Wayne Easter

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I am actually shocked by a couple of comments that the member made.

It is absolutely terrible that a Canadian member of Parliament would stand in this House and basically imply that someone else's problem, which is happening in this country, is of no concern to her. It is absolutely terrible for a member of Parliament to take that position.

The member opposite asked why we penalize Quebec producers. Quebec producers are not being penalized. We operate under a control system, under programs that are to a great extent national in scope, and I will come to that in a moment.

The member asked why we would penalize Quebec producers for something that was of no concern to them. I think it is of concern to every Quebec producer if any animal in this country has BSE because the beef industry is integrated. Cattle move from Quebec west. Cattle in the west move from the west to Quebec. Some cattle from elsewhere in the country are slaughtered in Quebec.

The fact is that in terms of her point, why not just make Quebec a region and leave them out of this problem, it is pretty near impossible to do that on BSE but it is something we have done in other cases where we could. We have used the principle of regionalization with significant success in the past for the benefit of producers in Quebec and elsewhere in the case of tuberculosis, avian influenza in B.C. which was a real disaster for producers but we were able to isolate it there so that Quebec producers and the rest of the producers in Canada could continue to ship and export.

However, on BSE, and I want to make this point specifically, no country has successfully zoned for BSE. To assure our trading partners of BSE freedom, Canada would need detailed records documenting the movement of animals, their point of origin and point of slaughter, feed and animal products into and out of that area and, because of the long incubation period for BSE, records would need to date back many years.

In this instance it is impossible to go to that regionalization. We have done it in other instances. Is the member really suggesting that either she, her party or Quebec producers just do not give a darn about the rest of country? Is that what she is really suggesting in her remarks? I hope not.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is misinterpreting my--

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting how many times the opposition members try to drive a wedge between urban and rural Canada. We are trying to unite the two. They try to drive a wedge by mentioning Bombardier and they only tell half the story.

Is the hon. member really saying that the $2 billion that has been committed to the livestock industry, including beef, sheep and dairy cull cows, et cetera, is not a commitment? The member opposite tries to imply that the government has not tried to be there. We have.

We all had hoped the border would open up earlier but it did not so on September 10 the minister took a somewhat different tack. Should we have done it sooner? I do not know. Hindsight is 20/20. However he did take a different approach: to keep the pressure on the Americans; to increase the slaughter capacity within Canada; to utilize a set aside program to make the market function so that producers could get the price of their product out of the market; and to try to expand new markets.

Is the hon. member opposite saying that we should not be doing that? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that we should can the announcement of September 10? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying that we should not be spending the $2 billion on this industry?

We know there are problems out there and we are acting on them. It is unproductive for the member to try to drive wedges and leave the impression to confuse farmers that we are only supporting the likes of Bombardier, because that is just not accurate.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Madam Chair, the member mentioned that he was with a delegation to the United States. The impression seems to be left by the member for Wild Rose that we have not done our work in terms of lobbying in the United States. I wonder if the member could talk about the success of that delegation.

I believe that while we were there the Grocery Manufacturers Association committed itself to try to push to get the door open. Its members are not just grocery manufacturers. They represent the packing industry, et cetera, in the United States. The National Cattlemen's Association is the largest cattlemen's association in the United States. I believe that we met in their boardroom. They agreed to work with us to try to get the border open.

I wonder if the member might give to the House some of the experiences from his trip there to try to have some of the U.S. people work from within, to have them pressure their own political establishment to in fact open the border so the integrated beef industry could work the way it should be working.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Madam Chair, there were examples that came up earlier, similar to the producer the hon. member mentioned. We have said and we know that producers are in very tough financial shape. In fact the example I gave earlier, which we have to try to address, is the food price spread within Canada. I have a grading certificate here from a producer that is a neighbour of mine, similar to the case the hon. member mentioned, in which eight cattle were shipped. Seven of them were triple A, the best cattle that we can ship, and one was a double A. The individual was paid from $1.29 to $1.33 per pound. How does that compare to the price of steak when we buy it in the store?

The point I made earlier, which I want to make again in response to the member's remarks, is that I would hope when Canadian consumers go into the stores, they ask if beef they are buying is Canadian. There are instances in the country where it is not. The Government of Canada has not issued supplementals. We have issued, I believe, a half tonne of supplemental imports this year. I believe Canadians should be asking if they are buying Canadian beef and supporting the Canadian producers. They should be asking why is a greater share of that dollar not going to Canadian producers from the packing, the processing and the grocery chains in this industry? I agree with the hon. member on the point. Yes, farmers are in serious shape in every province across the country and they are indeed suffering.

Also for the member's benefit, I do want to mention what the government has been doing. All too often we fail to mention that. We recognize that we need the border to be open. On September 10, the minister took a somewhat different tack and said first, that we would keep the pressure on the Americans to open the border, and everybody in the House wants the border open. Second, he said that we would move to increase our slaughter capacity within Canada and we would assist the industry to do that. Third, he said that we would bring in the two set aside programs to try to at least bring some normalcy to the market so that prices should rebound, should come up and producers would be paid out of the marketplace in the interim while we were getting the slaughter capacity up to speed. Fourth, the minister today has gone to Japan, Korea, China and Hong Kong and the Prime Minister is in Russia to try to increase our exports elsewhere around the world to lessen our dependency on the United States markets.

The point I want to make is, yes, the hon. member's case is similar to many in the country, but let us not deny that the government is not also trying its best to improve the financial situation on the farm and trying to move us down the road with a Canadian position for the future.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I want clarification on the response to the question from the member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

The question came across to me as if the member for Haldimand—Norfolk was asking for special privileges for Quebec producers. I hope that was not the case because we have tried as a government to come up with a program that is equitable to all producers across the country and that it is the best for all producers. Quebec certainly benefits from the national supply management system. It is as a result of the Canadian supply management system that the producers in Quebec are able to do as well as they are under that system.

I was concerned about the question from the member for Haldimand—Norfolk. There may have been an implication, based on her question, that there should be special privileges for one province versus another. I wonder what the member's response to that might be.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I agree with some of the points the member raised in terms of the situation on the farm. It is serious and we have said that. We have been trying to work at that.

In fact, I had the pleasure of being on the Prime Minister's task force on the future of farming out of which came roughly $6 billion for the agricultural industry and a safety net program. Is it as good as it could be? Improvements can always be made.

The member opposite tried to leave this impression, and this is one of the troubles that I have with the party opposite. He said that the government said that it did not matter because only 2% of the people were in agriculture. I say to the member opposite, that kind of rhetoric I do not appreciate.

We care about farmers on this side too. I would ask the member opposite to tell me directly what government member on this side of the House ever said that they are only 2% of the people and they do not matter. We are supposed to be having a take note debate to improve the situation, not get into the falsified rhetoric that the member opposite is doing and leaving the impression that we do not care. We do.

We put in place the business risk management program. On the CAISP that the member talked about, close to 70% of cattle producers are in fact triggering a CAISP payment. The federal government announced the CAISP special per head interim payment for 2004 for producers of eligible cattle and specific ruminants based on inventories as of December 23, 2003, in order to address the cash flow and liquidity issues. That was one of the programs that really worked. It got the money out to producers in a hurry.

The program that was announced in May worked well because it was a simple application. Yes, I agree with the member opposite that the CAISP application is terribly complicated and we have to improve it. However, the application in April was a simple program and the returns went out in a matter of 30 days. It was based on inventory numbers. It is not that the government is not doing anything. We have the CAISP. We have production insurance that will hopefully deal with some of those crop problems the member talked about.

The key point I want to make is that the kind of rhetoric that the member is insinuating, that someone on this side said that farmers did not matter, is wrong and he should apologize to every member in the House.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I enjoyed my colleague's remarks. She is a longstanding member of the agriculture committee. She mentioned in her remarks the problem with getting to the bottom of the investigation. The committee was investigating where some of that money that was intended for the producers slid away to.

I believe there was an effort to try to look at the books of the packing industry. She mentioned that in her remarks and I wonder if she might expand on that. A member opposite in the Conservative Party refused the unanimous consent of the House to have that come about. Could she expand on that and explain to the producers exactly what happened?

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order. On procedure, I would take it in the exchange following a speech that the party on the other side should have the first opportunity to raise the question. That kind of soft lob and more of a speech that we had on that side is not the answer. I would have liked to ask why Japan and Korea closed their borders if the only reason the Americans closed theirs was because some backbencher said something. Let us get a life here. They go on with that a lot--

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, we can see vividly by that member's remarks why it is difficult to get anywhere on this issue because all we hear from the member is rhetoric.

Is the member saying that we should not consult the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and bring in programs with which it is in agreement? What is the member really saying?

I talked about the hurt that is in the industry. We know on this side of the House the hurt that is in industry and we are trying to do everything we can to overcome and compensate for that hurt. We are trying to build the industry, but the member stood up and all he gave us was rhetoric. I did not hear one positive suggestion from the member. A take note debate should be about putting forth alternatives and options on the table instead of the same old rhetoric that we got from that party when it was the Canadian Alliance.

The member has certainly not changed much since he has become a Tory. I would like to hear something positive out of him for a change.