James Bezan

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yes, farmers are very frustrated. There is no doubt that taking out the deposit requirement will allow farmers to keep more of their dollars which will allow them to put crop in the ground, pay for the fertilizer and continue on with their farming operations until this blows over.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as a party policy we believe in producer participation in whole farm insurance. The difference here is that the CAIS program is being used to deliver disaster assistance. We firmly believe that disaster assistance is the sole responsibility of the government. If the disaster assistance that is currently being delivered through CAIS was taken out and delivered in a more effective manner, we could go back and look at producer participation and sharing in the whole farm risk management program.

I do not have a problem with that principle, but the program has gone through a metamorphosis. It has gone from being whole farm into disaster assistance. It is trying to do too much. That is why we are starting to see the wheels fall off it. It is time to look at making some changes. The Olympic five year average is something that we hear a lot of problems about. Maybe we need to look at a longer term. A 10 year rolling average would probably be more effective for producers. It is one which would recognize that there would be some bad years but there would be good years which we need to recognize too. In Olympic averaging that does not happen.

Let us balance it better. Let us take it over a longer term to be more reflective and more realistic of the big picture in agriculture. Let us take the disaster part out and deliver that more specifically to the commodities that need it on a per unit basis. Let us make government responsible for those things that happen outside the norm.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge.

I want to thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for giving us the opportunity today to debate agriculture, which far too often is missed out in the banter that exists in the House as we go through our speeches. In all the issues that we debate for Canada, we often lose sight of how important agriculture is to Canada. I want to thank our agriculture critic for bringing forward the motion which gives us the opportunity to debate the CAIS program and how it has not functioned well for producers across the country.

I am a farmer. The riding I represent is agriculture based. Our constituency office has been overrun with complaints. Producers are looking for solutions to all the problems they are experiencing with the CAIS program. There have been nothing but delays since the program was announced. People are still waiting for their cash advances going back to 2003.

We know by talking to administrators of the program that they were originally trying to get forms completed within 60 days. That stretched out to 90 days. Now we are hearing that new clients are still looking at a turnaround of 120 days if there are no problems. If there are problems, if there are any questions or things do not quite line up or reconcile with the producer's income tax filing, the whole thing is delayed even further. That is completely unacceptable.

Producers are extremely frustrated with the program. When they talk to people in the CAIS administration on the phone, they continually get different answers. The misinformation is creating so much confusion, producers do not know which way to turn. Producers have similar problems when they phone CAIS and get different answers. It just does not seem to line up. That is why the program has not been working. It is dysfunctional.

The other complaint we hear is that it is too complicated. The process is complicated. It requires expert accounting advice to get the forms done. Producers are taking out money to pay accountants to file their CAIS applications. They are paying fees in the $500 to $2,000 range, depending upon the size of the farm, money which would have been better left in the hands of the farmers. The joke around town is that CAIS actually stands for the Canadian chartered accountant income stabilization program. The accountants are being well-served by the program.

At the same time it costs the government a lot of money to administer the program because of the lengthy time it takes to process applications and the extra administrators required, which takes money out of the program. That money could have been better used to service the producers.

The other problem we hear about is inventory evaluations. The inventories are set at the end of the year by a very standard level that does not reflect what is the actual value on the farm. I know producers who have livestock and those mandatory values that are put in place do not represent the actual value of the animals they have on hand. We have even had problems with some of those numbers.

An example is that at the end of the year, the steer and heifer prices for 2003 were mixed up. The heifer price was at the steer price and the steer price was down at the heifer price and it screwed up the evaluations of those inventories for the eight-weights. That has created quite a problem. At least it got acknowledged, but it had already affected a lot of producers, and if they did not pick up on the discrepancy, they got shortchanged because of it.

There is also the complication for producers who have year ends that do not coincide with the calendar year. If their year ends occur in the middle of the crop year, crop on hand and crop in the ground mess up inventories again. Producers are really struggling with that, especially when farmers have cattle on feed and heifers on grass, and again, not having a true evaluation of how those inventories are working.

We are here to talk about the removal of the deposit program, which makes a lot of sense. Ever since the program was announced, the deposit requirements and the rules have changed continually. First producers had to put their money up front. They could take their NISA funds and transfer them over to match their deposits into the CAIS program. Then they were told that they only had to put a third in and they would get two-thirds back. These rules continually changed.

The cleanest thing to do especially for the individuals who put in NISA money and wanted to get that money back to pay taxes at the end of the year when the two-thirds refund was available is to cancel the deposit requirement completely. Let us make it a lot simpler.

We should allow producers to keep that money in their own hands. It is not giving them any benefit by having it in the CAIS program. With the dire needs today in agriculture, let the producers keep that money on hand to pay off some bills, to invest in next year's crops, to buy fertilizer, to buy fuel, to be better prepared for next year.

It is not just the opposition that is suggesting this. Keystone Agricultural Producers and the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have also announced that they would like to see an end to the deposit. It is something that does not make a lot of sense anymore considering the situation in agriculture today.

One of the things the Leader of the Opposition announced today is that we do not believe the disaster assistance part of CAIS should have been put into the whole farm approach. CAIS was meant to be there to average income over the whole farm aspect. When there are disasters such as BSE, such as dramatic falls in commodity prices because of trade actions, we need to take those problems out and not lump them into the CAIS program. The delivery is too slow. Producers need help quickly. Disaster programs should be set up as a third tier and should be available from the government standpoint to support the industry. That is something we believe in dramatically.

I realize that when BSE compensation was being bantered about in trying to figure out how to best deliver it, there was advice from the industry to the government that it should be delivered through CAIS. As a member of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and as a producer, I am thoroughly disappointed that the recommendation ever came forward. It was poor planning.

I realize that the Minister of Agriculture has only been in his job for the past seven months. I realize that he inherited these problems from past ministers. However he has the power to make the changes necessary to implement the program that would work for the agriculture industry, that would support the family farm. As the House has heard today there has been a great amount of hurt on the family farm.

My family loves farming. My children and my brother and his kids all want to have a future in agriculture. We need to make sure that we build programs and support an industry so that it can grow and prosper and be an industry that we can continue to be proud of. As a farm family we are going to fight to make sure that opportunity exists for future generations. This is the time for the government to take action, to take the bull by the horns, as is said, and make the necessary changes.

There have been many comments made about how many government dollars have gone into the industry and how much support has been there. I have said in the House before that I know through the BSE crisis the losses that I have suffered on our farm have come close to $400 per head. The total government support available to me so far has been $45 a head.

It is a huge disproportionate loss over things that are not at all related to management or markets. It is about a complete reshift in what has happened through trade action because of one cow, although it is now up to three cows, with a disease that is not necessarily being evaluated on science. Hopefully we are getting there and we are making the strides necessary to make sure that all decisions and rules that are being brought together will be reflective of the science and the true problem of the disease.

In conclusion, it is great that we are able to debate such an important topic as the Canadian agriculture industry today.

[Canada Elections Act, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the parliamentary secretary that we have to rehabilitate and reintegrate our violent offenders and our criminals. and ensure that they go through the proper process. However, the current system that we have today is not working. The government has failed on keeping tabs of its violent offenders who are out in the public. That is why we have the crimes that were committed in my riding. The proof is in the pudding.

The Deputy Prime Minister, when I questioned her, made a statement, and I want to ask if it has been followed up on. She said:

However, I have indicated that I am willing to undertake a review of aspects of our parole system. The parole board may need more resources to do its job. I am more than willing to have the justice committee of the House of Commons take a look at this issue. I have been very clear that our goal is public safety.

When is this review going to take place of the parole system and Correctional Service Canada so that we--

[Canada Elections Act, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question I asked back on November 26 to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Essentially, on November 7 a murder was committed in one of the cities in my riding. A young man was beaten to death by two individuals. One of those individuals was out on parole and the other was out on conditional release. On top of the death and the murder of which they are accused, one of the accused has multiple unrelated felonies which he committed during his conditional release.

We really have to take a hard look at how our parole system works and at how public safety has not become paramount to every decision that has been made. We need to ensure that people on the street are protected from these violent offenders.

We need to get down to the bases of how Parliament and the government has made some bad decisions and on how the entire system works. The Liberal experiment on conditional sentences and on parole hearings has failed, and we have to revamp the entire system.

I also want to follow up with this. Just recently we had two inmates walk out of the Rockwood Institution, a federal minimum security facility in my riding. A total of five inmates have walked out of that facility in the past 12 months, and a total of 15 in the past five years.

Public safety has to be paramount. Correctional Service Canada has a great staff and good management. I am very proud of the job that they do, but they have to do it within the mandate and the regulations presented to them by the government. However, again they are working inside another Liberal experiment.

I ask, when will the government put public safety first and fix the parole system in Correctional Service?

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act, December 7th, 2004]

It had to do with the price.

[Red River Floodway, December 6th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, plans for the expansion of the Red River floodway around Winnipeg are well underway. The cost is expected to be in excess of three-quarters of a billion dollars, with the costs shared equally between the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. However the federal government has been a silent partner, and the concerns of many of the residents of my riding of Selkirk--Interlake have not been adequately addressed.

Although the floodway expansion will provide added flood protection to the city of Winnipeg, the outlet for the floodway is in my riding. People living along the floodway and downstream on the Red River have raised some serious concerns regarding downstream impacts.

The points that still need to be addressed include riverbank stabilization, groundwater contamination, downstream flooding and ice jams. These concerns have not been fully addressed by the floodway authority to the satisfaction of the residents and municipalities in Selkirk--Interlake.

The Government of Canada can no longer be a silent partner on the Red River floodway expansion. It must become active to ensure the concerns of the people of Selkirk--Interlake are adequately met before the project commences.

[Marriage, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba people licensed as marriage commissioners have been told that they have to perform same sex marriages or turn in their commissioner's licence. This is clearly an infringement on their freedoms protected by the charter. Eleven commissioners have been forced to resign and two are refusing to quit in defiance of this injustice. All these commissioners want is to provide the same services they have provided faithfully for years.

Will the government correct this discrimination and force the government of Manitoba to reinstate the commissioners who were forced to resign, and defend those who refuse to quite?

[Auditor General Act, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it does not address the whole issue of the other animals that are still shut out of the U.S. market. We know from what the President has said that the U.S. is only looking at animals under 30 months of age in the cattle industry. Therefore, the other sectors still have to be addressed.

The Charlottetown Guardian reported last week that the parliamentary secretary was urging the federal government to retaliate against protectionist American laws that violated trade agreements and applauded Ottawa's decision to tell Washington it would respond in kind to trade measures that violated world trade organization agreements.

There is no question that some violations are happening. I just want to ensure that the parliamentary secretary is committed to ensuring that we proceed with taking the course of law in the event that things do not happen the way we want them to.

[Auditor General Act, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to a discussion I raised in question period, regarding the closure of the border to the Canadian cattle and ruminant industries. The discussion revolved around what the government proposed to do with the Americans to get the border open and what types of trade actions they would pursue.

As we know, in the last couple of weeks, since I raised that question in the House, some advances have made in the renegotiation of the opening of the border by the President of the United States, and developing regulation through the OMB.

I want to ask the government and the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to lay out for us what the government's plans are. We know from the announcement the President made in the press conference that the Americans are only looking at cattle under 30 months of age. Therefore, there are still some trade violations as it applies to the areas of other ruminants, those being sheep, bison and elk. Those concerns still exist, as well as what we will do with the mature animals and the trade that they used to enjoy.

We also realize the OMB process can become politicized. At some point down the road, there will be a stage in the next set period of time laid out by the President of having the regulations approved by the house of representatives and the senate. What the government's involvement will be in that process? Also, what is the government prepared to do in the event that the whole process becomes derailed? It could be thrown off for political purposes or because other animals could be to have BSE, on either side of the border.

Could the parliamentary secretary lay out for the industry and for us House what trade rules will be implemented and what the backup plan will be?