Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 081 (Official Version)

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Health with respect to the new organ donor regulations.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a response to the report.

* * *

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with respect to the beef and pork sector income crisis, presented to the House on Wednesday, December 12, 2007, be concurred in.

Hon. Chuck Strahl: Is this the Easter report?

Hon. Wayne Easter: The member opposite asks if this is the Easter report. If the government would just take the Easter report, read it and enact it, farmers would be much more profitable, but the government continues to ignore the farm community.

This was a unanimous report by committee members and it was undertaken out of the dire and unprecedented income crisis suffered by the beef and hog farmers in this country.

Canadian farmers, who are among the most efficient farmers in the world, were then, and still are now, finding themselves facing serious financial trouble and, in many cases, financial ruin. Third, fourth and fifth generation farmers have all done what provincial and federal governments have asked, which was to increase production, increase efficiency and increase exports, and now, in their time of need, the Canadian government is basically leaving them in a lurch.

Believe it or not, the farm community has always been at the cutting edge of technological change. In fact, agriculture leads all sectors in annual production growth, better than manufacturing, construction, transportation, trade, finance and many other sectors. However, farmers are not retaining the income and the benefits of all that productivity growth and all that efficiency. The government, although it talks about acting, has failed to act in their interest.

The real reason for this concurrence motion is that the committee wrote a very good report and it was done in a non-partisan sense. I think government backbenchers on the committee felt that the government might actually do something but we now have before us the government's response.

I am sorry to say this but the Minister of Agriculture's response is absolutely pathetic. Actions speak louder than words. The minister talks about putting farmers first but actions speak, not words. I hate to think what would happen if the minister were to ever say that we would put farmers second, because his first is very far down the line.

The minister talks about putting farmers first but let us look at some of the facts. It is really just an illusion. We know that the Prime Minister and the governing party are very good at creating illusions. Everything from transparency and accountability is just an illusion.

However, it was not an illusion when we saw the police raid the Conservative Party of Canada's office. It was not an illusion yesterday when I raised the fact that the minister was trying to violate the Privacy Act in terms of getting information on individuals so he could attack them over his ideological drive against the Canadian Wheat Board.

I will now turn to the Department of Agriculture's own estimates. The government has been spinning a line that it is putting money out there for farmers. The cost of the production program that the Prime Minister announced has no relationship with the cost of production whatsoever. In fact, I have letters from farmers who have indicated that they have received as little as $1.28 an animal. It has no relationship with cost of production. It is just an illusion.

The previous minister of agriculture announced the family farm options program, which was going to help farmers in financial trouble. What did the government do a few months later? Without notice, after the fact, it withdrew the program, taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of farmers' pockets. However, the Canadian public actually thought the government was doing something. The government gave it and then took it away.

Let us look at the department's estimates. What really matters is what the government is putting out there in terms of actual cash to the farm community in program payments. I will go to the estimates. On program payments, from the minister's own documents, it states:

Overall, program payments are forecast at $4.0 billion in 2007, compared to the record level of $4.9 billion reached in 2005 and a drop of 12% from 2006.

Those are the real numbers. The government tries to leave the impression that it is doing more for farmers than the Liberals did but who was in government in 2005? The Liberals were. When we really look at the numbers, comparing 2005 to 2008, the current government is $1.2 billion short of where the previous government was.

The hog and beef industry has never faced the kind of crisis that it is facing right now. The tobacco industry is in crisis. The government broke its promises in that regard as well.

What we get from the government are illusions, smoke and mirrors, and no real actions.

It is no illusion that in the last election the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who is heckling, and his cohort, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, promised tobacco producers an exit strategy. I met with tobacco producers last weekend and they are in disarray. They are discouraged and disgusted that the government broke its promise to them. However, that is not unusual for the government. It is pretty good at breaking promises.

The bottom line is that the government should shed its illusions and actually do something about the farm income crisis. In other words, the government talks but does not act.

I will go back to the first report that we are moving concurrence in today. The introduction reads:

The beef and pork industries are currently buffeted by what could be considered a “perfect storm”. Decreasing prices, increasing input costs, a strengthened Canadian dollar and regulatory compliance costs are all elements of this storm.... Although both the production and processing sectors are affected, the crisis became acute this fall for hog and cattle producers, who are struggling to meet even their immediate financial obligations.

Let us look at what some of the witnesses had to say. Mr. Curtiss Littlejohn from the Canadian Pork Council had this to say:

Simply put, prices are collapsing, input costs have increased dramatically, and cash losses are mounting at such astonishing rates that entire communities, including producers and their input suppliers, face financial ruin.

I will turn to another statement by Jim Laws, the executive director of the Canadian Meat Council. He stated:

Canada's federally inspected meat processing industry is the most regulated of all food processing sectors. It's estimated that federally inspected meat processors collectively pay over $20 million per year in fees--fees such as inspection services, export certificates, label approvals, etc. This constitutes a major disadvantage to Canadian processors. ...and Canadian provincially inspected processors, who are not subject to these same additional costs. To create a level field internationally, the fees should be removed immediately.

That was said in November 2007 and the committee asked that those fees be removed.

(1010)

As well, when I was in Ontario last weekend, on Saturday I met with the president of Gencor Foods, a company that was processing older cattle. It has just gone broke and is in bankruptcy, which now denies Canadian producers a market for about 700 cows a week. There were 120 people laid off. Since the government came to power, there have never been as many plants shut down, not in a long time, whether it is in manufacturing or agriculture, because the government is failing absolutely to act.

There were a lot of good points in this report, a lot of background data, and good recommendations. I just cannot understand how backbenchers over there can sit on their hands when this tragedy at the farm level, this loss, is occurring as it is, but they continue to sit on their hands. They take the speaking notes from the Prime Minister's Office and away they go.

Do those government backbenchers not realize that they were elected to represent their constituents and that they should be speaking out? They should stand up to thePrime Minister. They should stand up to the Minister of Finance, who has basically made bare the financial cupboards of the country.

The government uses the excuse that there is no money to do what ought to be done. There are only two people who are responsible if there is no money available in this country to do things for manufacturing, agriculture, the tobacco industry and many others. Those two people are the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister.

It is hard to believe that in two short years the Conservative government has taken a country that was seen as the financial envy of the western industrialized world and recklessly spent 2% of the GST on basically nothing, taking away the ability of the federal government to do what it ought to be doing. Thus, the minister is doing very little.

Let me go to the response. As I said, the response of the government to this report is just absolutely pathetic. The government starts by saying:

The Government agrees with the spirit of the report and shares the Committee's commitment to addressing the needs of the beef and pork sector facing serious pressures on its short-term liquidity and long-term competitiveness challenges.

The “spirit” is not going to keep Canadian farmers in business. The minister and the government have the power and the authority to act, but they are failing to act.

As I mentioned a moment ago, yes, the Conservative government has the treasury of the country basically broke, but that excuse is not good enough. We are losing rural Canadians. We are losing productive farms. We are losing our ability to have food sovereignty in this country. As for the minister, he basically sits on his hands.

The government goes on regarding a number of other areas in this report. Let me come to a key point it makes. It states:

The Government recognizes the need to support industry in dealing with serious pressures, but--

There is the big word “but”.

--is also conscious of the need to do so in ways that do not mask market signals and are consistent with our international trade obligations.

There is one thing I will say about our major competitor, the United States. It does not put its primary producers second to international trade obligations. It does not put its primary producers second to its financial reserves. It puts its primary producers first.

I talked about the Gencor plant going under. The real reason why that plant went under was the specified risk material fee, which put that plant at a competitive disadvantage to those in the United States. When the United States did not come along with its international obligations as it was supposed to, the Government of Canada should have recognized that it needed to act with financial resources and assist those plants so they could stay in business.

(1015)

The report covers a number of areas, but here is the worst statement in the government's response. It says that those sectors, the beef and hog sectors, “will need to adjust to the realities of higher feed grain prices and a stronger dollar”.

One of the reasons why there are higher feed grain prices in this country is due to the government's policies in a number of other areas. We support an ethanol and biodiesel policy, but the fact of the matter is that if government subsidies to one area are going to distort the feed costs for another area, then the government has a responsibility to assist in that regard.

Before I run out of time, I will make a number of recommendations that the government should listen to. If the government would like, I could table them.

We had the opportunity in the Liberal Party of Canada to have a task force that put out a report entitled “Canadian Farmers: Targeted Action for Results”. This report went to a real leader, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the leader of the Liberal Party. In that report, there are a number of recommendations on how to deal with this immediate crisis facing the livestock industry. I will run through a few of them, but I want to emphasize that these are recommendations the government needs to act on now.

The government did come out with a $3.3 billion loan and advance payment program, which was announced by the minister on December 19. The parliamentary secretary said in early February that “the money is flowing as we speak”. That was not the truth. It was not flowing as we spoke.

Action from our party in March forced the government to finally move the legislation through this House so the money would actually flow. Primary producers lost three months while the minister had this $3.3 billion loan program. One cannot borrow oneself out of debt. It cannot be done. The government had the loan program, but it just did not work. After the legislation passed, that program went into effect.

However, let us look at the cost to the government. Before committee, officials from the Department of Agriculture admitted that the additional costs in that program are only $22 million a year. The Government of Canada and the minister, although they use these huge figures, are really just putting in a pittance. The government is not supporting the industry to the extent it should.

Let me go through some recommendations.

First, the government should put cash in the hands of beef producers immediately by making a special 2007 cash advance payment of up to $100 and up to $150 for feeder cattle.

Second, the government should put cash in the hands of hog producers and immediately implement a short term loan for Canadian hog producers to improve cashflows as markets adjust. However, now we have to go well beyond that recommendation.

Third, the government should put on an immediate priority basis the 2006 CAIS payments and 2007 CAIS targeted and interim advance payments for all hog and beef producers.

Fourth, the government should work with all parties to determine how the advance payment program could be improved and accessed by hog and beef producers, including amending the security requirements, unlinking CAIS payment offsets with advances given, and extending time restrictions on advances. There I would add, although I personally have favoured caps on the CAIS payments, a suggestion that we could suspend those caps over the next interim period so that some of the larger operators can get that funding out of CAIS as well. That is how serious the crisis is.

Fifth, we need to also allow all hog and beef producers to be given the option of having the top 15% of CAIS, or the new AgriInvest program for at least 2007 and 2008, and maintain the $600 million AgriInvest kickstart already announced.

Sixth, we need to defer the interest payments, but also the clawbacks, on CAIS overpayments to hog and beef producers.

(1020)

There is a number of recommendations--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Sorry, but the time has expired. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mississauga South.

(1025)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I must say that when an hon. member rises in this place and I hear loud heckling and jeering from any other place in the House, I have to wonder whether those members just do not want to hear the good words that are coming from that hon. member. I think this is the case. As we know, the member for Malpeque is one of the most knowledgeable people in this place about agriculture.

I heard one of the members yell out, “But there are no farmers over there”. It was a former minister of agriculture who said that and he does not even realize that 70% of the agricultural industry is off farm gate. It is an important industry to Canada. It is important not just on farms, but also because it involves a lot of people and a lot of jobs.

The member laid out from the testimony in the committee that there were problems with the prices going down, the costs of production going up, the costs of regulation increasing, and also, if I recall, problems with the high Canadian dollar having significant implications.

The minister decided to give his advice during the member's speech and in his response to the report, saying that somehow the farm community is going to have to adapt to these realities. It would appear to me that in these circumstances farmers are not going to have many choices other than to just go out of business.

I would ask the hon. member if he would like to amplify a little further about the pressures and about the options, which may not even be available to the beef and hog producers. In my view, it is not going to be acceptable simply to say that they have to adapt.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter:

Mr. Speaker, it is just not enough for the government to say that basically the industry should adapt and be competitive. Our industry is competitive. There is no question that at the moment we are dealing with a surplus of pork around the world. Is the government going to just sit idly by while the pork and hog industry in this country deteriorates and vanishes?

Pork and hog producers are a major part of our rural landscape. They are a major economic contributor. They are going through tough times. They need the government to stand by and back them up.

There is a raft of areas making our industry non-competitive with our competitors south of the border, including inspection fees, specific risk material removal costs and the regulatory regime. Even labelling does not identify for Canadians whether they are buying U.S. pork or Canadian pork.

When the beef industry was in trouble with BSE, the Canadian consumer population bought Canadian beef at that time because of the promotion programs. Our consumption went up. There is a lot that the government could be doing to assist the hog and beef sector, but it sits idly by.

Let me read for members the headlines from yesterday's press, while the government and the minister sit on their hands and put less program dollars out there than were put out in 2005. In some sectors, we are in a worse crisis now.

The Winnipeg Free Press of yesterday stated, in a story about the pork cull and whether it will go to the food banks: “Amount of pork headed to food banks unknown”.

The Vancouver Sun stated: “Hog farmers look at options to cover record feed bills; Slaughter of breeding stock and piglets one route, but humane alternatives sought”.

The Windsor Star stated: “Pig farmers paid to cull their herds; Pork industry in such a crisis, piglets given away”.

Do the minister's department and the Prime Minister just not see these headlines? Do they not understand that behind every one of those farms is a farm family?

I met a guy on Sunday who said that his losses were $2.5 million. He is one of the most efficient farmers in this country. One of the reasons why he is having those losses is that he made the capital investments governments asked him to do so that he would have an efficient operation. Now, when there is a downturn in the industry, the government says, oh well, the markets will decide the answers.

In terms of food security, food sovereignty and a healthy rural economy, I call on the government to act, to not just give us words but to actually act and come out with some programs that work.

(1030)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the remarks of the member for Mississauga South about the eloquence of the speaker this morning. He stated that the member for Malpeque was perhaps the most knowledgeable person that he knew when it comes to agriculture. Sometimes I may want to agree with that, but the member should have continued and said “but sometimes the member for Malpeque is often misguided”. That is what we have heard here this morning.

Let me explain--

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joe McGuire:

Be nice.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joe Comuzzi:

That is the comment that we have always had when he and I were colleagues on the same side.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Give an example now.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joe Comuzzi:

He still insists on heckling. He does not want to listen.

One of the comments that I have is when he said that “Do you not understand that members of this side of the House are elected to represent their constituents?” I refer him to the speech by his former leader given at Osgoode Hall in 2003, when he said in eloquent terms that “It's time that we elected members to the House of Commons who represented their constituents”.

That was pretty well the tone of the leadership race that the Liberals just went through. We have to elect members of Parliament who represent first and foremost the constituents that elect them to office.

I would like the member to comment on the statement he made because what he is saying now does not show in the results. What they say and what they do are not the same.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter:

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right if he is applying the remarks “what they say and what they do” to the leader of his party, the Prime Minister of Canada. I do not want to get into misguided, but my personal opinion would be to the member who just spoke that he was terribly misguided when he lost vision and opportunity, and looking forward, and went to the dark side over there, but that is his choice. We all make mistakes and sometimes we regret it.

The most knowledgeable people in this industry are clearly the people who work on the ground, the primary producers. In the report that I said we would make available to the government if it desires it, is really a report by primary producers. They are the ones who are the generators of wealth in rural Canada, but they are the ones who are now suffering because of their efficiencies and their productivity.

The government has to be there to support them. When I was in southern Ontario last weekend meeting with hog and beef farmers, meeting with tobacco farmers and others, they cannot understand where their backbench members are. They do not speak out. Are they scared to challenge the PMO?

I will go to what these farmers said on the areas that are yet to be done. The small step of the government is not enough. Farmers have told me that the government needs to realign Canada's regulatory inspection fees and cost-recovery fees such as those applied to border measures, traceability and food inspections to be competitive with Canada's major trading partners. They need that done and they need it done immediately. Next month or the month after that is too late.

As well, reference margins do not work under CAISP and for those who have had circovirus, they need to eliminate that endeavour and give them a proper reference margin, so that the CAIS program or the safety net program really works for them. Bottom line, the government needs once and for all to stand up for the hog and beef industry in this country.

(1035)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, listening to that tireless rant that we hear constantly, I am not sure where to begin. I do know where to end.

I know to end with producers and the direction that they have given us over the last months as we formed government. The member for Malpeque spoke glowingly of his own report. His own party actually put that in, with the cobwebs and the dust, in the bowels of this operation somewhere, and right away they commissioned him to run out and do another one.

While the member for Malpeque and a few of his sidekicks go out there and waste time with study after study, we actually acted. I am proud to stand here and say that we do have the support of primary producers.

If the member for Malpeque and his colleagues over there decide that we do not, there is a little thing called an election. We can sort this out on the ground. We can go out there and actually consult with producers on the ground and find out exactly who they think is in their camp and on their side.

I will work through a few of the points that the member opposite made.

I did read this report as the former chair because some of this work began under my chairmanship and of course before that while the Liberals were still in power. The biggest difference is that there has always been a lack of respect for the primary producer over the years. We have turned that around.

The member talked about the inadequacies of the CAIS program. I think anybody checking the historical documents does not have to go back very far to find out which party put that in place, which party blackmailed provinces to come on board with that, and which party would not address the shortfalls of the CAIS program for over a decade when producers kept telling them they needed something different.

We have addressed that. We have actually gone beyond this report. We have actually taken that as a challenge and moved beyond that on so many other fronts. I believe we have gone point by point and addressed that.

The member opposite brought up a few of them. He talks about the regulatory regime. We have moved beyond that. We did a study. He also knows that under the government--

Hon. Roy Cullen: You did a study?

Hon. Gerry Ritz: Wait a minute. We took that study and gave it to the industry and said, “You decide which parts of this you want to harmonize with the U.S., our major trading partner in red meats, which parts you want to change, and how we involve food safety at the border”. They are in the process of giving us some tremendous response on that.

The first thing we found is there is not a smoking gun when it comes to differences. Certainly, we do things differently than the U.S. but it is a different system. We have a little thing called sovereignty here, but we are more than willing to harmonize our systems back and forth across the border.

We found a couple of instances, mostly on the export and importation of live animals and genetics, where our regulatory regime might be a little bit prohibitive. We are addressing that and we will adjust it.

The CFIA has been under a cost recovery moratorium for a number of years and it is capped at 15% recovery. We are actually at 11% cost recovery with the CFIA and if we have to go to zero, we will, in order facilitate that trade. We will take a look at it. That work is ongoing and is ready to go. The member said it has to be done this month. We are already way past that. While he fiddled, we got out there and did the job.

These political rants that I constantly hear might be crowd pleasers but the unfortunate part is, we keep track of where the member is because we always go in and gain a lot of votes afterwards. The crowds that he draws are very small and disgruntled groups, usually the same folks.

I was at a meeting last night with 250 producers sitting in a room. We had a great meal together that farmers produced on the ground. It was a fantastic meal of beef and pork, and all the trimmings that go with it. I had a great dialogue with them for about an hour, taking questions from the floor. They are pleased with the role of this government.

Whether we are talking supply management or producers in beef and pork, and the grains and oilseeds sector, they are happy with what this government is doing, because they are involved. They are helping us to develop the new programs. We did not arbitrarily go out and hammer on them and say, “This is what you get”. We went out and said, “How can we best serve you?”

We did that with the livestock sector. As they plummeted down into this crisis, we went to them and said, “How do we best serve you?” They came back and said, “Let us look at some practical solutions. Let us make sure this is not countervailable and that it gives us the liquidity to carry forward”.

The member for Malpeque says we cannot borrow our way out of trouble, but then he lists his own recommendations where he talks about loans. It is pretty shortsighted. He has a pretty short memory. We did that. We took a loan and we created it into a situation where it gives them the liquidity. We took second chair when it came to security, keeping the financial institutions on line.

(1040)

We have created a cash flow situation that will see them through this downward cycle and if we have to adjust, we will do more. They know that. We are in discussions with the livestock sector constantly as to what is happening and how it is working.

Band-aid solutions will not solve the problem. Ad hoc programs that the Liberals were famous for announcing but never really delivering only really reinforce the status quo. With their programming over the years, all they did was mass market signals. They did not allow the market to adjust. The Liberals have maintained a certain rigid focus. They wanted them farming the mailbox but we do not.

We want them drawing their moneys from the marketplace. That is why we are seeing differences in the money out there from the government. The money is still there, but we have not had to deliver it because grains and oilseeds are finally getting their return out of the marketplace.

That is a wonderful thing. That gives us the freedom to move over and help the livestock sector in a more fulsome way and we have done that. We have made unprecedented amounts of money available to them. I do have the power and I have done that. The member said that we should not claw back the money. We made those changes. We did not just think about it or talk about it or rant about it. We did it.

As the minister I have the power, in conjunction with the finance minister, to absolve people of their repayments for up to a year where they are looking at just paying the interest. We can even take that away and give them time to get back on their feet. We did it. The Liberals did not even have that in their plan.

We are making changes to the farm improvement loan so that more people can qualify. We have changed the disaster component under the Agricultural Marketing Products Act. Where it used to be capped at $25,000, it has now been changed to $400,000, with the first $100,000 interest free. That is tremendous liquidity. That provides a tremendous opportunity for the sector to move ahead, and it is. The market is going to drive it. Producers are adapting to it. We are starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel.

The member went on and on about a number of different things that really are not pertinent to this. It was more of a political rant. I am happy to have a debate any time those members want to go to the polls.

The member brought up the issue of Gencor. While we do feel for the company, it is alive and well in certain other sectors. It is a big multinational company. We certainly feel for the people who have lost their jobs and the producers who do not have access to it.

The good news is that this government rebuilt the trade situation in the U.S., and rule 2 is in place which means live animals and animals over 30 months can cross over the border. Cull animals, and cows and bulls have seen unprecedented value, more than ever seen since BSE. That is what drove Gencor out of business.

The member opposite talked also about the SRM removal and the feed ban and so on. Guess when that started? That happened on the Liberal watch. The industry asked for those types of things to get the border back open. We are now looking at every issue listed under SRM and removing them as we get agreement with our import nations.

We have since made some tremendous moves on getting some of those SRMs out of the system. We have taken away a lot of the regulatory costs on the feed ban. We are looking at on farm mixed feed, which is regulated by the time it gets there, so why would we do it again?

We are listening to producers. We are getting the job done. The opposition cannot seem to get it through its head that we are doing the right things and producers are accepting that.

The member for Malpeque talked about CAIS and how bad it was. He said it did not do this or it did not do that. Guess whose program that was? It was a Liberal program. In 2006 we campaigned on getting rid of it. We have done that because it did not serve producers in any way, shape or form.

Hon. Wayne Easter: And you are using it Gerry.

Mr. Todd Russell Don't sound angry.

Hon. Wayne Easter You're using it Gerry. You didn't scrap it.

Hon. Gerry Ritz: Listen to the hollering over there, Mr. Speaker. I must have hit a nerve. I am going to hit a few more and continue to do that right through the next election until there is less than a dirty dozen over there, and you are going to help us do that, Mr. Speaker. I know you are.

The CAIS program never delivered for livestock.

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I would urge the minister to stop trying to drag the Chair into the debate.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gerry Ritz:

You just look so intense up there, Mr. Speaker, I knew you were hanging on every word and agreeing.

The CAIS program never delivered for livestock. It never really delivered in any way for grains and oilseeds. In the new programs that we have delivered and are going forward, we are working with our counterparts at the provincial and territorial levels in an unprecedented collaborative way, and we have also included industry. There has been a fulsome discussion on what is needed to be in the new programs to make them user friendly. There is no sense developing programs as we did for years under the previous government that missed the mark, that never sent the money where it needed to go. It was eaten up in administration as it went out, was clawed back and changes were done.

We have made changes in the new program. We actually altered the last year of CAIS as much as we could without provincial collaboration. The provinces wanted to hold it as it was; so be it, that is their decision. At the end of the day, we delivered more money in a different way through the old CAIS program than ever would have been thought of because we listened to producers, and we did it without using ad hoc and band-aid solutions that mask the market signals.

Certainly producers are going to have to adjust, but they have to have time to do that. They have to come to grips with the dollar that is up, which this government does not control. They have to look at the instances of input costs going up. There are a lot of things driving that, right back to the cost of fuel in delivering the grain to the elevator.

We have made unprecedented moves to deliver different livestock feeds. There is a biofuels program. The member opposite says he agrees with that, and I welcome that, but his old colleagues from the NFU are going coast to coast on a government grant--figure that one out--saying how bad that is.

Biofuels are the best thing that has been announced for rural Canada in a generation. They are going to reinvigorate rural Canada. They are going to bring communities back onside with the extra jobs. It gives farmers a different place to deliver their product, which helps bring the price up on their products. It is a good news story all around, because it is also very good for the environment to start moving away from fossil fuels and getting into green energy. There are major changes coming on that as we move to cellulosic as opposed to feed grain stocks.

There are a lot of stories out there, and the NFU has fallen for this, that somehow we cannot do both food and fuel. Maybe the way its members farm from the 1940s they cannot, but it will only take 5% of our production to cover off the three billion litres of ethanol that we are calling for with our program, only 5%. The other 95% stays in the food line, in the export line and everything else. Weather systems account for more than 5% in variables, Mr. Speaker. You know that, I know that, everybody in this place knows that. It is a good news story and the crazy stories out there saying that we cannot do both are ridiculous, to say the least and stay polite within the political language that is allowed here.

On trade, my seatmate, the hon. Minister of International Trade, is doing yeoman service. We are out there making bilateral agreements with countries that are looking for the quality that we have in our dairy, our beef, our genetics, and our grains and oilseeds sectors. They are clamouring for them around the globe.

I have had the great opportunity to travel to some of those countries, and I will be doing some more over the break week coming up, to reinvigorate the trade that those guys let slide. The Liberals slagged our major trading partner to the point where we were losing out to the Americans. The Americans did bilateral trade agreements with a lot of the countries that we used to deal with. They are now eating our lunch because those guys looked the other way and did not get it done. On so many levels, the Liberals did not get it done. We have reinvigorated trade.

I have made a move as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to get rid of KVD, kernel visual distinguishability. The only jurisdiction left on the globe that uses KVD is the Canadian Wheat Board area of western Canada, the only one. What that has done has stopped us from developing innovative varieties of grains that would feed the livestock sector in a better way than they are doing now.

There are grains and so on available to producers in North Dakota and Montana that were developed at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon because they could not do the ground testing in western Canada because of KVD. That is gone. We are not going to allow those types of things to stymie trade.

The member quoted a few articles from the paper but he did it in a cut and paste editorialized way that those members like to do. The reality out there is there are other good news stories. The value of farmland in Canada is up almost 8%. The only jurisdiction where it is down is in the member's own province. People should talk to him about that. Maybe he should get on board with some of our programs.

I have an excellent working relationship with Neil LeClair, the minister of agriculture there. We have done some great things for livestock on the island.

An hon. member: Name one.

Hon. Gerry Ritz: We have reinvigorated ABP, Atlantic Beef Products, to the point where it can stay open and keep the feedlot industry in Prince Edward Island. That is unprecedented. It was built at the end of the Liberals' reign of terror and was faltering. We have made it last. We are helping those farmers out. A member said to name one. That is a shining example.

(1045)

Even the Premier of Prince Edward Island is happy with that one. We know that. I have talked with Premier Ghiz personally. I know the member for Malpeque got his wrist slapped because he was pushing that one too hard.

We are also talking about major changes to the labelling system in this country. For years under the Liberals, labelling was perverted to the point where it was all based on cost, not on content. We saw product of Canada perverted to the point where as long as it was 51% of the costs, including the packaging, labelling, or whatever else they wanted to add in, made it a product of Canada.

We are changing that. Right now we are in the consultative phase with industry. Producers are thrilled with this. The horticultural industry that has faced imports from around the world that may not be safe or secure as ours are is ecstatic about this. The product of Canada label will only be applied to content that is virtually all Canadian. That is a good news story. That gets a round of applause from every producer out there, because the producers know they can compete on a level playing field with anybody in the world. We are the best, bar none. This will give them the opportunity to maintain that level playing field when it is based on content, not on cost.

I would point to any number of things that we have done to fulfill that report. I would point to other issues where we have gone beyond that report. I could read quote after quote from the cattlemen's and livestock associations about how they like what we are doing, how they support what we are doing. They are ready to march in droves behind this government. They have had enough of the promises and empty rhetoric from that side.

(1050)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is definitely caught up in his own illusions. Remember the Prime Minister promised during the election that the Conservatives would scrap the CAIS program, that hateful program that was in place, that did put a lot of money out there. Yes, a lot of changes had to be made. In fact most of the changes that the Conservatives made were in the works when we were in government.

The fact of the matter is that changing the name of CAIS to agri-stability is not scrapping the program. In fact that program the Conservatives so hated that they have left in place and changed the name, yes, is the foundation of their agricultural policy. We are saying they need to go far beyond that. I outlined quite a number of those areas.

All we are asking in moving concurrence in the standing committee report is to act on some of the recommendations that are in that report, act on them all. As I said, we need to go beyond that. We need to look at the cap. Are they willing to suspend that for a couple of years? Is the minister willing to look at the reference margin and for those who had circovirus, for instance, in the hog industry, is he willing to factor that in so that at least those producers have a reference margin that will in fact work?

The minister talked about Gencor. I spoke with the president of Gencor on Sunday. The president told me very clearly that it is not what the minister said that drove them out of business. It is not the fact that markets opened up in the United States. It is the fact that Canada's regulatory regime is too costly and that the Americans did not come onside as they were supposed to do, in terms of specified risk of materials and therefore, Canada's costs are that much higher.

The minister talked about meeting with the producers. I have been at some of the meetings he has attended. I have heard about some of the meetings he has attended. It is interesting. I guess it is just the Conservative Party's way. The Conservatives' meetings are usually meetings of exclusion, not inclusion. They usually exclude people. Only certain organizations are allowed into those meetings. Probably they have been given notes from the Prime Minister's Office before they go. We have heard this line before.

He talked about all the things he is doing. He said farmers are pleased. We heard that line before. In fact the last time they said it in December, the president of the pork council appeared before committee and said that the December 19 meeting was a cruel joke. That does not tell me it is pleased.

The bottom line, is the minister willing to deal with the reference margin for the circovirus situation and is he willing to look--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. Minister of Agriculture.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gerry Ritz:

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the member for Malpeque said that our meetings are those of exclusion, but he was there. We have higher standards than that. I am not sure how he snuck in. I guess anything is possible in Wayne's world.

We did not see a lot of help from the members opposite when we were talking about scrapping CAIS. We have had instances where we have been happy to see them sit on their hands so that we can stand up for agricultural producers and I know they will continue to do that. It is great that they, rather than producers, are taking it on the chin and I love to see that.

The member opposite talked about our scrapping CAIS. Yes, we campaigned on that and we gained a lot of credibility because we wanted to get rid of it. It was seen as a situation where the producers could never see the light at the end of the tunnel. We have done that. We have adjusted reference margins. The member opposite knows that. This is a brand new program. It is a new day. We are starting over. We have made changes to negative margins so that we can flow cash to people who are in trouble. We have adjusted inventory values as they go along on a case by case basis.

I am more than happy to deliver what the sector needs, within reasonable parameters. We cannot open the floodgates because then we start looking at countervailable situations, and industry does not want that.

As I said before, producers do not want to farm the mailbox. They want a decent return from the marketplace. They do not want to see government programs that restrict their ability to read market signals.

We have taken all that into consideration. We have changed agri-stability, the old CAIS reference margin situation. We have a top tier that the government kicked off with $600 million. We will continue to top that up with an extra $100 million over the life of the program. If there are changes that need to be made, we have a deal with the provinces that we will look at, adjust and re-evaluate as the program moves along to make sure that it does what we said it was going to do.

We have to stay within cost-cutting parameters. This is a cost shared jurisdiction with the provinces, 60% federal, 40% provincial. The only change to that is on the agri-recovery side, on the disaster component. As the disaster grows, so does the federal component of money and that is the right thing to do. We are not going to shortchange anyone because it ends up at the farm gate with less returns. We have made those changes.

The member opposite said he would like to change the caps. Why did he sit on them in CAIS for all those years when that was one of the problems? We are happy to change the caps. We have actually expanded those. We are happy to see them double. That is the message I am taking to the provinces when I meet them at the end of May in our next face to face meeting.

We have gone back into programs that have been around. We have gone into new programs. We are not scared to take a step back and ask if there is a better way to do this.

Many times what is designed here in the Ottawa bubble does not quite hit the target out there. That is one of the things that drove me into this place. It was that disconnect between what is happening in the real world and what happens here.

The Liberals want to maintain this idea of a bubble here in Ottawa, that bureaucrats can design a program. We will never do that. We will use the bureaucrats to facilitate a farmer directed initiative and make it work for them.

(1055)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have heard the minister today. I wish he had deigned to show up in the House when the Bloc Québécois called for and got an emergency debate on this subject on February 13.

Regardless, what most displeases us about his speech is his carefree attitude. The minister must be just about ready for retirement, because to hear him tell it, everything is going well and producers are happy. Yesterday, he met with 250 happy producers. I should let him know that agricultural producers are polite people. Obviously, they are going to be polite when meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. That does not mean they do not have any demands.

He may have met with producers yesterday and shared a good meal with them, and found them to be happy, but I have a hard time understanding his attitude. I would like him to compare that meeting to his meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture not so very long ago. At that meeting, the minister showed up, gave his speech, refused to answer any questions, and left.

In his speech, he said that people should be very careful from now on and that he did not want to hear another word from all of the groups opposed to his policy to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. He only wanted to hear from what were, in his eyes, the right groups. Maybe those are the ones he was with yesterday.

If he were to go looking for problems, there certainly are problems to be found. All he has to do is open his eyes and ears. Even though the producers were polite and let him think that everything is going well, there are still problems, especially in the specified risk materials file.

In his speech just now, the minister told us that he was seeking to harmonize our regulations with the American ones. I want him to know that nothing has been resolved in the SRM file, nothing whatsoever. The Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec is asking for $50 million over two years, which is not much, to help it adjust to this new policy.

Nobody is saying that the government should not pay attention to harmlessness or security when it comes to SRMs. However, apparently we need harmonization with the United States. What is the minister's position on this issue? What is he doing? What is going on? Instead of meeting only with happy people, maybe he should meet with his American counterparts and do something to resolve this issue once and for all.

(1100)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gerry Ritz:

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last question.

I have met with my American counterparts. I have had great face to face meetings with the new secretary of agriculture, Ed Schafer. I have met with Collin Peterson, the chair of the Congress committee on agriculture. We have talked about country of origin labelling. The results if they implement it, as they are, it could be the beneficiary for us of a NAFTA panel, and we are not afraid of doing that.

Free trade is only as good as the rules and the enforcement mechanisms. We will stand up for Canadian producers at whatever level we need to that. The hon. member can be assured of this.

He talked about the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I can assure him that I had told its representatives, in the weeks leading up to the meeting, that I was triple booked on that day. I had told them I could not make it to their meeting, but I would try to get to other parts of their function. At the last minute, we were able to rejig my schedule and get over there. We told them a week in advance that I would not have time to take questions. They knew what was going on. It was not a hit and run, they knew upfront. That is the record of which I am proud.

I will meet farmers anytime, anywhere and talk to them face to face, and I will continue to do that, including farmers in Quebec, who do not feel they are served well by the Bloc.

The member opposite talked about the specific risk materials. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is asking for another $50 million. It has been asking for that four or five years now, right back to the Liberal government.

Bloc members have been here, but I have never seen them vote for anything like that. They generally do not seem to support producers when it comes to our throne speeches, or our budgets. They actually stand up and vote, unlike the Liberals, but they vote against any of those projects that would see things move ahead for agriculture producers, including their own in Quebec.

The record is there. The member is shaking his head, but the record is there and producers are starting to notice that and call up—

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

I am sorry to bring this exchange to an end, but we need to resume debate.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I hope that no one will question the relevance of this debate today, despite the fact, as I mentioned earlier when I asked a question, that the Bloc Québécois was able to get an emergency debate on the crisis in the hog and beef sectors not too long ago on February 13.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the member for Malpeque has reopened this very important debate, because of the government's response to the unanimous report tabled by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The committee's study was not exhaustive—that would perhaps be going too far—but it was still quite detailed on the crisis in the livestock sector. If only the responses had been completely satisfactory. Earlier, we heard the minister make an optimistic speech about how everyone is happy and all is well. But if that were the case, we would not be here today still talking about the situation. The reason is simple; we are talking about it because the government's responses to the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food are largely unsatisfactory.

We know that this crisis is due in large part to the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar. The soaring prices of animal feed and the decline in the international hog market have also led to huge losses for producers.

A few moments ago, I spoke about the costs of conforming to specified risk material regulations for beef producers. To this day, I do not understand how the Canadian government came up with such regulations, knowing full well that the Americans would not abide by them. The government has almost deliberately created unfair competition against our producers.

Yet these producers are by no means refusing to comply with the regulations. No one wants a repeat of the mad cow crisis. They are well aware that specified risk materials must be disposed of. The regulations are here to stay.

However, the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec asked for $50 million in aid over two years. Just now, the minister trivialized the situation and rejected this request out of hand. He gave the excuse that producers have been requesting such assistance for four or five years and that the Bloc Québécois has done nothing. The Bloc Québécois is rising in this House, we are asking for and demanding this aid because we support our farmers. We stand up for Quebeckers, as we have always done so well, and often we get results. In this case, the government is asleep at the wheel. Nothing has been done about specified risk materials.

The producers are asking for $50 million over two years. The minister finds that somewhat ridiculous because producers have been making this request for four or five years. If it is so ridiculous, if it is not so serious or so complicated as all that, then I do not understand why the money is not already in the federation's coffers. This money would be used for a very simple purpose: to allow beef producers to conform to these regulations.

At present, producers must pay for the removal of specified risk materials from carcasses, and for their collection and burial. They are not sure what to do with the materials. We could invest in the biodiesel plants in Quebec so these materials could be used for biofuel. This waste would no longer be buried and they would know what to do with it. This might be worth investing in.

I did not know that specified risk materials would become a symbol of Canadian unity. The minister reaffirmed Canada's sovereignty when he stated that we are different from the United States. Big deal. SRMs are not going to become a symbol of Canadian sovereignty.

Naturally, standards must be harmonized to the greatest extent possible. If the Americans are not interest, Canada, even if it continues to regulate this area, should help our producers and processors so that they are not penalized by these regulations. For their part, American producers do not have to worry about disposing of specified risk materials as do our producers.

So now, back to pork producers, since they were the main reason we asked for an emergency debate in February. We heard a lot of testimony in committee, but also in our offices, because there had been a campaign.

I simply want to point out that this industry is very important in Quebec. Total agricultural revenue is $6.198 billion dollars. Of this, 13.6%, or $844.9 million, is from pork production.

(1105)

That is the economic impact of the pork industry in Quebec. It accounts for 28,200 jobs and $1.3 billion in value added. This industry is present in several different regions of Quebec. There are perhaps 400 pork producers in my riding. And the president of the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec, Jean-Guy Vincent, lives in my riding.

It is the leading bio-food export product in Quebec and ranks twelfth among products exported from Quebec. Pork production provides a trade surplus of $890.5 million, thus producing a positive agri-food trade balance of $289.2 million, a significant amount. Pork production also generates over $225 million in government revenue, which is one of reasons that the pork industry is important economically. And it shows why, even today, we need to talk about the crisis in this sector.

I mentioned the emergency debate that was held here in February. The reasons we asked for that debate are just as relevant today, because of the unsatisfactory responses the government has given to the committee's recommendations. We asked for the emergency debate because the livestock industry was going through a crisis caused by the rise in the value of the dollar and the costs of inputs, combined with a major drop in meat prices in the case of pork and additional costs to manage and dispose of specified risk materials in the case of beef producers. This is still true today.

Pork producers want an immediate program to guarantee loans—they got something that I mentioned earlier, but it is not exactly what they wanted—or take over the interest currently assumed by producers, while beef producers want emergency measures such as a $50 million assistance program over two years, as I just explained.

There were several reasons why this emergency debate was needed, including the silence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the face of all the letters sent to them by producers, in addition to the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Entitled “Study on the Collapse of the Beef and Pork Sector Revenues”, the unanimous report recommended transitional measures to alleviate the crisis as well as more long-term measures to improve the competitiveness of the industry.

When I said earlier that some good had come from the emergency debate, I was referring to the fact that, after the debate, the minister contacted the opposition critics to tell us that he wanted to move ahead on Bill C-44. All the parties agreed to fast-track the bill so that producers would have some cash flow.

Is has to be said that this is not exactly what producers wanted. It is also important to understand that this is still a debt. Agricultural producers will get loans, but they are still going into debt. Clearly, this is not a magic bullet, but in the short term, we could not disagree with such a measure.

Another program also just came into effect a few days ago, on April 14 I believe, with a view to ensuring that those producers who wanted to get out of the business could receive compensation for shutting down. Of course, the Bloc Québécois would prefer not to see our farms close down, one after the other. We will not solve the problem by simply paying them to shut down.

We need an agricultural sector that is strong, one that contributes to the Quebec and Canadian economy, instead of simply closing down our farms and ultimately being forced to import the products we need, which, incidentally, is already all too often the case. I would like people to become more aware of the importance of buying products from Quebec and Canada.

It is still a problem, despite Bill C-44 and despite the measures to allow farmers to get out. The government's responses are especially unsatisfactory over the long term. In that respect, the committee made some very specific recommendations concerning long-term measures. I will come back to this a little later.

I would like to quote from a letter that was distributed to all hon. members by the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec, expressing just how serious the situation has become:

Given the seriousness of the crisis currently facing the pork industry, the assistance announced on December 19, 2007, the action plan to support Canada's livestock sector, is woefully inadequate.

(1110)

Bearing in mind these concerns and others, to the effect that aid for producers must come through existing programs, the requests made by the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec are, for the most part, being made within the framework of existing programs. The federation is asking for improvements and changes in the business risk management programs. They want the $1.5 million ceiling in the AgriStability and AgriInvest programs and the $3 million ceiling in the AgriInvest Kickstart program to be raised.

The federation also asked that the reference margins to provide appropriate support to producers be adjusted in light of the unique nature of the crisis and the persistently poor market conditions. It asked that the Canadian product labelling rules, designed to ensure that consumers can clearly identify where products come from, be tightened up.

Something was handed out in committee today. Was it the hon. member for Malpeque who brought that? I think he is in the middle of reading, but today in committee someone handed out pork loins. We looked at all the labels from all the angles and still wondered where that pork really came from. It is hard for the consumer to know, let alone those of us who are truly in the process of studying Canadian products in committee. It is even more difficult for the consumer to know whether he or she is buying pork loin from Canada, the United States or elsewhere, since that is not very clear on the label. It was rather difficult to know where the pork came from. The minister said that he is in the process of preparing a policy. I hope that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is not in the process of working for nothing and that our recommendations will be heard by the minister, because he says he is doing his share of the work. We cannot spend all this time and energy for nothing. Either way, I think the work of the committee is very important and that the minister should listen to its recommendations.

Creating a new fiscal envelope to support shared cost programs would allow for regional flexibility in the next generation of agricultural policies, the famous Flexi-Farm policies, which do not exist because there is AgriInvest, AgriStability and so on. In the end, the government did not think of introducing flexible measures, which we called for after the committee crossed Canada. Producers were unanimous about the need for such measures and made a point of telling us that it was important to put flexible measures and programs in place instead of very rigid national programs applying from coast to coast. When the provinces already had similar sorts of programs, they could no longer adapt or do anything. They were trapped. They could either get on board and duplicate federal initiatives or do nothing and not get any money.

I want to remind the government that all agricultural producers pay taxes. Every province has programs that are more or less effective, more or less good. Whenever a federal program is set up, it should be flexible. I am talking in particular about programs for pork producers. However, in the case of grain producers, the lack of flexibility is even more blatant, because they never receive CAIS payments. For the past 10 years, they have been in serious trouble, and they are the farmers who have suffered the most. Fortunately for them, prices have begun to rise recently, but they are calling for a program that could be called Flexi-Farm. The government can put that in its pipe and smoke it.

The letter ends as follows:

The advance payments program which has just been improved to include stock production, should not use the business risk management program as a collateral since that forces producers to pay back advances when they receive a payment.

This letter gave a good summary of pork producers' demands. I have also spoken at length about beef producers' demands, to make the point that even though some measures have been announced, the crisis is not over. Despite the cheery speech the minister gave earlier, the crisis in the livestock industry has not been solved.

That is why I congratulate the hon. member for Malpeque for bringing this issue back to the House today so that we can get the machinery working again and make not only the government but also the general public see that this problem has not been resolved.

The problem is that the programs I spoke about earlier do not work. We have been trying for a long time to figure out where to place the blame for the CAIS program. The Liberals and the Conservatives established it; we know that. But everyone agrees that it does not work.

(1115)

Coming to power and simply changing the name of the program will not solve the problem. Blaming the former government will not solve the problem either. The minister must realize that changing the program's name did nothing to increase the producers' access to it.

They invest and say that there is $600 million available. Show me agricultural producers that have succeeded in getting any money. When they do manage to get advance payments, or some other kind of payment, there will be something else they have to fork out money for. It is quite ironic to say that money has been invested, but it is basically being put into one pocket and taken out of the other. That is often what governments do, and it is unfortunate.

The Conservative government made grand announcements, but the money is not getting to those who need it. AgriInvest, AgriStability and the advance payments program are simply CAIS programs under other names. On one hand, the government is putting money into a program, but they get it back through a different one. They have made some grand announcements, but the fact remains that farmers are not recouping anything. At the end of the day, the reality is that the government is paying itself.

We must always be cautious about these grand announcements and pay attention to the amounts that are announced. Unfortunately, they are often announced two to six times, but they should not be added up. Canadians would think there was an investment of billions and billions of dollars, when in reality, it is always the same $600 million program. Earlier, we heard some comments that gave me the impression that the problems in the agricultural sector were over, that there was no longer anything to be done or anything to be demanded, and that the producers were happy. The minister was patting himself on the back about everything that had been done.

We must give credit where credit is due. Some measures have been well received. That does not mean that the government should stop there and no longer make any effort. On the contrary, it must continue to find long-term measures to ensure that Quebec and Canadian producers remain active on the national and international markets. We are talking about exporters.

Not too long ago we had a clear advantage. The Canadian dollar was lower and productivity was higher than in the United States. When everything aligns so that our producers can, with all the necessary work, perform well nationally and internationally, things go well. But no matter what they want or how competent they are, there are times when the economy causes producers to face stiffer and more effective competition than before. I am referring to the United States, of course. The Americans have improved their productivity, and in some cases, the quality of their products. However, it is especially the rising Canadian dollar that is hurting us.

When the government simply watches what is going on and acknowledges that this is how it is and that we must wait, that is clearly not enough to get this entire industry back on track. There are two choices: the government can abandon the industry or support it. The Bloc Québécois would obviously choose to support it.

I was talking about the long-term measures people have been asking for. That is why I would like the government to take a more serious look at the committee's report. The report did a very good job of explaining long-term measures, especially in recommendations 3 and 4. The government's response to these recommendations did not satisfy the opposition parties, nor did it satisfy agricultural producers, who are not as happy as the minister would have us believe.

This is not about being happy or unhappy; this is about survival. In the livestock sector, this is about survival. If we do not come up with long-term measures and implement them right away—it should have been done the day before yesterday—that means we will no longer be supporting our agricultural producers.

(1120)

Without support, we will lose our livestock industry.

Slaughterhouses are closing. One closed in Ontario and another in Quebec. The only one that is still open is the Levinoff-Colbex abattoir. People have been asking the federal government for help with this for years, but the government has not given them a penny. The government has to wake up and invest in our slaughterhouses so that this part of the production process happens here at home.

The government says it wants Canadian products, but soon, our products will not even be slaughtered here at home. How will we be able to talk about Canadian products when slaughtering and processing no longer happen here at home? We have to take a close look at this issue too.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque and others who have precipitated in this debate because it is an urgent crisis.

Since we had the emergency debate, a whole bunch of factors have expanded an already terrible crisis. In Parliament we do many things that, in the long term, will help people but in a time when there is a current crisis and emergency, where families are losing their homes and farms, we really need to act, which is why this is so important.

Since we had the emergency debate on the pork and livestock producers, does the member think the world food crisis has added to this huge problem? I mentioned earlier this week the fact that rice has gone up three times and people will be starving in the Burma refugee camps in Thailand if we cannot come up with more money from Canada.

Does the member believe that the rising price for fertilizers, the ethanol demand, the increase in the demand and price for other foods, the droughts in certain parts of the world and commodity speculation, that the crises have happened since our emergency debate and that it has exacerbated this problem for pork producers?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. André Bellavance:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Clearly, this crisis is dealing us a hard blow at this time, although it is not being felt as drastically in Canada and Quebec as it is in many other countries, where it is even causing riots. Although food is available, people literally no longer have the means to buy it. Obviously, if we are not careful, we too could suffer the consequences.

As the hon. member so aptly said, we must be careful, because everything is happening at a level that eludes us somewhat. Indeed, we are at the point where there is speculation in foodstuffs. We must also bear in mind that in emerging countries, such as China and India, there are more and more middle class people eating more and more food. When those people want rice, it must be available for them. Other countries, such as Argentina, have decided to impose export taxes. Thus, they can no longer export, even if it would be more lucrative to export food than to keep it in the country. Some countries have realized, however, that doing this leads to food shortages at home.

So, clearly, this crisis will affect our producers, from both sides. Pork producers and livestock producers in general have been seriously hurt by rising input costs. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

If the G-8 countries, which include Canada, do not do something about the situation, there will be problems. A meeting of the Francophonie is being held soon here in Canada, if I am not mistaken, and those countries should add the food crisis to their agenda. This is of the utmost importance.

(1125)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his presentation. This member is very passionate and serious about the situation faced by our farmers. However, I think that he has spent too much time with the member for Malpeque because he is starting to sound like him. He speaks a lot, he makes a lot of noise but, in the end, he says nothing. I think he spends too much time with that member.

I find his comments somewhat confusing. I will try to explain. The reason why I am confused is because he makes many suggestions about how to deal with the challenges faced by farmers but he does nothing. He is a Bloc member and as such he can make a lot of noise but cannot take action. In the past 18 years, the Bloc has done nothing, not one thing, here in Ottawa.

Quebec farmers have told my Quebec colleagues that this member, like the other Bloc members, has a great deal to say but cannot do anything about the challenges. Farmers have told us that this government consults them and then takes appropriate action. That is what must be done.

I would like to ask my colleague if he is embarrassed, as a Bloc member, about being unable to help his fellow citizens.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. André Bellavance:

Mr. Speaker, I would be embarrassed to make such comments. What he said is anti-democratic.

Since 1993, Quebeckers have been voting for the Bloc Québécois because Quebec needs Bloc Québécois MPs to represent them; otherwise we would no longer be here. That is democracy. The public chooses to vote for MPs to defend the interests of Quebec and that is what we are doing. I was elected in 2004. The Bloc has been here since 1990 and became the official opposition in 1993. Since that time, it has formed the official opposition twice in this Parliament.

This question is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. member should be ashamed to stand up and play cheap politics, instead of talking about the livestock crisis. Does he want examples of how effective the Bloc has been in taking action? I do not think he was here, but in 2005, on November 22, from this very seat, I had a motion adopted unanimously to protect the supply management system in its entirety. That means that his party, which formed the official opposition at the time, voted in favour of what the Bloc Québécois had presented.

If he checks with Steve Verheul, Canada's chief agriculture negotiator at the WTO, he would see that it is still the same Bloc Québécois motion that is being used in current negotiations. Canada's position is the Bloc Québécois position. It was an ordinary backbencher from Richmond—Arthabaska—whom the parliamentary secretary is disparaging—who presented this motion, who worked on it with his colleagues and who influenced Canada's position today. The hon. member must be embarrassed that a sovereignist MP and Quebec separatist managed to get such a thing adopted. That is one example.

Another example in this specific matter occurred here on February 13, 2008. Who requested an emergency debate on the livestock crisis? The parliamentary secretary stood up to mock us and tell us it was useless, that everything was just fine and going well, while some of his Conservative colleagues stood up, were brighter and recognized that there was indeed a crisis. Once again, it was the Bloc Québécois who called for and obtained that emergency debate.

Why did the minister contact me a week later to say he would need my help to move Bill C-44 through quickly in order to get cash to farmers? Why did he call me? Why did he ask me for the votes he needed if the Bloc Québécois is useless? The minister needs to wake up.

(1130)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his remarks but I also want to congratulate him for forcing an emergency debate to deal with the hog and beef industry. It really forced the Minister of Agriculture out of his shell so we could get some action, although not enough.

I have the government's response here, which, as I said earlier, is pretty pathetic. The government responded by saying:

The beef and pork sectors recognize that long term competitiveness will not be served by lowering regulatory standards, as the strength of Canada's regulatory system is a key driver in maintaining Canada's animal health status....

Those words are typical of how the government operates. It makes it sound like the committee is against the regulatory regime. We are not against the regulatory regime.

What our committee recommended to the government is that in Canada, yes, a regulatory regime is important, but in Canada, why can the Conservative government not fund the regulatory system similar to what is done in the United States and Europe? It is a food safety issue, a consumer issue, and it should not be a producer cost. We have told the government that.

We have already lost the Gencor plant because that government has a specified risk material fee, a cost on that--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. We need to give the hon. member some time to respond. The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. André Bellavance:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Malpeque for his question.

Just a few minutes ago, the minister told us that he would like to harmonize the regulations, but it has not happened. So what does he do? He said that he met with the American secretary of agriculture, but to say what? To do as he did with the 250 producers he met yesterday, when he chatted with them and now everyone is happy? He needs to take his job more seriously than that.

The government has created unfair competition between Quebec and Canadian producers and American producers, who do not have to comply with these rules. There is a big difference.

So there are two choices. They can decide to impose rules. As the minister said, Canada is a sovereign country. However, the producers must be supported until these regulations are harmonized. Otherwise, if we abandon them, we are essentially telling them they need to figure it out for themselves, deal with the regulations, remove the specified risk materials and dispose of them.

If there is no harmonization, the government must absolutely provide support. We cannot have one without the other.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Malpeque for bringing this topic forward for discussion today. I also want to thank my Bloc colleague on the agriculture committee for his eloquent speech a few minutes ago.

Three samples of frozen pork were brought to the agriculture committee today by the hon. member for Malpeque where we were discussing the product of Canada labelling. The member had randomly bought the pork samples at a supermarket here in the Ottawa area. Two of the samples had a product of U.S. label and one had no label on it.

That triggered in me a thought. Here in Canada we have a crisis in the pork industry and animals are being slaughtered, not for consumption but because there are too many of them, and yet at a supermarket, randomly selected by a member of this House, produce can be found that came from the United States. We are not sure where the third sample came from but it was probably from the United States.

Canada has a trade agreement with the United States that allows for the free flow of goods across the border. I suppose, when times are favourable, when our dollar is not that strong and when other conditions are favourable, that is a good idea. However, it seems kind of ironic that we would allow continuing access to products from another country when our own producers are suffering.

Some of the protection measures used by the United States were discussed this morning. It seems to me that when their producers are in a crisis, the American government does not hesitate to assist and ensure help goes to the producers when they are in a crisis. In its farm bill, money has been set aside not only for agricultural producers but for food programs and the environment. The U.S. seems to be able to do that, but here, even with all our good intentions, we always seem to be reacting to certain crises. Now we have a crisis on which we need to react.

(1135)

[Translation]

I would like to review the recommendations our committee made last December. The first recommendation was this:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada deploy, before the end of 2007, a special transitional measure that will provide cash-flow in the form of interest-free loans to be paid back over a period of three to five years, and bankable cash advances to hog and cattle producers.

The second recommendation was this:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in partnership with the provinces and territories, pay out the remaining percentage owed to producers under the CAIS Inventory Transition Initiative (CITI), and respect the federal-provincial funding agreement.

I will also read the third recommendation.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) hold formal discussions with the Minister of Finance to show the impact of the strengthening Canadian dollar on the food producing and processing industry in Canada and to examine ways to relieve the pressure on the industry from the rising Canadian dollar. AAFC officials should report back to the Committee on the result of these discussions.

There were also other recommendations.

The sad thing is that we held our committee meetings, we had our discussions, and we made recommendations, but we had to have another committee meeting to talk about the problems in the pork industry.

Then, as someone already mentioned, there was some activity on the minister's end of things. He consulted my colleagues and me, and then we tried to set something up to help producers, mostly through loans. I congratulate him on that.

However, pork producers are facing impending disaster as we speak.

(1140)

[English]

The government, as have other governments, has attempted to address the situation. When a crisis happens, we do not seem to have anything in place to deal with it. We are always reacting. We need to have a hard look at how we deal with agriculture in our country. Are we going in the right direction?

These days we are talking about the whole idea of food security and food sovereignty. We know many issues can be addressed and should be looked at, as more and more Canadians realize it is important that we are able to feed ourselves as a country, as world feedstocks go down, and as there is a push for the biofuels industry. People are finally realizing the movement across the country for the need to put more emphasis on buying local. I do not think we will get any disagreement from anybody in the House about that issue.

As I mentioned, we are now debating the issue of the product of Canada. I think there is agreement that we have to look at this and improve what we designate a product of Canada so we do not have processors, and the example was used this morning, importing apples from different countries, making them into concentrated juice and then labelling that carton of juice as “product of Canada”. There is something not quite right about that.

When we talk about labelling, in my opinion, labelling a product of Canada should be compulsory. It should not be left up to industry. After 2004, we asked the industry to voluntarily label GM foods, but this has not happened.

As we move on, a number of issues have to be addressed in the area of food sovereignty. Next week, for example, I will be in the small community in my riding of Princeton with a group of people who work on the issue of food security in their community. We will show a film called, TABLELAND, and have a discussion on what this means to that community.

When we get back on April 30, there is going to be an evening in Ottawa, where people will be coming together to talk about the wrong direction the world is going in regard to biofuels and the fallacy of that whole argument.

If we look at Canada's food sovereignty and security and, for example, if we look at the question of peak oil, the industrial agricultural model in Canada was built on, and is heavily dependent on it, our low dollar, as well as the abundant and cheap energy for transportation to market, fertilizer and chemical inputs. These conditions no longer exist and are likely to get worse, making this system unsustainable.

What we are now facing in the pork industry is partly as a result of this. The fact is input costs have gone up, the dollar is low and we have had this free market model to produce with free trade, moving it back and forth as much as possible. Yet the European Union has a quota of 0.5%. Over that, our producers have to pay a tariff to get into that market. At the same, as an aside, at the World Trade negotiations we are being pushed to increase the quota so we can allow more products imported into our country.

Clearly something is not right in the direction we are going. It is time for all of us to look at the idea of our food sovereignty, food security and safety, as we address the crisises that keep come up. Hopefully we can have a plan in place to avert this when they come up. The strong dollar makes our exports too expensive for others to buy. More purchasing power to import food makes us dependent on others for our food supply.

(1145)

The whole issue of climate change, which we are all aware of and on which we all agree, is increasing drought conditions. We have refugees and resource wars because of this. We have rising commodity prices, which are disproportionately affecting the poor. On top of this, we have the biofuel industry in North America and in other parts of the world, which is not the main reason but one of the reasons that prices of food commodities are going up.

As an example, in the United States farmers are taking away land from soybean production and increasing the land on which they are cultivating corn for biofuels. This means that the effect in Brazil is farmers are planting more soybeans to keep the quota in the world, displacing cattle ranchers from their land to get more land for soybean production. The cattle ranchers are moving into the rain forests and cutting down the forests so they can have land for cattle grazing.

We are getting this spin off effect happening. This in turn is displacing poor people who have been subsistence farmers, in Brazil for example, into the cities. We then have the whole effect of urbanization and migration into the cities.

We see the effect with the NAFTA among Mexico, Canada and the United States. As of January of this year, there has been a free flow of corn across the border. Mexican farmers are not able to compete. They are going broke, so they are leaving their farms, going to the bigger cities and migrating to the United States to work for menial jobs, probably on the black market somewhere, to make a living.

It is time now that we look at the whole industrial model of agriculture. It is time we look at a way of having sustainable communities.

I was in Saskatchewan a few weeks ago and met with some folks who were concerned about the state of agriculture in their province and in Canada. They are saying that they need a policy that looks at not only how they can make the farm more efficient and larger to compete, regardless of our dollar, and keep it moving in that direction. They also need a policy that looks at each community and how they can attract people into the community who can farm, who can have a farm on the outskirts of a small community, for example like Blaine Lake, where my family members grew up.

As well, we need to not only have that community there for farmers, but we need to have affordable housing and a community that is sustainable and able, within the parameters of the community, to feed itself and also feed people in that province and in Canada.

As we move on and look at the way the whole agricultural industrial model is developing, I predict that we will see, and we see it now, more people moving back to rural Canada and who want to work on sustainable farms.

In my area of the West Kootenays, we have an area just across the mountains, called the Creston Valley, wherein folks are now going to start growing wheat again because there is a demand for it in cities like Nelson and in the West Kootenays, keeping in mind the whole idea of food sovereignty and the 100 mile diet. We see this as a model.

I had mentioned also the whole area of biofuel production. I have many concerns in regard to the current legislation before us. I regret that the amendments I had for Bill C-33 in committee were not passed.

I will read the amendments because I think that had they been passed by our committee and approved by Parliament, we could have more of a sustainable direction in the area of biofuel production.

The first amendment rejected was:

—prohibiting the use of genetically modified grains, oilseeds or trees for biofuel production, except for those genetically modified grains, oilseeds or trees that were used for biofuel production in Canada before 2008...

(1150)

In other words, what I wanted to have put in with this amendment was that we are not going to give a green light to genetically modified wheat, which in turn would have that contamination effect, would lower the quality and would lower our prestige in the world.

The second amendment I wanted to have put in was:

--prohibiting the use of lands protected by federal legislation and other sensitive biodiverse lands for biofuel production;...

The third one rejected was:

--preserving the biodiversity of lands used in biofuel production;...

The fourth one rejected was:

--prohibiting the importation of grains or oils for use in biofuel production;...

Last week, an editorial in the Manitoba Co-operator stated that Husky Oil in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan, and in Minnedosa, initially was going to rely upon locally grown wheat, second quality wheat, which fits in with the Manitoba government's policy of 10% of land devoted to biofuels. However, because of the prices in the grain industry, farmers are not taking the company up on this. The article said that the company is going to be using corn exclusively, because it is complicated to go back and forth between wheat and corn for ethanol production.

The corn now is grown in eastern Canada, of course, but there is also a biofuel industry initiative in eastern Canada. The fact is that the corn now will have to be imported into Manitoba to sustain Husky Oil. Our farmers really will not be taking part in this industry initiative unless they happen to work at that plant.

The other amendment I wanted to put in was this one: establishing criteria in relation to the environmental sustainability of biofuel production to ensure compliance with internationally recognized best practices that promote the biodiversity and sustainability of land, air and water, and also to establish restrictions on the use of arable land in Canada for biofuel production to ensure that biofuel production does not have a detrimental impact on food supply in Canada and in foreign countries.

Now we come to the argument about food for fuel. I think it is a very logical statement that there is land in the world today that is being taken out of food production to sustain a biofuels industry. Recent research, not only here in North America but in the world, shows that taken in a general context biofuel production does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By the time we have taken the input energy, the transportation energy and the energy to power the biofuel plants, it becomes unsustainable when we look at it from the point of view of the environment.

I am not sure if members are aware of this, but the hon. member for Malpeque and others of us on the committee went to Washington. We were told by the Americans that they are pushing the biofuels industry in the United States because they have a cap on their imports. They are pushing it because they need more fuel to “fuel” that rising demand. That will come from biofuels produced in their country at the expense of farming.

In summary, I think now is the time for us to take another look at this and to have a new direction in the area of agriculture. I believe that the whole issue of food sovereignty and food security tied in with sustainable farming communities is the direction we should be taking.

(1155)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke fairly extensively about the global situation on food. I met with some Ontario farmers here a few minutes ago. The statistics they gave me are absolutely startling because, although I know the member opposite is not doing this, there is a tendency to blame the farmer, as if he or she is getting the increased prices that are causing this escalation in food costs.

I will give two examples. Both are in dispute: one at this committee and one on ethanol. For a box of cornflakes that costs $3.54 in the grocery store, the amount paid to the producer who grew the corn is actually 11¢, which is a fairly small share. The beef rancher receives roughly $1.83 for a prime sirloin steak that costs about $14.04 in the store.

My point, and I think the member would agree with me, is that the cost of food is not as a result of the primary producer, but I would agree with him that there is some difficulty in other countries because of this.

My question for the member is this. The committee made a number of substantial recommendations in the report about trying to get money out there. In its response, the government had this to say:

The Government recognizes the need to support industry in dealing with serious pressures, but is also conscious of the need to do so in ways that do not mask market signals and are consistent with our international trade obligations.

Does the member believe that is right? We know the minister went down to talk to the secretary of agriculture in the United States before he announced his hog and beef program. Does the member think it is right that the minister seems to be taking more direction from the United States secretary of agriculture than he is from Canadian farmers?

Does the member think we should absolutely always be putting our international obligations first? This is what the minister is really saying in his response. Other countries such as the United States put their farmers--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

The hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alex Atamanenko:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is a timely one. He will remember that in the all party report we did on food security all the recommendations were unanimous, except for our opposition to the way the government was handling the Wheat Board question. All of us agreed that food security is a major issue.

As for the response, I will give an example. One of our recommendations was that all federal government institutions favour Canadian producers, so that for folks in prisons or other federal institutions, and here in the House of Commons, we will ensure that we have good Canadian food. The response from the minister and the department was that we have to be careful of our trade obligations.

I believe it was one of the pork producers from Quebec who appeared in front of our committee and asked us to help them fight the foreign governments. They asked if somebody could help them fight what foreign governments are doing to them.

We need to have a government that stands up for our food security and for our farmers, even at the expense of ruffling a few feathers. I read an article about an attorney from the United States who said that she could not understand why our minister and our department were being so nice to our trading partners. The United States does not do that and we should not be doing it here.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that we are reacting to a crisis. We are reacting to 13 years of inaction and incompetence. That is what we are really reacting to. Quite frankly, we inherited a mess from the former government.

My colleague seems to be critical of the progress so far. I would like to ask him this: what is he against? Is he against consultation with the farmers by the minister? Is he against trying to make farms progressive, profitable and sustainable? Is he against putting farmers first? That seems to be what he is saying.

The disconnect between the NDP and Canadian farmers is astonishing. The NDP and its big city caucus simply do not understand agriculture. After listening to the member for the last 20 minutes, I have to ask the question, does the NDP really understand agriculture? Does the NDP understand what we have done in the last two years?

We have delivered on supply management. We are moving forward on biofuels in support of our grain farmers and in support of a greater tomorrow. We are working to give western farmers the same freedoms that farmers in the rest of Canada enjoy. We are continuing to work in support of our livestock farmers. What has the NDP ever done for farmers?

We are putting farmers first. Why are NDP members not?

(1200)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alex Atamanenko:

Mr. Speaker, one would think it is election time, but my hon. colleague from the agriculture committee read his notes very well, so I would like to thank him for that.

I will answer the question with a question. When I talk about food security in our country and when I say that we appear to be going in the wrong direction, what is he not in agreement with?

There are programs in place, but obviously something is not right if people are losing money and we have a crisis. As I said, we seem to always be reacting to situations rather than trying to have this infrastructure in place.

I also would like to remind the member that as agriculture critic for my party I represent many farmers right across this land, and we talk on a regular basis. That, for example, is why I cannot understand the government continuing its attack on the Canadian Wheat Board, which the majority of farmers on the Prairies would like to retain as single desk commodity.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good presentation by the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said, a number of New Democrats represent communities that have farmers. My riding, for example, has a very large agricultural industry in regard to farmers and also the processing.

One of the struggles that we in British Columbia have, and certainly in Nanaimo—Cowichan, is that the government has failed to recognize the needs of small farmers, whether it is protection and preservation of agricultural land or making sure their products have access to regulations that make sense for small processors. For example, we have seen the regulations on abattoirs devastating the industry on Vancouver Island.

I wonder if the member could comment specifically on the lack of support for small farmers and the impacts of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, which are sort of coming in a back door through this bill.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alex Atamanenko:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague and the previous speaker that in fact it was the New Democratic government in British Columbia that brought in the agricultural land reserve, which since then has been hammered away at by other governments that may favour development.

The fact is that we do have small farmers. I also would like to say that I do represent small farmers in my area, who are being hammered by the meat regulations that our provincial government has imposed, which basically prohibit a farmer from killing and selling meat on and from his or her property. Interestingly enough, this exemption exists in the province of Nova Scotia. This is not the case there. Farmers are allowed to do that.

All of this is a result of the pressure being put on provinces by our federal government and pressure from the World Trade Organization to harmonize. As we do, as we move into this big agricultural industrial model, which favours genetically modified crops and harmonization, it is the small farmer who is suffering. Somehow, then, we have to help sustain our small communities and keep agriculture alive.

(1205)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the recommendations contained in the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on the beef and pork income crisis.

As others have said, this is a thoughtful and considered report and the government agrees with the overall spirit of the recommendations. As usual, the standing committee has left no stone unturned in its research. The members of the agriculture committee work very well together.

Witnesses were consulted from right across the value chain. Representing producers, there were the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pork Council, la Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec and la Fédération des producteurs de porcs du Québec. Representing processors, there were the Canadian Meat Council and Maple Leaf Foods. This sector-wide approach is appropriate because agriculture is such an integrated industry. No one link is affected without reverberations across the whole value chain.

I agree with this very much. This is why the mantra of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is farmers first, because if farmers prosper, then processors prosper, retailers prosper and consumers benefit. It all starts with a prosperous, vibrant farm gate.

There is no single factor behind the current crisis in the pork and beef industry. Rather, it is a combination of changes to the economic environment under which the sector is operating today. A strong and rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar, a cyclical drop in hog prices, a rise in costs for inputs such as feed, fuel and regulatory compliance, labour shortages, wage increases and market access challenges related to the BSE crisis have all come together in what has been called a perfect storm battering our sector both at and beyond the farm gate.

Clearly, a sectoral approach is needed to meet a sectoral challenge. This is the only way forward. It is the way the committee took. It is the way the government is delivering short term assistance to the sector through measures such as the enhanced advance payments program and the sow cull program.

Amendments to the Agricultural Products Marketing Act to enhance the advance payments program were made in full consultation with producers. We spent a lot of time working directly with the Canadian Pork Council and Canadian cattlemen. We looked at a lot of very good ideas.

At the same time, everyone at the table is conscious of the need to ensure that our actions do not mask market signals or attract countervail action from our trading partners. Those good ideas delivered results. These amendments are delivering exactly what producers asked for: easier access to cash advances. In fact, as a result of the changes made to the act and emergency advances, this government is making up to $3.3 billion available to struggling livestock producers.

Producers will now have access to that support without having to use other programs as security. Producers will also be able to trigger emergency advances under the amended program. We have grown these emergency advances from $25,000 to $400,000. The first $100,000 is interest free.

The government listened to farmers. The bottom line result is that producers now have quicker and easier access to the cash they need to weather the current storm. But weathering the storm is not enough. This government is committed to helping to build a better future for Canadian farm families.

That is why we also announced a $50 million cull breeding swine program. We built this program in close consultation with the Canadian Pork Council. The council itself will deliver the program. It is a program that will help the Canadian hog industry become leaner and more competitive in a new and tighter market.

Producers are in the best position to determine the way forward for their industry. They have expressed their appreciation for the collaborative approach that this government and the minister have taken.

(1210)

For example, Bob Friesen, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said:

These measures give our hard-hit livestock producers more tools for overcoming the obstacles they face and getting through this difficult time. I want to thank [the Minister of Agriculture] and his government for consulting with industry and delivering this much-needed boost.

Beef producers also expressed their appreciation to the government's inclusive response to their needs. Hugh Lynch-Staunton, past president of the Canada Cattlemen's Association, said that the changes to the APP “are consistent with a CCA recommendation and will improve Canadian producers' ability to deal with their liquidity costs”. He also said, “We're very pleased with this because it does provide liquidity for individuals to make more sensible decisions than they would in a forced situation”. He also said, “It will provide the much needed cash flow for producers at a critical time”.

[Translation]

They said they were very pleased.

[English]

“We are very satisfied”, said Claude Viel of the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec. Meanwhile, pork producers were also supportive.

[Translation]

This will be of great assistance given the current difficulties.

[English]

“This will be of great assistance given the serious difficulties we are facing”, said Jean-Guy Vincent, president of Fédération des producteurs de porc du Québec.

Clare Schlegel, president of the Canadian Pork Council, said that the measures provide the breathing room they have been asking for. The measures in the package go a long way to giving producers the tools they need to manage through this terrible crisis.

The bottom line is that we have delivered for producers. We are not stopping there. We will continue to work shoulder to shoulder with the industry to monitor the situation, to identify gaps in programming and to assess the need for further action.

We will work through the beef and pork value chain round tables with producers, processors, retailers and others to make our regulations more responsive, to increase market access for beef and pork, to help industry implement the enhanced feed ban and to help build a sector that can compete and win in the global marketplace.

I happen to know that we are on the right track. I have been across the country making a few visits, but last night in my home riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, there were over 200 actual producers who met with the Minister of Agriculture . As he entered the room, 250 farmers got to their feet and gave him a standing ovation for the actions the minister is taking.

To go on further, during the question and answer period, he answered the questions. We got very positive comments for the types of actions we have taken. They told us that after 13 years of getting false promises, finally they have gotten some action. I was so proud to be a member of this government last night.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I really found the member's remarks interesting, because he is the member--

An hon. member: Surprising.

Hon. Wayne Easter: No, they are not surprising.

He is the member who said, either during or prior to the emergency debate on hogs and beef that we had in February, “money is flowing as we speak”. The fact of the matter is, the money was not flowing and the member knows it.

He went on at length about putting Canadian farmers first. When the Government of Canada is allowing a regulatory regime that gives our international competitors a price advantage in the marketplace versus our own producers, is that putting Canadian farmers first? For example, the specified risk material, our inspection fees costs and our total regulatory regime, is that putting Canadian farmers first or is that putting them at a disadvantage? I would like an answer to that question.

The hon. member is the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture. I proposed to him in earlier remarks, and the minister failed to respond to it, but on the circovirus question, the hog industry is in worse shape now than it was prior to the announcement, and I do not even blame the government for this part of it, I will admit, but it actually is.The prices do not look like they will be there as quickly, but the reference margins have to be made to work.

For people especially in the Ontario pork industry that I met with last weekend, who had a disease problem, and I do not want a commitment here today, although I would like one, is the government at least willing to look at factoring out that circovirus disease so that the reference margin would be there as if they would have produced normally? That would make a huge difference to producers.

(1215)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy Lauzon:

Mr. Speaker, I am really confused by that member who used to be the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture.

I think the biggest problem with members on that side of the House is their lust for power. They want power desperately. They had power for 13 years. That member and the former Liberal government had all the opportunities in the world for 13 long years to address the problems with agriculture. We heard it repeatedly last night when the minister spoke with grassroots farmers. They had dialogue with the former government. They talked and talked, just like the member for Malpeque continues to talk and talk.

If he really cared about farmers, if he really wanted to help this government move forward and help the Canadian agriculture industry, then instead of sitting down for one-third of the votes, he would stand up and vote for his constituents and for farmers.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to speak to this afternoon's debate on the income crisis in the pork and beef industry.

It is important for me to rise in this House and speak to this matter, as I did in the emergency debate a few weeks ago. Why is it important? Because this situation is so important to my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. This is a harsh reality for the producers and farmers there.

Often we think this crisis only affects those who live in rural areas, but it affects the entire country. People in my riding and across the country provide very high quality food for the Canadian consumer.

We also have to realize that these farmers and producers are going through a major crisis that can prevent them from providing that very high quality food for the Canadian consumer. For them this crisis is so significant that a number of them are considering simply leaving agriculture, in a wide range of sectors, but mainly in the beef sector.

Why is this happening? People are feeling abandoned by the federal government. They know they have to provide high quality food to the public, but they are facing a number of challenges. One of those challenges is foreign competition. Take the beef industry for example. Beef can be imported into any region of the country, from almost anywhere.

Before I go on, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint Boniface, who will certainly have the chance to explain what kind of support people from urban centres would like to see given to producers in rural areas.

As I mentioned, producers are facing a number of challenges. One of those challenges is certainly competition, but there are others. We must help our producers. The wealth of rural areas began with agriculture. The settlement of Canada and all our regions began with agriculture. We must be able to continue to support producers and show them that their federal government will support them not only today, but also in the future. They are currently going through tough times.

Federal government support is so piecemeal that we wonder why the government is acting this way.

Various factors are behind the crisis these people are going through. We know that feed costs are on the rise. Beef producers have to feed their animals and fatten them up. The cost of feed has gone up. The price of gasoline and diesel has also risen.

As I mentioned in the emergency debate, the sky is the limit. We know that the Conservative government is singing the same tune as when it was in opposition. The Conservatives believe that the market should take care of everything. But we need to look closely at the situation. Consumers are not the only ones paying the price. The people at the grassroots level, our farmers, are the most affected by the crisis.

Gasoline is certainly another factor, but there are also energy costs. These are significant costs for producers. For a farmer who heats with oil in winter, costs are going up steadily. It is incredible.

Another factor we have to consider is the rise in value of the Canadian dollar, which is having a detrimental impact on our farmers. At present, the higher Canadian dollar and competition from foreign products are two of the things that are hurting our farmers the most.

Here is the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I will read it in English, if that is all right, because I have the English version here:

[English]

In order to return to profitability, the beef and pork sectors will need to adjust to the realities of higher feed grain prices and a stronger dollar.

(1220)

[Translation]

That is easy to say. Everyone agrees that there would be no problem if producers were able to get better prices for their animals, because of the rising price of grain, the rising prise of gas and the strength of the Canadian dollar. However, that is not the reality.

The government made its response public on April 9, 2008. It was not surprising to hear such remarks. But what was even worse were the comments made by the Prime Minister a few weeks prior to that, specifically because of the strength of the Canadian dollar. The Prime Minister made the comments during a forum he was attending in Toronto. He said that, unlike the opposition parties, he does not believe that every problem that arises requires immediate financial intervention from the government. The Prime Minister maintained that it is a mistake to believe that every problem demands high-cost intervention or subsidization.

How can the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food rise in this House and tell us they are here to support Canadian farmers who are facing a crisis at this time for a number of reasons, including the strong Canadian dollar? Yet only a few weeks ago, rather than saying that things are not going well for the economy, and that the Canadian dollar is one of the problems affecting our economy and our farmers, the Prime Minister turned around and said that the government would not automatically be there to help our citizens and our industries through subsidies.

What is the message? Once again, we are hearing mixed messages, as I said recently. The government stands up in front of Parliament and in front of the cameras and says one thing, but when it comes time to act, it does the opposite.

The proof is that since the Conservatives came to power, we have seen them implement programs here and there and make hasty announcements for farmers because they realize that they have made a mistake. They make another hasty announcement because they realize that they have not necessarily targeted the right group, and they are not actually helping the people who need it in the current circumstances. And yet this has changed nothing. I recently participated in the emergency debate, and afterwards farmers told me that what I said is true—they are in the middle of a crisis, but there is no help for them.

I remember the program that was announced by the Prime Minister on March 9, 2007, again, at the eleventh hour. He said that he would help farmers. During the emergency debate, I gave the example that producers in my area were receiving 26¢ per year for each head of cattle they owned. Does that seem like assistance that will offset the increase in feed costs and the rising Canadian dollar? In any case, with 26¢, these farmers could not even think about putting a litre of gas or diesel in their vehicle.

How do you think they will survive? It is not a matter of coping but of surviving. That is the challenge farmers face today. If we do not want to lose them, as has happened in other industries, we must ensure that the Conservative government finally wakes up and gives our farmers the money they need to make it through this crisis. This will also reassure Canadians about the quality of food they put on the table for their children. This food will be of excellent quality and will meet Canadian standards, compared to foreign products that meet foreign standards, which are often inferior to ours.

Let us help our farmers once and for all. Had the government done its job, we would not be debating this issue, we would not have needed an emergency debate and farmers would not be telling me that they earn 26¢ per head of livestock per year in times of crisis.

The Prime Minister has spoken. He has said that the government does not intervene in a major crisis. He does not believe in subsidies. Yet other countries heavily subsidize their industries and send us goods of inferior quality. Why are our farmers not receiving the help they deserve today from the federal government?

(1225)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague speak and he made many good points. I listened to the members from across the floor and I heard them blame everyone else. They said they have taken some steps, a little here and a little there, but we do not really have a major program in place to support our farmers.

Members from across the floor said they have gone to meet farmers. They talked to them, but they did not listen to them. That is what is missing on the other side of the House.

They also mentioned something else: statistics. Statistics are fine—we can invent all sorts of numbers—until the tragedy strikes us personally, as a Canadian or as a farmer. Only then do we see the difference. Then we are no longer a statistic; we are the ones suffering from the tragedy facing the agricultural sector.

The hon. member also mentioned the price of 26¢ per animal. What a joke. That does not amount to much.

I would like the hon. member to tell me a little about what is happening in his riding. In fact, the situations in New Brunswick and northern Ontario are quite similar. They are similar to what seems to be happening everywhere in rural Canada. Yes, the government is leaving the economy to its own devices, and that is not always the right solution. It is not that easy. If we leave the economy alone, things will not happen on their own. We must help.

What is the hon. member's response?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question.

Earlier, I gave examples of what is happening in my riding. There is a problem at the grassroots level. My colleague said it well: is the government listening? No, it is not listening. It may be hearing, but it is not listening. What people say goes in one ear and out the other. Perhaps that is what is happening at present.

What are farmers telling me? First, the process they have to go through to get a little help from the federal government is far too complicated for the money they get in the end. Often, they pay more in accounting fees than they get at year end.

That is s serious problem. It means that the government's program has a structural problem. That is the first thing.

Farmers wonder why they should submit an application. They say that it has become pointless. They waste their time filling out forms and paying people and in the end they get peanuts, like the 26¢ a head I mentioned earlier. So why submit an application? They get discouraged and give up. The federal government winds up keeping that money and does not invest it in farmers or people who need it.

Second, our farmers are saying that they can no longer survive. They are giving up farming and going into something else. Yet we need these people. That is the reality today.

The government just said that it is listening to farmers. How can it say it is listening to farmers when these people are getting 26¢ a head? The government members should sit down with the people in my riding and ask them whether they agree with the program and the money they get from the federal government.

The parliamentary secretary would be surprised to hear the opposite of what he said earlier, when he mentioned that he and the minister had met with farmers. He would be in for a big surprise in my riding. I invite them to take the time to come and meet with the farmers in my riding, and then they can tell me whether 26¢ a head is reasonable.

(1230)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has a lot of supply management in his riding. That system is successful and it does provide income for producers in that supply managed system.

The fact of the matter is a chicken costs consumers about $4.99 a kilogram, while the farmer really gets only $1.20 per kilogram. Under that system, it is a system that works. It is so different than the hog and beef sector.

We hear all the rhetoric from the government on supply management. I have met with producers in the member's riding. Do they really trust this government in terms of its alleged support?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are here debating the crisis in the cattle and hog sector and the member for Malpeque wants to talk about poultry. We are definitely off topic if we are going down the road of poultry. We need to be talking about the difficulties facing our hog and cattle producers across this country.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours:

Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable. That proves that the Conservative member opposite does not understand that the crisis is happening everywhere and that agricultural producers in general, including those who need supply management to survive, do not trust the Conservative government.

Of course the Conservatives do not want anyone to talk about this. When they talk to the media about it, they say that they are protecting producers, but when the time comes to negotiate and to stand up for the interests of producers on the issue of supply management, the government is nowhere to be found. I understand why the Conservative member does not want anyone to talk about it: because the Conservatives are not doing anything to help agricultural producers, period.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion today.

I do not pretend to be an expert on agriculture. I realize there are people on both sides of the House who are either from farming communities or are farmers themselves who probably know a lot more, and my colleague from Malpeque is one of those people. I have seen him in action as he has gone across the country. He has been to Manitoba and has spoken to people to get better informed on what is going on.

This is not a fixed industry. New changes are always happening. I have heard my colleague from Malpeque offer encouraging support to a lot of these producers, which is why I thought it was important for me to be here today and express my opinion.

Even if I am not from a farming community, I do understand the importance of the agricultural sector to Canada. Members would be surprised at how many people call us in the city of Winnipeg telling us that we should be supporting our agricultural producers. I am sure it is the same thing right across western Canada and probably right across the country. It is important for people to hear from urban members of Parliament on these issues and it is important that we debate these issues in the House.

We all have relatives who have tried to eke out a living in the farming industry over the years. My father-in-law, who was a dairy farmer in Manitoba, worked 18-hour days, like most farmers probably. It is not easy work but, if we were to ask farmers, most farmers would tell us that they enjoy every minute of what they do. They have no regrets despite the hardships, the ridiculous hours and all the worries they go through. It is a way of life for them.

If we were to ask farmers the same question today, I am not sure we would get the same answer. Young people can no longer afford to take over the family farm or they simply do not want to go through what their parents have gone through. Should we blame them? They might actually have a point.

Cattle producers suffered through an absolutely brutal time with the BSE crisis in 2003. They were just starting to recover when the Canadian dollar strengthened and feed prices increased and once again they are facing extremely difficult times.

The cattle and pork industries are in crisis and, unfortunately, what the government is doing is too little too late.

Once farmers lose the will to continue to do something they have loved all their lives, what do we do? I think we are at the point where farmers are starting to give up on a livelihood they have enjoyed for centuries. How many farmers do we know who have kept on doing what they are doing because they love it, even though they just barely make a living?

I think farmers feel they deserve better. They are feeding the world and they deserve to be recognized for the contribution they make. They deserve to do better than just eke out a meagre living and hope to survive until the next year. We are in a crisis because farmers and producers have decided they have had enough. There is no doubt that some very serious structural changes need to take place soon.

Pork producers have been coming to us over the last two years begging for our support. They came to the industry committee and spoke to us about what was happening to them on a daily basis. Producers are losing their farms. They are not able to move their product. They cannot pay their bills. They needed help immediately, not in two months, not in three months, not in six months and not in a year. Farmers needed help when they came to us some time ago.

During the prebudget debates, I argued aggressively that once a hog producer lost his farm, he or she would not come back. People cannot go to their bank looking to start over after they have given everything up. It is not that simple. Once we have lost them, they will not come back, which is something the government has forgotten.

I have been told, but it has not been confirmed, that over 50% of the industry in P.E.I. is already gone. Fifty per cent of a very vibrant industry is gone and will not be coming back.

Yesterday I heard a heart-wrenching story about a family I know very well in rural Manitoba. After generations in the hog producing business, the family went out of business. It was not for lack of trying because they were very smart business people, but they did what they had to do to survive.

(1235)

I ran into one of the owners a couple of months ago who told me that his family had bought a store in Winnipeg in order to move some of their product. Talk about vertical integration. They were trying everything they could to survive. They are not people who are in the store business, but this is the extent to which they had to go to survive. We just heard this week that the business, which was a huge successful business some years ago in a small community in Manitoba, is closing down.

Those people are not beginners. They have been around for a long time. One can just imagine what will happen to any of the new businesses that may have started in this industry. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples like this across the country and they are not coming back.

The government has allowed a whole industry to be devastated because it did not take it seriously when it said that it needed help. I know the Prime Minister does not like to intervene and thinks that everything will fix itself. He says that we should let the market rule. We have seen the results of that flawed ideology in the manufacturing and forestry industries. W are now picking up the pieces of what is left of the forestry industry and anticipating a further hundreds of thousands of job losses in the manufacturing sector.

It is important to see that our grain sector is holding its own after many years of difficult times. Farmers have been selling their grain product at the same price for years. One of the major reasons they are now able to sell their product at a more reasonable price is because of the demand for biofuels. Unfortunately, this same demand is one of the reasons that the input costs of pork and cattle producers are increasing.

The time has come to analyze the whole structure of the agricultural industry. We cannot continue offering piecemeal solutions. As we have seen so clearly in the biofuels situation, they are interrelated. We cannot deal with one without analyzing the impacts on the whole industry. I believe that over the years we have failed to look at the big picture and, in fact, we have not given the agricultural industry the respect that it deserves. We have not recognized it for the contribution that it makes to our society as a whole.

Another reason that this motion is important is because it also impacts on the whole rural infrastructure. When farmers and producers are going out of business, guess what happens to the small grocery store, the garage, the hotel and the truck dealership in our small towns? The farmers are their lifeblood, so, yes, there is a crisis in the agricultural sector, but there is a very real risk that this crisis expands to the total destruction of our rural infrastructure.

How many small businesses have closed down because farmers are not buying their products? How many young people have moved to the larger urban centres for work? How many rural schools are having a difficult time attracting good school teachers because the towns are no longer interesting or dynamic places to live?

A small town in rural Manitoba has a pork producer who hires over 300 people. We never used to have towns that were, basically, one industry towns, but it is happening to some extent. We can just imagine what will happen to this small town if that producer is forced to close down.

I am not sure if the government has realized the extent of this crisis. We have farmers who no longer want to farm. We have pork and cattle producers going out of business on a daily basis. We have a rural infrastructure already very fragile and unstable because its youth are heading to large urban cities. I am not sure they can take much more.

We should be immediately reviewing and analyzing the agricultural industry as a whole and the impacts on the rural infrastructure. We should take farmers seriously when they say that they need assistance. They are some of the most independent business people in the country and, therefore, a cry for help should be taken seriously.

This new program proposed by the government is, for many farmers, including my friends in rural Manitoba, too little too late.

(1240)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my friend mentioned the issue of biofuels and how that affects agriculture and food prices.

I would like to submit, both for him and for many Canadians, the tremendous good that biofuels will do for not only our farming community but for our environment and for other industries in Canada.

I do not know if many people are aware that in 2007 food prices increased by 4%. While we want to have reasonably priced food, it should not be at the expense of our farming community. I bring that 4% up because oil prices in the past year have jumped nearly 100%. At the same time, the U.S. produced a record amount of ethanol from corn. The U.S. increased its surplus of corn to more than 1.4 billion bushels, and that was in a record ethanol year.

We need to know that farm marketing costs now account for about 80% of the total cost of food. Marketing costs are different between farm value and consumer spending for food at grocery stores and restaurants.

The other evening I was speaking to some folks in the automobile industry when one of the fellows said that what the government was doing with regard to ethanol and the amount of corn and other farm produce going into ethanol, will double the price of breakfast cornflakes. For those who think it will, corn amounts to less than 5% of a box of cornflakes.

I think folks need to realize that ethanol and biodiesel will be of great benefit to our farmers, not a negative, and they will be of benefit to all Canadians.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Raymond Simard:

Mr. Speaker, if the member were to look back at my speech, he would see that what I said on biofuels was that I was very pleased that farmers were finally making a living selling their grains at a reasonable price. I think biofuels could be very advantageous in the future.

What I also said was that when we look at the agriculture industry we cannot look at it piecemeal, We need to look at the whole structure. When we fund biofuel projects it impacts on something else.

We have actually taken agriculture for granted for too many years and I think it will come back and bite us, and I think we are there.

On the second issue, the hon. member is right. We should be looking at examining the whole food chain and who is making what money in the whole chain. This is long overdue, and that is exactly what my speech was about. It was about re-examining the whole agriculture industry from A to Z, which I do not think has been done for a long time. I think we are all guilty of that and the time has come to look at that.

(1245)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint Boniface mentioned the difficulty for the producers in Manitoba who have set up a wiener-pig business and are selling it to the United States. With the country of origin labelling coming in the United States, that market has basically dried up.

I believe that many of us in the House, although I am not sure about those on the government side, believe the country of origin labelling is a violation of the trade agreement. People need to euthanize these pigs because they have no barns to house them, no feed to feed them and, if they did feed them, they would be at a loss in this country.

Therefore, the Americans have broken their contract and, we think, have violated the trade agreement. Should the Government of Canada be standing up to the United States and challenging them under the trade agreement? Should they--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

The hon. member for Saint Boniface has about 30 seconds.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Raymond Simard:

Mr. Speaker, some farms in Manitoba right now are losing $40,000 a week. If we add the country of origin labelling to this, it will be a disaster.

Therefore, of course we should be doing it and we should be doing it now. We should not wait until the U.S. imposes this and all of a sudden we are reacting to it, because then it will be too late. We will have more closures and more businesses will not be starting up again. Once they close, that will be it. We will have lost them forever.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are here today again talking about the crisis facing our livestock industry. We are talking about the cattle and hogs, although the member for Malpeque was talking about poultry. I think he got a little confused because “pork” does refer to itself as “the other white meat”. He has used the term “pigs fly”. Maybe that is why he decided to look at the feather industry.

We are talking about the great difficulties our facing ranchers, cattle feeders, hog producers and everybody in that whole chain. Not only is it hurting these producers, and we have seen people in my riding and across the country close their doors and walk away from their businesses, which are often multi-generational family farms, but it is hurting the local communities and the feed mills. There is no doubt that the entire support system and infrastructure, which is tied to the livestock sector, are going through the same pains and throws. It could actually change the face of agriculture across the country.

My riding has well over 2,500 ranches and a number of hog barns. The provincial government in Manitoba has put a moratorium on more barns being built in our area. This is unfortunate because there are still a lot of advantages, in the right environmental circumstances, to expand the hog industry. However, there is no doubt that its announcement and decision was made at a time when our hog industry was going through some very difficult times.

We have to remember that what has happened has accumulated over a number of years. On the cattle side, it all started off in 2003 with the BSE crisis. My family and operation felt that hurt severely. We seemed to be getting out of that in the last couple of years, when all of a sudden prices started to plummet on our cattle and hogs and grain prices started to increase, which was great news for our grain and oilseed producers across the country.

However, people are trying to make all sorts of excuses on why grain prices are going up. We hear all these concerns raised around the world about the price of food. We have to realize that the whole global marketplace on world grain has changed. We have growing economies in India and China. They definitely are more affluent now and want to buy higher quality foodstuffs. They are buying it up at record levels. On top of that, we have had some very difficult growing conditions across most of the major growing countries.

We know that this year the U.S. wheat crop had a lot of winter wheat killed. They are rating a lot of those fields down there at only 50% good, which is a terrible situation, and that is helping push wheat prices up again. Feed wheat, a major ingredient in hog feeding, is being pushed higher as well.

For three years in a row, there were major droughts in Australia and very difficult harvesting conditions last year in Europe. Even western Canada came in with less than 78% of a normal crop. Therefore, there was not enough grain out there, and these prices are pushed higher.

I do not see grain prices getting softer. World carry-over stocks are at all-time lows. Since they have been calculating how much coarse grains are in the world on inventory, that number has consistently fallen over the last 10 years, and the grain trade, for the most part, ignored it. Now all of a sudden they realize there is increased demand for food products out there and that has pushed the value of these grains through the roof.

People have made the biofuel argument that we have taken food for fuel. As was just pointed out by my colleague, there is a lot of ethanol production in the U.S. The Americans are increasing their output of corn production and exporting more of it. This has been good news for countries that are buying food. They can get more corn from the United States and other countries that have made some major gains in their research and development of new varieties and have enhanced their productivity.

(1250)

When we look at other products such as rice, and this is the big concern in Asia where prices have more than doubled, people say that it is biofuel. We know rice is not used in biofuel production. We know the land base and the paddock system they have with the rice paddies cannot grow anything else but rice. It is not competition for land; it is that the world population is growing, people are more affluent and they are buying more and more grain.

We also know that in Canada, the big kick in the teeth for us has been the dollar exchange rate. I guess we all have to wait to see how this will play out. As long as the U.S. economy is slumping, as long as commodity-rich countries like Canada are exporting oil, grain and even our beef and pork, we are going to see a lot of people buying Canadian dollars rather than U.S. dollars, and that is really what is driving this exchange rate.

Ideally I would love to see the dollar come back down under 90¢. We are going to have to wait and see if that is ever going to happen.

As chair of the agriculture committee, we have a great group of people from all parties who are sincere and want to ensure we do the right things for agriculture. We put together a great report. We received a response on the impact of the crisis on the livestock sector, and now a really good response from the minister.

One of the things we are looking at and studying right now is high input costs. That is really addressing some of the concerns raised by producers across the country. We are doing the research and hearing from witnesses about why fertilizer prices and fuel prices are going so high. We also want to find out if there has been any price gouging or unnecessary profit-taking in certain areas of the country. We are doing a comparison on what is happening in western Canada versus eastern Canada and the corresponding areas along the Canada-U.S. border, in the U.S. Midwest and in the eastern U.S. as well. We want to find out what is happening so we can make proper policy recommendations to the government.

I hear from producers all the time in my riding. I am meeting with farm organizations and producers from right across the country. One of the things I hear from producers, the ones who are committed to being in the industry and who are hurting, is that they are in it for the long haul and they want to know what the future will be. They all realize we will have to change our status quo.

We may not be able to conduct business the way we have for the last 25 or 30 years, building up our reputation as quality beef and pork producers. which is recognized worldwide.

I have been fortunate in that I have been able to go out and make some announcements on behalf of the government, trying to help the industry along, looking at new opportunities. The beef value chain is one. There is a great round table discussion about how they do a better job marketing, not only in Canada but around the world.

We gave some money to the beef value chain to look at developing an omega-3 beef. It has been very successful in the egg industry and in the fish industry, especially with salmon. Now it is time to look at whether we can take those same good fatty acids, those omega-3s and high linoleic acid, identify them and get them increased in the content of beef. People then would not only buy beef for its great taste and ability to enhance their nourishment at the kitchen table, but because a really good claim could be made on the health side of it. Not only is beef and pork high in iron and B₁₂, but there is also an opportunity here to add omega-3.

We are also looking at different rations. At the Brandon Research Centre, we have put together a project with industry and the provincial government to look at different ways of feeding cattle, trying to cheapen up the rations that we are dependent upon, which right now are really grain-based, and moving away to more forages. Maybe there are other crop residues. There is all the distillers' grains coming out of the ethanol industry as well as all the canola meal and soya meal coming out of the biodiesel industry.

(1255)

How do we take these new feedstuffs, which are being produced on a larger scale, and cheapen our rations so the rancher who has a cow calf operation and sells his calves on the marketplace can get a good price for his calves that come out of the auction market, as well as improve profitability for the feedlots that finish the calves and bring them to the consumer?

I have been fortunate over the last few years to ensure that I have always been in U.S. courts when R-CALF has tried to shut down the border on Canadian beef. I was at the latest one in February in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. One thing I found interesting was the lawyer for R-CALF, the judge and the USDA lawyers all stated publicly on the record that Canada had a better system for the mitigation and monitoring of BSE than the U.S. has.

One of the reasons R-CALF talks about shutting down the border is because it does not have a good system compared to Canada. It often mentions the enhanced feed ban on our SRM removal techniques and the program we have here as being far superior to what is done in the United States.

R-CALF also talks about the traceability of our animals because we have good animal identification, with radio frequency ear tags, that has helped to improve the entire industry to monitor and move forward with the protection of the consumer, as well as the health of our livestock industry.

We have been talking about the next big challenge, and one is coming up that is going to be incredibly difficult for the cattle and hog industries. It is the country of origin labelling requirements that are coming into effect in the United States. It has created a pile of confusion within the United States market. It is unsure of how it is going to deal with Canadian product, whether it was born here and raised in the United States, or bought here as a market ready animal and taken there to be processed into meat cuts or just buying Canadian product directly from our packers.

There are different terminologies surrounding how it is going to be labelled. I think the U.S. is coming to some decisions on how those labels are going to work. However, because it has taken them so long to define how it will move forward, it has put the whole industry in the lurch. Now we hear from packers and hog finishers in the United States that they will not buy any more Canadian hogs, or piglets or feeder calves. They are concerned that this will not allow them to market their product effectively when they try to sell it to local packers and when it ends up on the retail level in the United States. That segregation and segmentation of the industry is going to be incredibly difficult and detrimental.

I wrote a letter on behalf of the agriculture committee to my counterparts in the United States, the chair of the U.S. agriculture committee, as well as the chair of the U.S. Senate agriculture committee. We also contacted both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We said that we expected the new U.S. farm bill to include that the country of origin labelling had to be trade compliant under NAFTA and the WTO. We wanted to ensure the entire U.S. farm bill, as it ties to subsidies for farmers, would not distort production or the marketplace. We expect the new U.S. farm bill to be WTO and NAFTA compliant as well.

We have taken that stand as a committee. I know the minister, in discussions with his counterpart in the U.S., has carried the same message, that the United States had better ensure that any policies it develops will be compliant. If they are not, when they come into effect, when we can start to take trade action against it, there will be a strong response from the Government of Canada. I can assure everyone of that.

I have had discussions with the hog and cattle producers who have come to my office, who I meet in coffee shops or who are at the various events I attend across my riding. They need some help and they recognize that. The government has provided that help through some of the things we have done through the kickstart program, the previous CITI funding and the changes made to the cash advance program, as well the advances to the old CAIS program and the new agristability program. They have been helpful.

They are still asking for more measures but, at the same time, they want the measures to be trade compliant as well. They do not want to have subsidies thrown at them only to have countervail actions created by the United States, the Europeans, the Australians or the Japanese. I have heard from the other countries that they are watching what we do here in relation to our farm programs and how we help the struggling livestock sector.

(1300)

The farmers are telling me that they want to make sure they have a future. That future has to be based upon the marketplace and they want that assistance moving forward in developing the marketplace.

I am glad to be part of a government that is signing trade agreements around the world and negotiating more trade agreements, so that we can get that market penetration in countries where they keep their tariffs extremely high on Canadian goods. We want to bring those down, so that we can enhance the opportunity for our hog and cattle producers as well as the packing industry to make money in those more lucrative markets, whether they be in Europe or the Pacific Rim. We are looking at those alternative markets.

We also know that we need to work with industry in developing their market enhancement and brand naming, and taking those things forward.

We are looking forward to all the proposals that have been put forward by the cattle and hog industries, as well as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We will try to capitalize on some of these ideas and make sure that those types of initiatives will generate the revenues back to the farm gate.

There has been a lot of work done on this report. It took us quite a bit of time through the fall to put it together. It has been one that was well received in the industry. It is one where I believe the actions taken by the government have largely addressed the concerns that we have raised.

We have to remember that in our actions that we take here that they are often related to not only our partnership with producers but also our partnership with the provinces. Any changes that we make to farm programs impact upon the provinces. Of course, they have a say in how we move forward with the overall agriculture policy framework, with the major one being the AgriStability program.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

It being 1:05 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

The House will now resume with remaining business under routine proceedings. We are under the rubric “Motions”.

* * *

(1305)

Budget Implementation Act, 2008--Bill C-50

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP)

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it have the power to divide Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, into two or more pieces of legislation.

She said: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is determined to take every possible step to stop the Conservatives' irreversibly damaging immigration reforms.

This is the NDP's second attempt to stop the damaging reforms from passing in Parliament and I am proud to stand here again today in the spirit of cooperation to split this bill, and give it the study and amendments it so desperately needs.

A country's immigration policy can build strong communities, an educated and skilled labour force, and a vibrant and sustainable economy. A failed policy, however, can lead to division, resentment and transient communities of single labourers who have no prospects for citizenship, family or community.

Immigration policy that does not integrate immigrants into Canadian society, into our cities, our schools and our economy, undoubtedly leads to division in our society. When kids do not get to play together, the families are not connected and as a result the community is divided.

Canada's immigration policy needs to be much more than just about bringing cheap and skilled labour to Canada. Right now there are two streams. Skilled labour comes into Canada, but then Canadian government wastes their talents by not recognizing their degrees and certificates. As a result they cannot practise the kind of trade or jobs they are trained for. Another stream deals with temporary foreign workers which is basically cheap labour and this is what the bill is designed to do.

The Conservative immigration reforms would: first, give the immigration minister arbitrary powers to move people up or off waiting lists; second, limit immigrants the ability to reunite with overseas family members based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds; and third, let officials prioritize temporary foreign labour over family class and economic class immigrants.

What does this mean for Canada? It means lower wages for working families and it means that we will have divided communities.

It also means that tens of thousands of migrants come to work our land, our farms, wash our dishes, cook our food and pay taxes, but have no prospects of building a life in Canada. They have no prospects for citizenship, no prospect for building a family, a life and prosperous future in Canada.

There are 900,000 prospective immigrants facing really long waits, but the Conservatives' so-called solutions are just wrong. Their solution is to kick people off the waiting list and bring in temporary foreign cheap labour for their friends, especially in the oil sands. After all, the federal government approved over 40,000 temporary foreign workers in Alberta last year alone. That is a 300% jump from only three years ago.

What kind of Canada are we building if we are encouraging the growth of a program that brings to Alberta over 40,000 temporary workers with no rights, no families, and no future here in Canada? I just heard that Tim Hortons in Alberta brought in 100 workers from the Philippines, for example.

While the Conservative government ignores Ontario and Quebec's manufacturing crisis and does nothing to retrain the unemployed across Canada, it is in fact lowering wages and stalling economic prosperity for thousands of families. In manufacturing towns they are facing unemployment, whether they are in northern Ontario, southern Ontario, Quebec, and all across Canada.

Gil McGowan of the Alberta Federation of Labour said recently:

This is essentially a program that has been allowed to grow exponentially without addressing any of the very legitimate concerns that have been raised and without putting any of the necessary safeguards in place.

In an article in the Calgary Herald earlier this month, McGowan said:

The foreign workers program artificially allows employers to keep wages lower when employees are scarce, creates a lower class of worker, and will cause tensions between the temporary workers and local, permanent staff.

We are already seeing it.

(1310)

Rick Clarke of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour said yesterday in the citizenship and immigration committee that it is not fair to the workers being brought in, it is not fair for our economy, and it is not fair for those being by-passed because access to this program by employers is far too open. He called the program flawed because it allows employers to hire cheap labour without offering any long term benefits to the employee.

New Canadians make this country strong. Immigrants can either help to build thriving and diverse communities, and a 21st century workforce to compete with the world's best or we can use them, abuse them, and then send them home when we are done with them as the Conservatives' and the Liberals' policy will do.

The NDP said no to Conservatives' backdoor sweeping offensive changes and no to the massive expansion of temporary foreign cheap labour.

Instead, we want to ease backlogs by investing to increase overseas staffing in visa offices, increase immigration levels to 1% of our population, and change the point system, so people of all skills can come to Canada with their families and build inclusive, vibrant, healthy communities and neighbourhoods.

It is time for fairness in our immigration policy. It is time for living wages and family reunification. It is time for strong communities instead of weak, transient, and migrant ones.

However, instead of fairness, we get half truths, spin and a public relations advertising campaign at the taxpayer's expense.

The Conservative government said it is welcoming a record number of newcomers to Canada, but the reality is permanent landed immigrants to Canada dropped by 10,587 people. More shocking still is that while the numbers fell the Liberal and Conservative governments increased their admissions to an extra 24,000 more temporary workers between 2003 and 2006. Of course, we know they do provide cheap labour and drive down wages.

The Conservative government said that there are 925,000 people in the backlog and sweeping immigration reforms in Bill C-50 are designed to ease that. However, the reality is that the legislative changes will not come into effect until after February 28 of this year and will have no impact on the backlog of that said 925,000 applicants.

The Conservative government said that sweeping changes are needed to speed up the processing of applications. The reality is that giving the minister the power to discard applications that meet all immigration requirements is unfair, it is arbitrary, and it is open to abuse.

The Conservative government said that measures are designed to attract and retain foreign students. That is in its PowerPoint presentation, taking it on the road and giving it to everyone who would listen. The reality is that there is no clause in Bill C-50 that addresses foreign students applications.

The Conservative government said that there will be no discrimination as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be respected. The reality is that the charter does not help potential immigrants trying to come to Canada.

The minister's instruction is to fast track foreign workers, skilled workers from Mexico as opposed to parents coming from India, the charter cannot prevent--

* * *

Suspension of Sitting

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Order, order. We are going to suspend the sitting of the House right now. It seems like the fire alarm is going off. Members should leave the building and we will come back at an appropriate time.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1:14 p.m.)

* * *

(1335)

Sitting Resumed

(The House resumed at 1:38 p.m.)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Order. That was a new one on me.

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina had the floor when the fire alarm went off. I did not hear anything inflammatory in her remarks.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): I could not resist. She has 10 minutes and 45 seconds left in her remarks. We will resume debate.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I did not know I was that hot.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Olivia Chow: I could not resist either.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We note that the charter does not really apply to potential immigrants trying to come into Canada. If the minister's instruction is to fast track foreign worker applicants from Mexico as opposed to parents coming from India, the charter cannot prevent the minister from doing so. If Tim Hortons decides that it wants workers from the Philippines instead of, say, Pakistan, there is nothing in the charter that would prevent that.

Further, the Conservative government said that the minister's instructions will be transparent as they will be published in the Canada Gazette and on the immigration department's website. The reality is that the publication of these damaging instructions is not subject to debate or approval in the House of Commons. Elected members of Parliament would have no say over the minister's instructions. That is not what democracy is about.

A large number of immigrant groups have said that they came to Canada because of democracy. They want each member of Parliament to have a say over what kind of immigration policies are established across Canada. They do not want the minister to have the power to say yes or no to individual applications, even retroactively. There is just not enough trust for that to happen.

They also say that if the minister is so sure about these recommendations, why not allow the bill to be split? The immigration portion which is clause 6 of the budget bill, should be taken out of the bill and considered at the citizenship and immigration committee, rather than jamming it into the House of Commons finance committee.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that these immigration changes are in a finance bill and at the finance committee. Perhaps the Conservative government sees immigrants as economic units rather than human beings and people who bring families together and people who establish communities. To the government they are just economic units. They are here to work, to give more profit to the employers, to the big corporations so that they could pay less. Those people have less power. They probably would not dare to complain because the minute they got fired they would be deported. They would be asked to leave. They have very little power.

The immigrant groups are saying that if immigrants are good enough to work here, they are good enough to stay here. That is why the immigrant groups across the country find that Bill C-50 is blatantly anti-democratic, secretive and dangerous.

The Conservative government in its PowerPoint presentation said that ministerial instructions will not allow the minister to intervene in individual cases. The reality is that in clause 6 of the bill, by changing the word “shall” to “may”, applicants who meet all immigration requirements, who receive sufficient points and follow all the rules can still be rejected. The more dangerous part is that because of the change in wording, their rejection cannot be appealed to the courts. The immigrants and lawyers have no access to the Federal Court as a last appeal. In fact, according to the Canadian Bar Association and lawyers who are familiar with this change, that is putting the minister above the law, which again is very dangerous.

(1340)

The Conservatives also say that families would still be united under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. What they failed to say and the reality is that the minister and her officials would no longer have to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds if the family member is outside Canada.

A few days ago a lawyer with Parkdale Community Legal Services presented the case of a father of a little child. The father is still in Kenya, which is a very dangerous place. The mother of the little child is trying desperately to get the father to Canada. They have applied for the father to come to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. If Bill C-50 is approved, this case would probably not be considered again.

The Conservatives said that reforms would bring flexibility to visa offices to bring in steelworkers to meet labour needs. The reality is that much of the labour shortage is also occurring in the lower skills sector and these potential immigrants would never have enough points to come to Canada as permanent residents, even though they may have relatives in Canada. Instead, they are being rushed in as temporary foreign workers, cheap labour, and they will never qualify as citizens or be able to bring their families to Canada.

In conclusion, the immigration changes embedded in Bill C-50, a budget implementation bill, are bad for immigrants, bad for working families and certainly bad for Canada, which is why we certainly have to split the bill so we can defeat the immigration portion of the budget implementation bill.

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC):

It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the NDP's record of what that party has been doing for immigration. That party always picks the most negative and extreme portions of anything that is every proposed in the House.

That party voted against reducing the landing fees. That party voted against anything that was done in immigration. Look at the NDP's record. All the time those members talk about how bad the system is, but they never come up with anything that is positive.

Everyone is complaining about the mess in the immigration system created by the Liberal Party over 13 years. That party created the mess that we have today.

Today, it takes almost 10 years for people to come into this country. People want workers to come into this country. The bill addresses all those issues.

The NDP says that nothing has been addressed. Can the NDP not see what a mess the immigration system is in now? Those members should talk to the people. They should talk to my friends. People complain every day about how terrible the system is, how they cannot get their loved ones into this country, how they cannot get workers into this country, how they cannot get skilled workers into this country.

Finally, somebody is doing something, and what do we have? That party is doing exactly what it did on Afghanistan. They do not want to go there. They do not want to do anything. They do not want anything positive to happen in this country. All they want to do is fearmonger.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why the hon. member is so negative toward the NDP.

We have said that there should not be any landing fees. We call it a head tax. We opposed it when the Liberals introduced it. Why did we oppose it? Because the Conservative government only reduced it to half. We believe it should be reduced entirely. There should be no head tax for any immigrants.

On foreign credentials, in January 2007, we had a seven point plan saying that there should be a comprehensive, one stop shop for immigrants before they come into the country, or even when they are in the country, so that they can get all the information about foreign credentials. Lo and behold, the Conservatives adopted a part of the seven point plan. They established some pilot projects in four visa offices overseas, but there are two key areas on which they have done nothing on the foreign credentials. They did not speed up the recognition of foreign credentials.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to watch this lover's spat on the issue of immigration. On one side the NDP wants to separate a portion of a finance bill which has nothing to do with immigration, and on the other the government is trying to justify what it is doing because it thinks it wants to do something about immigration.

Does the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina truly believe in increasing the number of student visas in this country? Does she truly believe in fixing the system? Does she truly believe in family reunification? Does she believe in increasing the numbers? If so, then why did she and her party vote against the positive Liberal plan that was associated with dollars?

Both her party and the Conservative Party voted down a Liberal plan that would have put $1.2 billion toward integration and settlement of those who are here and those who would come here in the future. It would have provided $700 million to increase the efficiency and operation of the system to ensure that we could accommodate those who had come here under plans which might not have been recognized. This plan would have provided another $88 million for foreign credentials recognition and ensure that people with qualifications would be matched to the available jobs. Our plan would have provided an additional $10 million in order to encourage an increase in the number of student visas from 66,000 to 100,000.

Why did her party vote against that?

(1350)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had even read Bill C-50, he would have noticed that the bill does not mention student visas.

We would not be talking about splitting the bill had the Liberal Party of Canada had the courage to stand up for immigrants and vote against Bill C-50 at second reading. Instead, we saw most of those members get up and walk out of the chamber. Where is their backbone? Where is their courage?

For two weeks nonstop we heard negative comments about the bill, which is fine, but those members are all about talk. Where is the action? What happened to standing up for their principles? We would not have to talk about splitting Bill C-50 had the Liberals actually stood and voted against it at second reading last Thursday.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc will support the NDP motion. However, it is important for all members of this House to know that yesterday, the Standing Committee on Finance, including the NDP members of the committee, unanimously adopted a motion asking the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to give its recommendations about the part of the bill that concerns immigration and to report thereon to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Obviously, the motion was put forward because nobody knew what would happen to the NDP motion. Nobody knew whether or when it would be put forward. We had to increase our chances of getting a professional opinion from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It was the right thing to do. However, if we manage to split the bill up, that would be even better.

I would like to know if my colleague is at least considering the possibility that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration might study the part of the bill that concerns immigration. We have to give the committee the opportunity. Should the Standing Committee on Finance's unanimous motion not go some way toward making that happen?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for his support.

I am a member of the immigration committee. We will certainly study the bill and make recommendations. It is very important that we pull clause 6 out of the finance bill, the immigration portion, and study it very carefully.

Bill C-50 was introduced without any consultations or studies. That is why immigrant groups, lawyers, people who work with potential immigrants collectively are saying from coast to coast to coast that the bill needs serious study. It should be done in the immigration committee.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

There is time for only a very brief question or comment. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that the whole country saw it as a dirty trick when the Conservatives snuck an immigration bill into the finance bill to try to ram through their radical reform of immigration policy without the scrutiny of oversight or debate or the House of Commons being able to deal with it. I want to thank the member for Trinity—Spadina for giving us at least this brief opportunity to provide some venting on what they are trying to do.

Relying on temporary foreign workers to fill labour market vacancies is not a human resources strategy at all. It is a recipe for social unrest. It should be condemned, not expanded, and I thank my colleague for raising it today.

(1355)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow:

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Conservative government allows this motion to be voted on so that we can have a thorough debate about this immigration bill. The budget in front of the finance committee is complex. Certainly there will be a lot of discussion on the complex financial issues. As for having the immigration piece pulled in, given there are so many clauses in it, there really needs to be a detailed analysis.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who will have about five minutes before statements by members.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the circumstances of today have shortened my response to this motion from the hon. member.

On behalf of the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister, I rise to oppose this motion introduced by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. I would also encourage all hon. members to vote against this motion to divide Bill C-50 into pieces.

There are more than 900,000 people in the queue waiting to come to Canada. If we do not do something about that staggering number now, it will balloon to close to 1.5 million in just four years.

Canada is a destination of choice for potential immigrants from all over the globe. There are millions around the world who would like to come here and who would qualify to come here. They cannot all come here, though, and that is why we need to manage immigration: to make it a system that is fair to prospective immigrants, fair to their families and fair to Canada.

I was proud on March 14 when our government introduced its budget and proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA. I am proud that this government is taking positive steps to improve Canada's immigration system.

Let me address why the government has proposed amendments to the IRPA through provisions to implement the budget. Several precedents already exist in which previous governments have used budget bills to make changes to several pieces of legislation and not just to the Income Tax Act. What we are doing is not unprecedented.

As well, like any bill, the budget implementation act is a public document. It will be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Finance and the proposed amendments must be approved by Parliament and receive royal assent before becoming law.

The proposed changes are being sought in a transparent manner. As the House well knows, immigration is a key factor for the Canadian economy and figures prominently in this government's “Advantage Canada” priorities.

Finally, we should consider that the IRPA was passed in 2002, one of the few times, I might add, where major changes to the immigration system were made through wholesale changes to the act and also brought forward through the House of Commons and not done solely through cabinet.

The consultations and parliamentary debate that took place may have allowed for such discussion, but during the time of these discussions, over one million people applied to come to Canada in order to get in under the old rules. This is the genesis of the backlog that we have today, which is why a lengthy public debate on this matter might not help the problem that we are aiming to address. This is not to say that we are opposed to public debate about these proposals, as our efforts here today demonstrate.

I would like to expand on why these measures are important to Canada. I see my time is up, but I want to emphasize the fact that we will not be supporting this motion.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Pursuant to Standing Order 66(1), the debate on the motion is transferred under government orders.

We will move on to statements by members.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Hockey

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is hockey season in the Upper Ottawa Valley.

We extend congratulations to Pembroke's own Junior A hockey team, the Lumber Kings. For a second year in a row, the team has clinched the title as champions of the Central Junior A Hockey League. As the defending champions of eastern Canada, our boys look forward to travelling to Pictou County, Nova Scotia, to defend the Fred Page Cup. Then it will be back to eastern Ontario, to Cornwall, this year's host for the nationals and Royal Bank Cup.

Not to be outdone, our girls, the Pembroke Lumber Queens, are the this year's peewee and midget champions in their respective divisions in the Ottawa Valley District Girls Hockey Association.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will want to congratulate the Ottawa Valley Thunder bantam girls after they defeated their season-long rival, the Kingston Ice Wolves, in the gold medal round last weekend, to be crowned Ontario provincial champions.

Next week, Arnprior and the Ottawa Valley Titans play host to the Telus Cup national midget championships. The Ottawa Valley boasts Hockey Town Canada in Pembroke and the birthplace of the NHL in Renfrew.

We say “well done” to all this year's participants in Canada's national game.

* * *

(1400)

World Malaria Day

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, April 25 is World Malaria Day, a day to acknowledge the global effort to effectively manage and control malaria around the world.

Malaria continues to affect 40% of the world's population, infecting more than 500 million people per year and claiming the lives of over a million.

[Translation]

Today is an opportunity for malaria-free countries such as Canada to learn about the disturbing consequences of the disease and join the global fight against malaria.

[English]

Most importantly, it is a chance for affected countries and regions to learn from one another and their experiences and to strengthen their collaborative efforts to control the disease.

I urge all members of this House and Canadians alike to engage in local, regional or global efforts to combat this devastating but preventable disease.

United, together we can become the solution.

* * *

[Translation]

World Malaria Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, malaria is one of the worst diseases plaguing humanity. It is spread by the bite of an infected mosquito and kills over one million people a year, mostly children. Every 30 seconds, a child dies from this disease. It is terrible.

April 25 was declared World Malaria Day at the 60th World Health Assembly in 2007. This is an opportunity to raise public awareness about this serious preventable global health problem and to urge the international community to find a solution.

This government must do more to prevent malaria-related deaths. Every one of us can help by buying a mosquito net from an agency like BUY-A-NET, which distributes the nets in African villages. Let us all do our part and save lives.

* * *

[English]

Social Housing

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, East Vancouver has suffered from years of government neglect on housing and homelessness. The buildup to the 2010 Olympics has made things worse. Since 2003, 1,300 single occupancy rooms have been lost, eliminating most of the last market housing available to Vancouver's poorest residents.

The federal government has shown again and again it does not care. It pledged another $25 million for the Olympics in the budget, but there was no new money for affordable housing.

People have had enough. This week, the Carnegie Community Action Project, the Impact on Community Coalition, the Pivot Legal Society and UBC students launched a formal human rights complaint to the United Nations. It exposes how the federal government has failed to uphold the basic human right to housing.

The Conservative government must heed the urgent calls from the community and act now to ensure that existing low income housing is protected and new social housing is built.

No one should be homeless in this wealthy country of Canada.

* * *

Conservative Party of Canada

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to be represented by members of Parliament who show up and provide a vision for the future.

Since I was elected over two years ago, I have been part of this team led by our Prime Minister, who has provided tax relief for all Canadians and support for families, northerners, farmers, victims of crime, our troops, immigrants, and all new Canadians.

All we know for sure is that the Liberal opposition leader, if given the chance, would strip it all away. What would he do instead? Who knows? He has no plans. He has no vision. He has no consistent policy.

Leaders stand up and represent at every opportunity. In this House, the Liberal leader has had countless opportunities to stand up and be counted, but again and again he ducks out, dodges and runs for cover. To cover his shameful track record, the Liberal leader tells fairytales and dreams of made-up scandal.

While the Liberal leader forces his MPs to sit on their hands or run for cover, I can tell members that on this side of the House we are going to continue to stand up for our constituents, do our jobs and get results.

* * *

(1405)

[Translation]

World Malaria Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, World Malaria Day was instituted last year at the World Health Assembly, and endorsed by the World Health Organization.

Malaria, which is transmitted by a bite from an infected mosquito, is one of the worst diseases known to mankind. Each year this disease kills over one million people, the majority of whom are children.

Malaria also curbs economic growth, hinders development, and is a huge drain on many countries' health services.

A malaria awareness day shows how this worldwide scourge could be avoided with a concerted effort by all governments.

In Africa, a mother loses a child to malaria every 30 seconds. We can and we must do more to save people from the clutches of this disease.

I urge my colleagues to join me in calling on this government to take a leadership role in the relentless fight against malaria.

* * *

[English]

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 26th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today also marks the 23rd anniversary of the coming into force of the section 15 equality provisions of the charter, which took place on April 17, 1985.

Today, as we recognize these two anniversaries, we should take a long, hard look at the fact that there are still Canadians who are not treated equally under a Canadian law inspired by the charter.

Last November, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development introduced Bill C-21. This bill will right a wrong that should have been addressed many years ago. It will repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and guarantee that Canadians living on reserve benefit from the same access to the act as those living off reserve.

Unfortunately, the opposition parties have watered down the legislation and have taken away the full benefits provided under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Three years or three months: both are too long to wait. In the spirit of the charter and the equal treatment of all Canadians, our first nations deserve better.

* * *

[Translation]

Earth Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on April 22 the entire planet will dedicate a day to celebrating Earth.

Using as its theme “Planet Earth is suffocating… Let’s WALK to help her breathe”, a group in my riding, Eco Cowansville, is organizing a walk through the city. Participants will be able to visit green information booths, test their eco-knowledge and attend a talk by writer Serge Mongeau, author of a book titled La simplicité volontaire, plus que jamais..., and founder of the Quebec publishing house, Les Éditions Écosociété.

The mandate of Eco Cowansville, founded in January 2007 by citizens concerned about the planet, is to make area residents aware of the devastating effects of global warming and to engage its volunteer members in green activities. The Bloc Québécois wishes long life to this organization.

On Sunday, I will be walking for Earth and for a better future.

* * *

[English]

World Malaria Day

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, experts believe that one of the many deadly consequences of global warming is a rise in the rate of infectious diseases such as malaria, but as usual when scientists speak the Conservative government does not listen.

In fact, instead of acknowledging the link between global warming and infectious diseases, the Conservative government has cancelled $1.5 million that was meant to help developing countries meet their Kyoto targets, countries where the threat of malaria is greatest.

It is shameful that this government would cancel a commitment to aid nations where malaria is among the top three killers of children under five.

On World Malaria Day, April 25, we call upon the government to take real action to support international efforts to mitigate global warming and all international efforts to eradicate malaria.

* * *

Greg Athans

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay recognition to the late Greg Athans, who will be inducted into the Canadian Ski Hall of Fame this evening.

A native of Kelowna, British Columbia, Greg was an accomplished alpine and water skier, becoming the only Canadian to win gold medals in both winter and summer Canada Games. When he turned his talents to freestyle, Greg won a number of World Cup event victories, four World Cup titles and became the World Cup champion in moguls in 1980.

An ambassador of the sport as well as a humanitarian, Greg gave back in many ways. He worked to see the inclusion of freestyle skiing in the 1980 Olympics and supported young up-and-coming skiers to ensure the sport's longevity.

In his private life, Greg was much loved by family and friends for his keen intellect, quick wit and dry sense of humour. Greg is missed especially by his wife Peggy, daughters Carly and Zoe, his brother Gary and his mother Irene, who are here with us today.

Through his family, we congratulate Greg Athans, an outstanding athlete and an outstanding Canadian, on his induction into the Canadian Ski Hall of Fame, and we give him our thanks.

* * *

(1410)

[Translation]

Bloc Québécois

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, a few months shy of their 18th anniversary, the Bloc members are hoping to dispel the unprecedented existential crisis they are experiencing as the perpetual opposition party, trying in every imaginable way to justify their presence in Ottawa and even disguising themselves as Liberal Party federalists.

The media reported recently that the Leader of the Bloc Québécois was among the first Canadians to sign a petition urging the Conservative government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%, compared to 1990 levels, by the year 2020.

This is rather surprising, considering the fact that, according to the Bloc and its head office, that responsibility belongs to Quebec and that the federal government is using the environment as a Trojan horse to intrude on matters of Quebec jurisdiction. Why this hypocrisy? Why this about-face? Why is the leader of the Bloc Québécois not respecting Quebec's jurisdictions?

Fortunately, the Conservatives are in the Bloc's path in Quebec. Thanks to our policy of open federalism, Quebec's jurisdictions are protected from intrusions by the Bloc.

* * *

Montreal Association for the Blind

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Montreal Association for the Blind.

[English]

One hundred years ago, the Montreal Association for the Blind opened its doors providing a library, a school and an early step toward full participation in the community for Montreal's blind population.

It started as the dream of my great-grandfather, Philip E. Layton, and his wife, Alice.

Blinded as a teenager, Philip was a successful businessman, but he was appalled that most blind people lived in poverty and had no opportunities for schooling or work. He was determined to improve their plight by organizing the blind community to fight for its rights, a fight that still continues.

[Translation]

Since its inception, the association has provided hope and opportunities to generations of blind people in Montreal. I join all members of the House in thanking and congratulating the staff, students and members of the Montreal Association for the Blind on its 100th anniversary.

Let us applaud the positive impact it continues to have today.

* * *

World Malaria Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, April 25 is World Malaria Day. This disease kills over one million children a year, most of whom are under the age of five.

Currently, roughly 40% of the world's population living in the poorest countries on the planet is exposed to malaria. Because of the Conservatives, Canada's development assistance is below average for OECD member countries, contrary to what they promised.

They promised they would improve Canada's access to medicines regime in order to ensure access to medicines for developing countries, namely for countries greatly affected by malaria. This is just another broken promise, as we are still waiting.

The government must take action. Canada must honour its development assistance commitments and must facilitate access to the necessary medicines to combat malaria. We have had enough empty promises. Let them show some compassion and take immediate action.

* * *

Minister of Justice

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, what would people say about a Minister of Justice who tells lie after lie, misleads the House, distorts the facts and falsifies the truth? That is what the Minister of Justice and member for Niagara Falls did during question period when he said that the Bloc Québécois did not support him in cracking down on criminals and battling organized crime. I would like to remind him that the Bloc supported Bill C-2, which brought together the five justice bills from the previous Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois has voted in favour of every bill that did not include mandatory minimum sentences and that gave the police more investigative tools. The Bloc Québécois supports or is preparing to support bills on identity theft and auto theft.

I would ask the Minister of Justice to halt his disinformation campaign about the Bloc Québécois' stance on justice issues. Lies and deceit are the weapons of the weak, as our fellow citizens well know.

* * *

[English]

World Malaria Day

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Glen Pearson (London North Centre, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, during the one minute I use to make this statement, two children will die of malaria. It is the leading killer of children in Africa. This mosquito-borne disease is also the leading cause of global poverty.

On World Malaria Day, we are calling attention to this devastating, but preventable, disease. Malaria lacks the profile of other global threats but it is more deadly. The sad thing is that malaria can be prevented.

The World Health Organization says the most effective measure to prevent malaria is as simple as a bed net that covers four family members.

I have fought malaria myself for the last 40 years. My three children have it and I have lost many good friends to it. I urge all of my colleagues in this House to just do a simple thing: buy a bed net for the people who suffer from malaria.

* * *

(1415)

Citizenship and Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Liberals, this Conservative government values immigration and the critical role newcomers play in making Canada a better place.

The Liberals imposed a $975 immigrant head tax, froze settlement funding and caused the backlog to skyrocket to over 800,000. The Liberals have no plan, no vision and no right to call themselves the party of immigrants. They are trying to divide ethnic communities with their misinformation and fear-mongering. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Unlike the Liberals, this government is taking real action to help immigrants and their families. In fact, last year we welcomed almost 430,000 newcomers, the largest number in almost 100 years. We cut the Liberal immigrant head tax in half and provided $1.4 billion in settlement funding. We want to bring families together faster and skilled workers sooner.

This government is helping immigrants succeed because the success of the immigrants is the success of Canada.

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

[English]

Elections Canada

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of transparency and accountability, will the Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative Party, consent to unseal the warrant documents used in the RCMP raid?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have even seen them ourselves.

However, the issue at stake, in the contention and dispute between ourselves and Elections Canada, is a simple one. Elections Canada has an interpretation that says that Conservative Party candidates cannot talk about our national leader or our national policy in our advertising and in our promotion. It says that is not allowed but it also says that is only not allowed for Conservatives. We think that is unfair.

We think we can talk about our leader and our policies and we think we should have the same rules apply to us that apply to all other parties. That is why we took Elections Canada to court.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

The question was clear, Mr. Speaker. I will ask the question again because the RCMP raid on Conservative Party headquarters is a very serious matter and the Prime Minister owes Canadians the full truth.

Will the Prime Minister consent to unseal the warrant documents that convinced the court that the drastic gesture of an RCMP raid was necessary?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, that question would be better directed to the people at Elections Canada. They are the ones whose consent he is seeking.

We also have the same question. Why was it necessary? Our party had offered to cooperate in providing every document Elections Canada asked for. In fact, we did provide every document Elections Canada asked for. It leaves a very serious question: Why was this necessary? We do not understand that.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the question to the government is very clear; everyone understands it and we can see that the government does not wish to reply.

Will the government agree to the disclosure of this information, that is, the information pertaining to the warrant and any information that could reveal, for example, that the Conservative Party did not cooperate with the investigation or that could indicate the extend to which the Conservative Parry violated the law in the last election? Will he agree to disclose this information, yes or no?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. I gather he is not listening or cannot understand what I am saying, but we have not seen the affidavit documents supporting the warrant. We do not know what they are. If he wants to see them, he will need to get the consent of Elections Canada.

We are interested in having the exact same questions answered because all our practices are perfectly legal. They follow the law. They are the same as other parties. We have offered every document to Elections Canada that it has sought.

All those matters concern us. We want to see the same treatment for our party that every other party gets.

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada was forced to obtain a search and seizure warrant for access to information that the Conservatives were obviously desperate to hide.

The government has obstructed Elections Canada outside the House and has insulted Elections Canada inside the House, but the question is about the character of the person who leads the government. Why is he obstructing an institution charged with protecting the integrity of our political system? Who does he think he is?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I honestly thought the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore was a better man than to assert as fact things that are simply untrue.

The fact is simple. We have provided to Elections Canada in our dispute every document it has asked for. Nothing has been hidden. He is right. It does pose the question: Why was this Elections Canada search necessary?

The essence of the real issue is why the Conservatives are not allowed to talk about their national leader and their national policies in an election. Why are we treated differently from every other party? That is why we took Elections Canada to court.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is the only party to have violated election rules in this matter. Now it is refusing to cooperate with Elections Canada in its investigation, and that has resulted in the search of its offices by the RCMP. The real reason for this sad state of affairs is that the Prime Minister thinks he can thumb his nose at the law.

Is that why we have reached this point?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we have taken Elections Canada to court because we disagree with its interpretation of the law. We believe we should be able to talk about our national leader and our national policies during campaigns, even at the local level.

We are not the only people who have taken Elections Canada to court on its interpretations. The member for Toronto Centre, a Liberal leadership candidate, took Elections Canada to court because he disagreed with its interpretation. Guess what? He succeeded because Elections Canada was wrong in its interpretation.

We believe it is wrong once again.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is wondering why the Conservatives are treated differently than the other parties. It is really quite simple. It is because they acted differently than the other parties. It is as simple as that.

Having said that, we are asking that he produce the search warrant. He says that they do not even have it. They must be joking. Police forces are required to provide a copy of the search warrants by law. Therefore they have it. They should stop skirting the issue.

They have it. What is preventing them from making the search warrant public and producing it in this House? They have it and they should stop hiding it.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the essential question is something in which we are interested. We have not seen what was in the affidavit that justified it. If the member wants to know, he will have to ask Elections Canada, as we have.

The fundamental issue arises from a dispute with Elections Canada. We have taken Elections Canada to court because we believe it is an unfair and an unreasonable interpretation that our candidates cannot talk about their national leader and cannot talk about their party's policies in their local campaigns.

We cannot understand why that interpretation is reasonable. I think most Canadians would agree that we should be able to do that.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition, the Prime Minister said this about Elections Canada officials, “Those imbeciles at Elections Canada are out of control.”

What the government does have control over is the search warrant, which it refuses to produce in this House. Although they have it, the Conservatives want to hide it just like everything else.

Why are they so intent on not producing in this House that which they have in their possession? Are they trying to force another search just so we can have the right to see the warrant? This is completely ridiculous; we are being laughed at.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question several times. We have not seen the affidavit. It will require the consent of Elections Canada to release it to us or to anybody else.

(1425)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, by playing the victim, the Prime Minister is once again showing his contempt for democratic institutions and rules. His crusade against Elections Canada, which goes way back, and his desire to muzzle anyone who does not think like him are obvious evidence of this.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the RCMP conducted a police raid on the Conservative Party headquarters because he is unlawfully hiding documents?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. We have made available to Elections Canada every document it has sought with regard to our dispute with the court case we have initiated on the interpretation of the elections law.

[Translation]

Elections Canada's position is as follows: Conservative candidates are not permitted to promote the policies of our party and of our leader. We feel that is absurd.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, must I remind the House that the search was related to a scheme that, according to Elections Canada, allowed the Conservative Party to spend $1.2 million during the last election in violation of current legislation?

How can the Prime Minister continue to talk about integrity and transparency when everyone sees that, according to Elections Canada, his party bought itself an apparently clean image through advertising, using dirty money?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to reiterate that Elections Canada's position is as follows: Conservative candidates are not permitted to promote the policies of our party and of our leader. We feel that is absurd.

Furthermore, we believe that it is unfair that this interpretation applies only to Conservative candidates. This demonstrates that the parties are not treated equally. That is why we are taking Elections Canada to court, which is reasonable and straightforward.

* * *

Gasoline Prices

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, a Statistics Canada study shows that the price of gasoline increased by 8% last month—and by 17% in February. In Montreal, they are even paying $1.30 a litre. The big oil companies are getting major funding from the government, when they are already making huge profits. There is no excuse for the government's lack of action to protect consumers.

When will we see this government take some action at the pumps for the average Canadian?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we took action to reduce the cost of fuel for families when we lowered the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. I know the NDP has a very different plan, a plan to raise the tax on fuels. I read the following:

Green Taxation Reforms: The NDP has emphasized the need to change existing tax laws and tax credits that artificially lower the true costs of fossil fuels...

That is from the NDP action plan, previously posted on the NDP site. Apparently its has taken it off now that this is a hot issue it wants to pursue.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, prices are going through the roof at the gas pumps. The gas companies have long since gobbled up any GST cut that the government gave. It gave a GST reduction and the oil and gas companies grabbed it.

Here are the prices: $1.19 in Toronto; $1.26 in the Lower Mainland; and $1.29 in Bonavista. Because there is not adequate transit, the average working family is forced to use its car to go to day care, or to take its kids to hockey, or to go to work. Yet what we get from the government are subsidies to the big oil and gas companies.

When will we see a plan to protect the consumers of our country?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, he just said it. He believes that oil and gas are unreasonably subsidized. He thinks the prices should be higher. Do not take it from me; take it from the NDP Kyoto plan, which states:

Stop tilting the marketplace towards unsustainable fuel and, over f