Wayne Easter

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks made by the Leader of the Bloc Quebecoisl. I was hoping there would be something concrete other than venom and anger. There was little reality in terms of the comments he was expressing in the House. He knows full well that it puts the minister in an impossible position in having to be here for this debate in the House today rather than where he should be. It is typical of the Bloc Quebecois to play political games and to put the government in a difficult position.

I have a specific question for the leader of the party opposite. However, before I do that, I want to point out that there has been strong action taken by the Government of Canada. Just look at some of the numbers. He is expressing it as if nothing was happening. Here are the facts: in January 2003, $528 million was put into the BSE recovery program; in November 2003, $120 million was added; in March 2004, $930 million was added; and the September 10 announcement has also helped the industry. There is a lot happening. We have made it very clear on this side of the House that we are looking at other options. We want to see other options.

In the motion, the Bloc talks about “implement specific measures as soon as possible”. That is typical of the Bloc. The motion does not talk about any specific measures. The Bloc is talking hot air. It should lay the specific measures on the table so we can see where it really stands.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from that side, but not a whole lot in substance, if I do say so myself.

The fact of the matter is that in 2003 we saw the biggest payouts in history from the Government of Canada to the farm community: $4.87 billion. That is a lot of money. We know full well that there is a lot of suffering at the farm level, but we have been there for the farm community. Let us add on top of that the money that is coming from the provincial governments.

We are continuing to look at CAIS programming and how it can be improved; it has not even been operating a couple of years yet. We are looking at that program. We are analyzing it. We will continue to improve it as time goes along. We remain there for farmers and we will continue to do so.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his concern. The same concern exists on this side of the House. We certainly have been moving forward beyond the CAIS program with other measures to try, as I said a moment ago, to assist the livestock industry in its time of need. But on this kind of programming, the federal government just cannot act on its own either.

We have discussed the issue at the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture meeting. I would point out that at that meeting of the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture in September, we did agree, as I said a moment ago, to extend the simplified one-third deposit to the 2004 CAIS program year and to extend the deadline by which deposits must be made for 2003 and 2004 program years to March 31, 2005. I want to spell that out clearly for the record.

This means that producers in all provinces, except Prince Edward Island and Ontario, do not have to make their deposit until next year.

As members may already know, industry has recommended the elimination of the deposit requirement under CAIS and ministers have agreed to look at alternative program mechanisms that better support active risk management by producers. Officials have certainly started that work.

I should point out that, contrary to what the member opposite says, CAIS and the federal investment of $488 million announced in September to assist Canada's livestock industry in repositioning itself are not the only government initiatives to help the industry manage through this difficult time.

In June 2003 governments announced $520 million for the BSE recovery program. In November 2003 the Government of Canada provided $120 million for the cull animal program. It did not stop there. In March of this year, there was an additional $930 million for the transitional industry support program.

I think it is safe to say that this government has not only been helping industry through this difficult time, we have been there every step of the way, and we will continue to be. That shows through the minister's answers in the House today. We are there looking at other programming and we will stand and continue to stand by producers in their time of need.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I think if the member would look at Hansard he would see that the minister responded to that particular question today.

We are in fact working with industry to try to deal with the number of cull cattle. The minister is specifically trying to address the slaughter capacity so that within as short a time as possible we have the slaughter capacity to kill the animals in Canada.

I should point out that we have been working closely with industry throughout the CAIS development process. We had consultations across the country from August 25 to September 7 to hear the industry's concerns and examine new options. As a result, industry tabled a recommendation to the federal and provincial ministers to eliminate the producer deposit.

After reviewing that recommendation, the provincial and federal ministers together concluded there were some gaps in the current model, but that any major changes to the program should take place within the annual review process along with industry. In the meantime, ministers extended the third deposit and deposit deadline to March 31, 2005. That is to benefit producers.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the basic question that the member raised on November 5. However, I will attempt to deal with the three points he raised tonight as well.

With respect to farmers who have not signed up in his area, as the member probably knows, we have extended the deadline a couple of times, actually, which gives farmers the opportunities to sign up for the program as the information rolls out. We certainly encourage them to do that.

There is no question that the equity, especially for people in the livestock industry, has declined drastically as a result of the BSE crisis and the border remaining closed. The value of the assets, especially in terms of total value, has in fact gone down. We recognize that. We are trying to deal with that. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stated in the House earlier today that because of some of the programming we have done as a government, the price has actually now increased and farmers' equity, in terms of those cattle, should be starting to increase again.

The member said that BSE is a national disaster. That is absolutely true; there is no question about that. However, the government has been there for producers beyond the CAIS program itself. We have been there. The September 10 announcement by the minister changed our focus considerably. The minister clearly stated that we will continue to work on opening the border with the United States. We have heard what President Bush has had to say. We are making progress on that issue.

However, beyond opening the border, we are working in other ways. We have introduced the set aside program for feeder cattle and fed cattle. That is having an impact on the market. We are looking at repositioning the Canadian industry by increasing our own slaughter capacity in this country. We have set up the programs in order to do that. We are making good progress. We must have the slaughter capacity in this country.

I want to make a couple of remarks about the CAIS program. The CAIS program represents a long term commitment by governments, both provincial and federal, that tries to respond to producers' needs for a comprehensive program that protects farmers against drops in farm income. It replaces NISA, under which it took years for producers to rebuild their accounts after a downturn, and goes some distance to eliminating the uncertainty producers faced in the past because of government's continuing reliance on ad hoc programs and ad hoc responses to low income situations.

Having said that, as members can clearly see from my remarks, the government has been there. We added to the CAIS program. We added to the safety net by bringing in these other measures to specifically assist the livestock industry in its time of need. The government is doing its best to be there for Canadian farmers.

[Agriculture, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what a contradiction in terms of the way the member approaches this question. If we were to favour a beef slaughter plant, then why would we be moving with different programs to assist the slaughter industry in increasing its capacity? That would provide competition to the very plant she says that we are favouring.

We are doing our best to increase slaughter capacity and the member opposite should be assisting us in that regard.

[Agriculture, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the hon. member opposite fails to read the whole report and just picks and chooses, cherry-picks, so to speak.

Both the consultant's report and the international report indicate that the agency's response to BSE amounted to a job well done. The member knows full well that the government has been there for producers in terms of over $2 billion of assistance. We continue to work to get the border open, and CFIA is seen as having done a reasonably good job.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and indeed for his suggestion. I believe a similar suggestion was made today before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food when the minister was there. This minister has certainly shown a willingness to look at all sensible options. I think he suggested to the member at the time that we would indeed look into that to see if it is in any way feasible.

The bottom line is that as a government through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we have put additional resources to the CFIA so that it can get these plants wherever they may be up and running according to federal standards, because we certainly need to assure countries we export to that we are meeting the federal standards and guidelines that have been established internationally, and we are doing that.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of slaughter domestically within the provinces, the question would really be better put to the provinces because our responsibilities certainly are for federal inspections and guidelines through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I want to come back to the question on the loan loss reserve program, because the way the member originally phrased the question was by saying if the loan loss reserve program does not work.

On this side of the House when we introduce programs, we expect them to work. We are a proactive government and the minister has shown clearly with his September 10 statement that we are being proactive through the feeder set-aside program and the fed cattle set-aside program, trying to increase slaughter capacity through the loan loss reserve, continuing to put the pressure on the U.S. to open the border and, since that time, trying to ease the difficult situation that farmers find themselves in by an advance in CAIS.

The fact of the matter is that we do expect the program announced on September 10 to work. At the Canadian Federation of Agriculture symposium I was at, several speakers, including those from the beef industry, felt that with the current expansions that are on deck now, by early 2006 we should be in a position to be able to match the supply to slaughter capacity.

I think it is important to recognize that substantial private investment is already under way, therefore, to increase slaughter capacity. However, we recognize that this investment by itself may not be sufficient. We recognize that there are some small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as start-ups, that are having more difficulty arranging financing than the larger established entities.

The loan loss reserve program is therefore intended to help bring the domestic slaughter capacity and the supply of ruminants, cattle in particular, into balance. The actual increase in domestic slaughter capacity will effectively be determined by the private sector, including slaughter enterprises, financial institutions, investors and ruminant producers.

It avoids the question and the problems caused by direct government financing determining exactly how much slaughter capacity should be added and where it should be located. The bottom line is that under the loan loss reserve program, loans will be made on commercial terms. The decision on whether or not to extend credit will remain with the lender, based on a sound business plan put forward by the applicant. The loan loss reserve is there to assist the expansion of capacity as long as there is a business plan that shows this increased capacity is sustainable and makes good business sense.

I think that clearly shows that as a government, through the minister, we are being proactive on a number of fronts. Our whole strategy is to increase that slaughter capacity through the lending community and the program we have added to it so that we balance up the ability for the packing industry and the slaughter plants to be able to handle all of the Canadian supply that is out there in terms of ruminants.

[Agriculture, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would think adding with the provinces over $2 billion over and above CAIS is really not relying on that program in its entirety. We recognized that there had to be ad hoc programming and we went out there and did it. As I said, we are trying to manoeuvre the market price so that producers can get prices out of the marketplace. We are trying to increase the slaughter capacity so we can have a made in Canada solution. We are working with the United States and with Japan and others to find other markets for our beef. We are there for producers--