Rick Casson

[Veterans, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian soldiers used as guinea pigs in chemical warfare testing from the early 1940s to the mid-1970s never gave up the fight. They displayed great courage and stamina in their decades-long search for recognition and compensation from the government for horrible experiments that should never have happened.

Canadians can only imagine the unspeakable frustration of the 3,500 chemical test veterans as they endured respiratory problems, skin conditions and cancer in the years following exposure to mustard, phosgene and lewisite gases.

Though a welcome relief, it is unfortunate that it took so long for the Canadian government to acknowledge its responsibility and liability. I am particularly struck that, though they would have been justified in feeling abandoned and betrayed by the government throughout their long wait, many of these vets remained reluctant to divulge the secret chemical tests out of a sense of duty to their country. Duty always came first.

No amount of money can make up for the years of frustration, illness and suffering these veterans and their families faced. It is heart-wrenching that so many died before this issue was resolved. I sincerely hope that this compensation and government admission will bring some peace to the veterans, their widows and their families.

The government's responsibility is this matter is not over. It must now act to restore faith among those currently serving in the Canadian Forces that the Government of Canada views their health and their well-being as the most valuable military asset.

I call upon the government to demonstrate transparency and an improved willingness to quickly resolve the medical concerns of our soldiers and veterans. We must ensure that no other Canadian soldiers face such a long battle for justice.

[Veterans Affairs, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 2004, the federal government announced a compensation program for Canadian veterans who were exposed to mustard gas testing during the second world war. I believe this is too little, too late.

Since 1939 these veterans have suffered in secrecy. Approximately 3,500 soldiers were exposed to mustard gas and other chemical weapons. The volunteers suffered severe burns and blistering, but military doctors refused to link their symptoms with the tests.

Why did the government wait so long to fully recognize and compensate these courageous veterans? Why did it take the threat of a class action lawsuit to push the government to provide compensation? Lastly, why did the ombudsman from the military have to step in to moderate?

It is time the government re-examined its funding for Veterans Affairs. Veterans Affairs does not have its own ombudsman its own parliamentary secretary, nor does it have enough funds to provide headstones for its fallen veterans.

When will the government place Canadian veterans on its priority list?

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly how to react to that. I just go back to the fact that what we are discussing and what has been proposed is a land based and sea based defence system. That is what has been discussed at the present time. We have to be at the table.

If the member is so concerned about that , why would she want to disengage in discussions with the Americans when we should be there to get those points across? If that is her position, how will we get them across if we are not fully engaged in the debate?

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member is getting some of his information about laser guns on airplanes and issues like that. We are talking about a ground based and sea based defence system to knock out rogue, long range missiles with warheads on them that are aimed at North America. Surely if we do not get involved in this and have some input, we would do a huge disservice to all Canadians.

What happens in the future may happen in the future, but we have to deal with what is realistic right now. The plan right now is ground based and sea based defence. We are not talking about the weaponization of space. We are not talking about lasers on airplanes.

The member sometimes talked against his own motion. How will we ever be educated, involved or apprised of what is potentially going to happen if we are not at the table? It seems to me if we are to oppose any aspect of what will be proposed by the United States in this issue, then we have to be engaged. If we are not, we do not have input.

It amazes me that people cannot understand the fact that we will be able to stop this from progressing into space if it goes in a direction that we do not appreciate or want it to and it is not truly a total defence system and it becomes something else. Surely we want to be a full partner and we want to be able to express our opposition to that. If we turn our backs at this point in time on this whole thing and disengage ourselves from any more discussion, we will not have the opportunity to do that. For the life of me I do not understand why some members cannot get that aspect of the issue.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are here again today for the second time this week discussing this important issue. I am not sure it is the most important issue facing our country at this time, but at some time it will be and we need to have an open discussion on it in this country. I appreciate the opportunity to add my voice to this, but I cannot agree with the motion that has been proposed today by the member for Saint-Jean.

It states that:

...the government should oppose the proposed American antimissile defence shield and, therefore, cease all discussions with the Bush administration on possible Canadian participation.

I believe it would be absolutely wrong for us to back away from the discussions on this. We must have involvement. We are the northern half of this continent. Our closest neighbours, of course--and we are tied at the hip to these folks--are the Americans. Whether we like it or not, our geographic position in the world is unique. We need to realize that and cooperate with our neighbours when we are dealing with issues of defence. Whether it is our perimeter defence or defence against missiles coming in, it is something that we should be involved in. We should be at the table so we can have input. Clearly if we just walk away, then we will not have any say in what goes on.

I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey Central.

As I said, we are opposed to the motion that has been proposed today because we feel that we should stay involved at the table and that we need to have direct input into what is going to happen.

What this whole issue is based on is the fact that there is a possibility that rogue nations could develop the capability for long range missiles, and they could develop warheads, attach them and launch them.

The first order of business for a government is the security of its people. I think it would be negligent of any government not to look at the possibility of this happening and not to look at a method of stopping it from causing damage to our citizens and to our nations.

As for the issue of star wars and the weaponization of space, I think it is pretty clear from the discussions here today that weaponization of space is something that none of us agrees with and that it is not what is being proposed.

Star wars is the wrong label for this. It has been put on this to create support for some positions that have been taken by some parties in Canada. It is unfair that it is being put out there, because nowhere is it a possibility at this time.

I had an opportunity to visit Norad headquarters in Colorado. It was a learning experience for me. One of the things that I was very impressed with was the high regard of the American military for our people involved in Norad. As was mentioned by the former minister of defence, we had a Canadian running the Norad system in Cheyenne Mountain when the September 11 attacks occurred. That is how integrated we are and how high a level of participation we have in Norad. To me, it is critical that we stay there. They appreciate our organizational skills and they appreciate the intelligence of the people we have involved.

I do believe they are a little concerned with the kind of equipment we are able to offer and they would like to see something done there, but as far as our people, our ability and our knowledge are concerned, that is very good.

I do not believe anything that we saw was classified. We were shown what this system is going to look like. There was nothing in space. They are ground based and sea based interceptor missiles. A launched rogue missile will be able to be picked up by detectors that are not in outer space but on airplanes and in positions around the world. I think it was only 20 seconds after a missile was launched that they could tell where it was going by its trajectory and they could intercept it.

The Norad system that is in place was set up and positioned in Colorado because of the long range threat during the Cold War of missiles coming over the Arctic and into North America, but things have changed and now we have all kinds of different systems that we have to guard against.

The fact is that we are looking at nations such as North Korea, which is a threat, as well as others that could develop this and have reason to attack North America. We have to look at a system that will protect our territory. We have to be at the table when these discussions take place. We have to be there, contrary to what the motion says, to say that we do not want the weaponization of space, that we want the system to be ground based and sea based. If we are not there, then how can we criticize when it is finally developed?

Whether it is the present Bush administration or the Clinton administration before that, which started this process, we as a country and a nation have to stop dithering around and get past even the idea that we just want to be in part of the discussions. We have to go that extra step and become fully involved in this so we can have the ability to recommend or to oppose.

The system that was explained to us when we were in Colorado is as far removed from anything that could be classed as star wars as anything imaginable. It is ground based. It is going to be on land and on sea, but these missiles will not contain mass destruction warheads. There will be an interceptor missile strictly designed to take out a missile that is coming toward North America with a warhead on it.

There has been a lot of discussion across the country, I believe, but we have the results of the poll that was taken last summer. Seven out of ten Canadians favour us being involved in this at this point so that we are able to have input into what will be developed eventually.

With what is going on in our country today, with the scandals we are faced with regarding the misappropriation of funds and the misguided direction of the government, I do not understand why this would be the topic for today, but it is, so we are debating it.

When the time comes that there is a threat, which I do believe will be developed because there are nations working on being able to launch a warhead into North America, we have to be able to have some kind of defence against that. We cannot just sit aside and say, “Gee, that's too bad. They did it and we didn't expect it”. We have to be able to act and we have to be able to act with force.

I want the government to take even the next step, to get fully engaged with our American neighbours on this and be a partner in it so that we can have direct input and offer what little we will be able to, because as we know our capabilities are slim. If we do not do that, we are doing a disservice to the safety of every Canadian across this country. As I said before, the first matter of business for any government is the safety of its citizens. If we neglect to do this, then we are putting them in jeopardy in years to come.

[Agriculture, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report, as scathing and damning as it is, is not the only alarming report issued lately that condemns this corrupt Liberal government.

Another alarming report points out Canada's agriculture industry collectively lost money last year. That is right; one of the industries whose back this nation was built on is in a sea of Liberal created red ink. This is a glaring condemnation of the Liberal government's failed policies and highlights the Liberals' inability to negotiate effective change on the world stage.

Our producers and businesses on and off the farm do not have the ability to run up a flag of convenience to protect them from the government's mismanagement. They can only watch as their hard-earned tax dollars are ripped out of their hands and used and abused by this Liberal culture of corruption.

Municipal governments have shown leadership. Provincial governments have stepped to the plate. However, it has become obvious that the Liberal government is incapable of dealing with the issues facing rural Canada. It has driven the entire agriculture industry into the red.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add some comments to this debate on the reinstatement motion.

The aspect that members have taken is broadening the debate somewhat and not sticking strictly to this particular motion. I feel that it is part of a bigger issue that we have been dealing with here in the House in the last number of years. Certainly, it gets into the whole issue of democracy, and the lack of it to some degree, in the House of Commons. That has become a rallying cry of the new Prime Minister, but it is something that we have talked about in our party ever since the first member of the Reform Party came to the House in 1988.

We have talked about the lack of democracy and the way that the entire institution is structured, particularly at the committee level, which is structured so that every committee is weighted in favour of the government. We have seen whole ranks of Liberal Party members at a committee being jerked out and replaced by other members who would toe the party line when the Liberal members got too far away from what the minister or the Prime Minister wanted.

That to me is an absolute disgrace. It stifles proper debate. Members who sit on these committees and listen to the debate day after day, who hear Canadians who come forward to offer their expertise, ideas and views, and who have formulated opinions on those debates, are pulled out and replaced by members who have not sat through one minute of any of the debate and do not know what is going on. Most times they do not even know what they are voting on. They are whipped into these committees to take over and make the wish of the government felt.

If we want to talk about the democratic deficit, we are debating this motion under closure. There was quite a discussion by previous speakers about that issue. They claim that in the past, and they name the years, these motions were introduced and passed unanimously in the House. I used to chair a few meetings back in my municipal politician days, and when anything was unanimous one had to start to worry that maybe we were getting into a groupthink type of situation where we needed a naysayer somewhere among the group just to keep everybody honest and to open up people's minds and eyes on other issues.

We are in a situation today where the House was prorogued so that the governing party could elect a new leader and put him in as Prime Minister under the guise that there was going to be this great change, this empowerment of members of Parliament, this great democratic deficit fighter. However, the first thing we find out after the Prime Minister was put in place is that there will not be any free vote on an issue that is of concern to many Canadians. I am talking about funding for the gun registry system.

The first issue that will be brought into the House that would require a free vote, so that a lot of the members on the government side could vote the wishes of their constituents, is going to be a whipped vote. The government can come up with all the reasoning it wants about why it has to be a whipped vote. It does not, and it would be nice to see that somebody who campaigned and talked a lot about restoring democracy to the House of Commons would not let that happen; however, it looks like we are going to let that happen.

Another issue, which ties both democratic reform into western alienation and into a whole lot of other areas, is the reform of the Senate. Quite a while ago now, we elected two senators-in-waiting in Alberta. Bert Brown won that election. He got more votes in that election than all the Liberals in Alberta put together. He is the choice of the people of Alberta. There have been Alberta vacancies in the Senate. The first step to reforming the Senate, or to reforming how this institution works, is to get some elected people in the Senate. This would be one way to do it. We now have other provinces that are talking about electing their senators and putting up a slate from which the Prime Minister could pick.

That is a small step to a Triple-E Senate, but it is the first step. The people who would be in the Senate would be the choice of the people that they are representing. Does that not sound familiar? Is that not what democracy is supposed to be about? We do not have it in the upper house. It can overrule the elected body. This all ties back into this whole democratic deficit issue and gets us back to the fact that we are debating this bill under closure.

I was alluding to the fact that in the past, there were unanimous votes on motions similar to this; however, I do not believe that those situations were the same as this one. We have a new Prime Minister who has worked very hard to distance himself from what he has done in the House for the last 10 years. He campaigned on the fact that he is a new man, this is a new party and that things were going to be different. Well, things are not different and things will not be different.

This whole city, Parliament Hill, the media and the government side, are being briefed by the Auditor General. We are just waiting for this bomb to go off, another scandal exposed, and I can predict what will happen. The Prime Minister will bury this some way so that the truth will never be known to Canadians. A public inquiry has been called into the Maher Arar issue. It has been taken off the table so we cannot talk about it. We have had the definition of marriage, one of the biggest issues to face this country that engaged almost everybody in this country in one way or the other. That was put to the justice committee. They travelled across this country, heard from thousands of Canadians on how they felt, and before the report could be tabled in the House, the government made its own legislation and sent it to the Supreme Court to be vetted.

All of those contributions by Canadians and all of the hundreds of thousands of letters and e-mails and petitions we received are no good. We are going to develop our own legislation. We are going to send it to the Supreme Court to be vetted before the voices of Canadians have a right to be heard. If we want to talk about democracy and changing things here, we are off to a rocky start with the new Prime Minister. It looks like we are going down the same road as the last Prime Minister.

We cannot have it both ways. He wants to distance himself from what has happened around here for the last 10 years and what he did as the finance minister--I certainly do not want to distance myself from my record here or the record of my party--but that cannot be done. He cannot then reintroduce a bunch of bills that the former Prime Minister introduced.

If bills are going to be reintroduced, if he is going to pick and choose which bills should be brought back, if he wants to introduce one, he should reintroduce them all. That is the only fair way to give all Canadians a say on all the issues.

What the government is doing through this motion is saying that it will bring back some bills, and others that are not going the way it wants, it will not bring it back. If one bill is going to be brought back, all of them should be brought back. That would be the fair way to do it.

If he truly wants to distance himself from what has transpired around him for the last 10 years--which he has been a big part of, has been the eye of the needle, and that is the quote from the new Finance Minister, that the Finance Minister is the eye of the needle through which everything else flows in government--then he should scrap those bills and start over again. Certainly it would be a big issue. Certainly it would cause a lot of work for committees, but he would be able to honestly stand up and say that he has tried to distance himself, but he only distances himself when he wants to and he goes back to the old ways when it is convenient.

One of the issues that I find particularly appalling is the fact that last week we saw a statistic that the agricultural industry in this country as a whole is $13 million in the red. Let us just think about what that means to Canada, a country that was created on the back of agriculture. When it is all added up, the amount of product and food that is produced for the world by that entire industry cannot break even. That in itself is a testament to failed government policies, failed government programs and a government that cannot go to the negotiating table when it is dealing with international treaties and get a fair deal for our producers.

Since the BSE issue hit Canada on May 20 last year, some 260-odd days have passed by. The House of Commons, where desperate people are turning to for help, has sat for 55 out of 260 days.

Why was that? We had an extended summer break. The House was prorogued so that the government could get on with the internal issues of the Liberal Party. Now it seems to me that in the middle of this crisis, when our entire agriculture industry cannot make enough money to get into the black, the Prime Minister is going to call an election. That is absolutely irresponsible.

When there are problems of this magnitude in the country, the government should stay here, keep us here until something is resolved. It is turning its tail and going to the people, claiming the government needs a mandate to do its job. Well, the government's job is here. There are some problems that need to be addressed. It should damn well do them and find some solutions. It should go south of the border and get forceful with our American neighbours if that is what is needed, but do not turn tail and go to the people.

I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister does do that, drops the writ on April 4 as everyone is speculating he will do. We do not know in Canada because it is up to the whim of the Prime Minister, but Canadians will hold him responsible for turning tail, for only sitting for 55 out of 260 days, when one whole industry in the country is suffering.

We do not have to go very far to find a sector of our economy that is hurting badly. There is the steel industry. In the middle of all of this, does the Prime Minister still have enough gall to call an election? I hope Canadians remember. I hope they hold him to task and they boot that government out of power, and put one in that will listen to people and will bring some serious democratic reform to the House.

I have talked about a number of issues that have come forward and that tie everything in with this reinstatement motion, where members are trying to distance themselves from what has transpired.

It is interesting that all the ex-ministers and ex-parliamentary secretaries are convened in a few rows near the back door. There is quite a bit of chatter that goes on over there. I was wondering the other day if that was a wise move by the House leader to put them all together.

Another item that was brought up by the House leader from the previous government was that we wanted private members' bills reinstated. He felt that there was some kind of a contradiction here that we would want private members' bills reinstated, but we did not want government bills reinstated.

Most of us who have brought private members' bills forward have not tried to distance ourselves from what we did in the last few years. This is unlike the Prime Minister across the way. When we put a private member's bill forward, we believe in it. We will back it up no matter how many times the government prorogues or how many times it adjourns. It is because it is the right thing to do. We will bring it back. I found it a little offensive to draw that comparison, the fact that we would want private members' bills reintroduced and not support this motion.

The government has the ability to pick and choose. I have talked about that to some degree. The government has put forward a motion and expects it to pass. It then moves closure so it will come to a vote and then its members vote for it and it passes of course. However, when there is a motion that allows a government to pick and choose the bills that it wants returned, think about that for a minute. That means that a lot of the work that has gone on is worthless and means nothing. It means that some of the things that are a priority for the government mean more. It means the government will bring those bills back. It is an interesting issue.

There is a bill that I have concern about that will be brought back. It is one that is causing some controversy. I believe it needs a lot of discussion and work to make it ready for the Canadian people. It is the bill decriminalizing marijuana. There are people on both sides of this issue. My party has a concern and I personally have a concern with this issue.

I spoke to some law enforcement people about this and they have a grave concern that if this thing is not handled right it will feed right into the hands of organized crime. The fact that one aspect of organized crime will be partially legalized or decriminalized which will allow it to get its hooks into that aspect and funnel money to support some of its other illegal functions is something we need to be absolutely clear on. If the government chooses to bring back that particular bill we must ensure that it does not play into the hands of the criminal element in this country. It is of grave concern to the police forces across Canada that it will.

One of the issues in the bill, that young people would be segregated out and treated less harshly if they are caught with marijuana, sends the wrong message. The issue of the amount is a huge concern to our party because the amount that was suggested is too much and is not relative to what could be considered to be personal use. If that amount is put in, it would create a whole problem there.

There is also the issue of driving under the influence of drugs. How do we control that? What do we do at the roadside when someone is stopped and is obviously under the influence of drugs? What does one do with them? How does one test for that? Is there such a thing? That whole debate goes on.

The one issue that really gets my goat is what the government did with the definition of marriage. It even brought in a couple of weeks ago another clause or another statement that it wanted the Supreme Court to vet.

A lot of what the government is doing is taking controversial issues that need to be debated in a campaign and by Canadians and taking them off the table by either shovelling them off to the courts or creating inquiries to have them put aside until after the election. I truly hope that if we go to the polls and are out campaigning during April and part of May that Canadians will remember the history and record of the government on a lot of these issues and hold it to task. I hope Canadians put the blame where it belongs, right there with that party.

I will wrap up by saying that I appreciate the opportunity to do this. The fact is that this debate is going on under closure under a Prime Minister who promised to come back and make a difference. He promised that when he got that chair he would make such a difference in this country that we would not even recognize it.

I suggest to the House and to Canadians that nothing has changed. I think as time goes on it will become more and more evident that it is the same old, same old. It is time for a new and fresh look at how to run this country and we will be reminding Canadians of that in the few months to come.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. This problem has seeped out and spread out into all aspects of the economy. I do not think there is anyone not in trouble. Over the last couple of weeks I have had the opportunity to visit a number of businesses and there is not one that I went into that is not in trouble.

One in particular has been operating very well for 25 years. What has happened is this was not a slow decline that could be predicted in the economy that dropped off the table, their business just stopped. They have no means of recovering or handling that. This is why they are looking to the government for some help.

People in the cattle industry are proud people. They do not ask for a handout when they do not need it and if they get through this, they will never ask for another one. When they are up against the wall and they are struggling for their very survival, I think it is time we stood back and had a look.

The atmosphere in this industry is poisoned. I do not know how we are ever going to get investors back into the industry. If another case of BSE were to happen next year and it did all of this to us again, people will stay away. We have to somehow put a regime in place that will not allow this to ever happen to us again. I do not care how many cases of BSE we find, we have to put the protocols in place that allow this country and allow the international community to deal with this in a sane and level manner.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, there is one instance that was brought to my attention. This business has lost equity of $6 million this year. The reference margins that were supplied to him at 70% would return to him $1.4 million through this process. How does that work out when he has lost $6 million and the program will only give him back $1.4 million? This is if he puts up a substantial sum of money in the beginning.

I have a headline from the Lethbridge Herald , “Bankruptcies Soar: Huge increase in numbers from ag related businesses attributed to mad cow disease”.

I also have quotes here from constituents, families that have sent them to me. The first one states, “We are really up against the wall. If we don't receive an answer from you within the next week, I fear we will lose everything”. This is from a family trucking business. Another quote states, “We find ourselves in an increasingly desperate situation. As a small producer we are certainly bearing the brunt of the BSE crisis”. The final one states, “My days in business are numbered. Please, I need your help”.

I just leave that with the minister. These are real people, real families and they are in a real bind. They need some help and they need it now. The program that was put in place, that money went right through their hands and we all talked tonight about where it ended up.

Any program that is designed from here on in has to stop at the producers level so they can get the trucking industry going, so that they can get the welders, the machinists and the mechanics going. It cannot just slip through their hands and everyone lose equity in this business and no one can open their doors in the morning.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the hour is late here in the House of Commons, but it certainly is a lot later on many of the farms and in many of the businesses across this country that rely on agriculture for their income.

May 20 and December 23 of 2003 are days many in this country will never forget. These of course are the dates on which two cases of BSE were discovered in North America, one in Canada and one in the United States.

The fact that there is a border between each case is immaterial. Or it should be immaterial. The fact is that the Canada-U.S. border remains closed to trade in live cattle due to politics, not science. All the scientific evidence has proven that beef in North America is safe and the best food safety protocols in the world are in place to ensure that it stays that way.

Why then do we have restrictions that are hampering the free trade of cattle, beef and other ruminant products? We can talk about the poisoned relations between Canada and the United States, a relationship that I personally think needs much repair. We can talk about the abuse of international protocols by many countries, including our own. We can talk about unexplored markets around the world, which would help ease our dependence on the U.S. market. All of these issues are part of the problem. However, what is it that is needed to return a once vibrant growth industry back to its pre-BSE status?

Because this is a take note debate, I want to offer some suggestions to the government to bring this crisis to an end and to end the pain that is being felt in many businesses in Canada, both on and off the farm.

The first is to harmonize the health standards in North America. That includes Canada addressing the fact that we do not allow U.S. feeder cattle into Canada on a year round, untested basis. This of course addresses the issue of bluetongue and anaplasmosis.

The second is to seek agreement from the international community through the OIE to completely exempt cattle 30 months and younger from any negative trade action.

The third is to examine the feed protocols and ensure there is absolute compliance.

The fourth is to establish world confidence in beef from mature animals by targeting any new testing where it will do the most good and in realistic quantities that leave no doubt our process is the safest in the world. This would create demand and give value to our mature animals.

The fifth is to control imports of beef to maximize the use of mature animals from Canadian producers and increase inspections of imported beef to guarantee its quality and to guarantee its origin.

The sixth is to implement the task force that the chairman of the agriculture committee mentioned previously and which was recommended by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to look into the cattle industry. I suggest that we look at the entire industry, from cow-calf operations to retail sales, to ensure that the industry operates on a fair and equitable basis. This task force could also include in its mandate the issue of slaughter capacity and limited packer options.

The seventh I have mentioned to the minister previously. It is to change the disaster component of the CAISP program to include BSE as a natural disaster. This would give the producers one more level up in the help that they would receive.

But my final offering to this government is to do whatever is necessary to get the border open to trade in live cattle and to start by getting the bureaucrats out of the way. They have done their job. Now they are only hindering the process. I say through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister that if they will not get out of the way, I suggest that he move them out of the way. We have a problem in the bureaucracy in this ministry and it has to change. If they will not go, make them go.

I referenced a letter today from the president of the CFIA to a producer in my riding. Some of the statements in it are absolutely irresponsible. I would also like to mention the comment period that the CFIA has established in dealing with the rules to change the health standards on bluetongue and anaplasmosis. That is a farce. It is a thinly veiled attempt by the CFIA to keep the status quo and keep the border closed to live cattle from the U.S. on a year round basis. That has to change.