec than elsewhere. I mentioned the mad cow found in Alberta, 5,000 kilometres away from Quebec. There is a lot more livestock traded between Alberta and North Dakota, Idaho and Montana than with Quebec. However Quebec is being penalized.

During the avian flu outbreak in New Castle, Canada banned the importation of poultry from four states, not from every state in the U.S. In his wisdom, the agriculture minister at the time realized that a Los Angeles rooster had nothing to do with a New York City hen. We could have asked the U.S. to take the same approach with regard to Quebec beef and cull cows.

I asked the agriculture minister at the time why the issue was not being dealt with on a region by region basis. He answered that Canadians should have the same standards from one end of the country to the other, whether that worked or not. When you turn mad cow into a symbol of national unity, something is wrong. It is irresponsible.

As I was saying Quebec's regulations are much better than elsewhere. We have a well established traceability system. We can therefore follow the animal from birth to sale. Quebec banned ruminant meal four years before it was done elsewhere. I remember the scrapie outbreak. Quebec had already taken action.

I personally met people all across Quebec who suffered the consequences of Ottawa's inertia during the scrapie outbreak and now it is the same story all over again with cull cows and the beef industry.

If Quebec were a sovereign country, it would not have this problem. I heard the Prime Minister say “The North American market is integrated. The same conditions prevail throughout North America”.

A crash course in geography might have helped refresh the Prime Minister's memory, because Mexico is part of North America and NAFTA. And Mexico is not affected because it is a sovereign country, even if it is physically closer to Alberta than Alberta is to Quebec.

Let us examine markets where the economies are much more integrated, such as the European Union. When England had to face several cases of mad cow disease, Germany was not affected. When mad cow disease was found in France, even Italy, a border country, was not affected. They were not affected because they are sovereign countries. We would not have been affected if we had not been part of Canada. At the very least, we could have regionalized.

Allow me to quote Laurent Pellerin, chairman of the UPA:

If the provinces were separate and had distinct inspection systems and regionalized product marketing mechanisms, only one province would be facing this crisis today.

We would then have a lot more resources available to help Alberta, because beef producers in that province also need assistance. They too suffer because of this crisis. However, using all available federal resources to give better help to Alberta, and leaving the rest of Canada alone, would have been a logical solution.

The president of Maple Leaf Foods, Michael McCain, who is not a sovereignist—but this does not stop him, unlike others, from thinking for himself—recently said that he supported dividing Canada into different zones, from an animal health point of view. This is feasible to the extent that there is a political will and enough intelligence and realism to ensure that we have in place programs geared to the needs of the different realities across Canada and Quebec.

This is why we are saying that it is absolutely necessary to decentralize certain components of the food inspection system. If there had been such decentralization, Quebec producers would not have been affected.

I see that some members opposite are smiling. They think it is very funny. But they are too scared to attend the UPA congress. They are smiling, but they are too cowardly to go and talk to the farmers who are waiting for them in Quebec City this morning. These are cowardly acts, no more and no less.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we were told a few months ago that the plan was perfect. Now they are looking for another because they realized that it was not.

Assuming the minister was right in telling us that he was aware of the problem long before we were, I have one very simple question for him. If he knew for so long, why did he do nothing?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the mad cow crisis has been with us for 18 months now. The producers of Quebec are desperate because the federal measures do not meet their needs, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has only just realized that there is a specific problem with cull cattle. It is about time.

Since the border will be opening up only in six months at best, does the minister realize that, if Quebec producers are going to survive, special federal assistance is needed right now to deal with the specific problems of cull?

[National Defence, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the day before the amendment to NORAD was announced, the Prime Minister personally assured me that there was no connection between that and possible participation in the missile defence shield project. On November 14, however, the Prime Minister said that, on the issue of the proposed shield, the amendment to NORAD was, and I quote, “a crucial decision for Canada”.

How could he say it was a “crucial decision for Canada” in order to participate in the shield project when, the day before taking that decision, he had told me it had nothing to do with it? Which of the two versions is the right one?

[National Defence, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, by agreeing not to discuss the missile defence shield issue with George Bush, the Prime Minister has been derelict in his duty, because the majority of Quebeckers and Canadians oppose Canada's participation in such a project.

Will the Prime Minister break the pact of silence he and George Bush have and tell the U.S. president that the people do not want his missile shield?