Ottawa on Agriculture

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian farm families are facing unnecessary hardship. They are struggling because the Liberal government's programs actually made matters worse down on the farm.

    The minister is musing he is almost ready to make some sort of announcement. Here are a couple of things he could actually do today that would help. He could get out some real cash advances that are not mired down in bureaucratic red tape. He could do some loan guarantees to producers and of course he could remove, not delay, the cash deposit requirement for the CAIS program.

    What is stopping him?

    Hon. Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to read the hon. member's release that he put out yesterday, obviously after hearing that the Government of Canada was working hard in terms of bringing forward a program to bridge Canadian farmers and farm families from today until the fall, when the CAIS program really kicks in.

    I want to tell the hon. member that I have had an opportunity to talk to Canadian farmers and farm families. The Government of Canada is working very hard with these groups to work through what is really necessary so that the Government of Canada can help them.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is great that the minister is listening, but time is of the essence here.

    Agriculture, the primary production of food in the country, is going down for the count. Our safe, secure food supply is being put in jeopardy due to the Liberal government's inaction and bureaucratic programs that totally miss the mark.

    We released our farm friendly program yesterday, and the minister finally got around to reading it. That is great. I would like to see him put it in play. We would be happy. That is the sincerest form of flattery to see one's project put into play.

    Would he at least release the outline of his program so farmers could finally start making some plans?

    Hon. Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, I had an opportunity to review with my officials the plan put forward by the opposition.

    I might note that after the opposition heard that the Government of Canada was in the process of bringing forward a program itself, I looked at it, and in a lot of ways it mimics what is already being done by the Government of Canada.

    If we look at the numbers within it, I think they are quite off in a number of the different areas. However, I would be pleased to have officials at committee, at some time, go through it with the hon. member as to what the real numbers are.

Back to top

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. We are now in a farm income crisis in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that realized net farm income in our country last year was a negative, at minus $13.4 million, the lowest since statistics started being kept in the 1920s. On top of that, the livestock industry, because of BSE, is in turmoil. Farmers need help immediately.

    I ask the minister whether or not he will consider introducing legislation that would have a program of interest free loans for livestock and grain farmers in this country so they can pay some bills and stay on the farm.

    Hon. Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that in fact this is a crisis out there in agriculture across this country today. That is why the Prime Minister and I and many members of the cabinet have been out talking with farmers and farm groups across the country to see what more we, plus the provinces, can do to help. I am presently meeting with a number of different groups, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which I met today, and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, to see where we as governments can move further.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is really scandalous is the 10 months that have sneaked by when we were waiting for the Liberal government to recognize the evidence of the increasing hurt faced by our livestock producers. Like any business, farmers need market certainty and cash flow to survive. Any farm group would have told the minister that yesterday.

    Why does it continue to be so impossible for the government to design a plan that works for our producers? Get it done.

    Hon. Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact we have responded. We responded with a $520 million program on BSE. We responded with a $200 million program on cull cow. We also responded with a $600 million transition program to help transition from the old programs to the new program.

    We are working very closely with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and our provincial colleagues to address some of these concerns.

    I invite the hon. member to sit down with the cattlemen. Maybe they would tell him about the approach--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Battlefords--Lloydminster.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all those farm groups are telling the minister to get off his duff and get it done. We need cash flow today.

    All these big programs that the government talked about, the dollars never went to where they were intended. They did not get there.

    CFIP paid out 70%. That is the government's answer to the solution.

    Why are families who produce our safe quality food never a priority for the Liberal government?

    Hon. Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they are a priority for the government. The Government of Canada, my cabinet colleagues and indeed the Prime Minister recognize the situation of farmers and farm families across the country. That is why the Prime Minister has taken such a large lead in terms of dealing with the BSE situation.

    I can assure all hon. members and indeed farmers and farm families across the country that the Government of Canada does take this issue very seriously. We are working very hard in terms of opening up the border. We are working very hard with our provincial colleagues, along with the farm groups in order to make sure that the money that is--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Thornhill.

    Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the statements by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about supply management are confusing. On the one hand, the minister is reaffirming that he will defend supply management, but he recognizes at the same time that there will be opposition around the table and even added, “We do not have much support”. The minister's hesitations weaken his position.

    Does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to eliminate all ambiguity and clearly reaffirm his commitment to defending the supply management system, as it currently exists in Quebec and Canada?

    Hon. Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from back in the days of the hon. Eugene Whalen through many ministers of agriculture within the Liberal Party of Canada, we have stood firmly behind supply management. I would question if there is that stand in other parties in the House.

Back to top

    The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), that the motion to be considered tomorrow during consideration of the business of supply is as follows:

 

That the government reallocate its resources from wasteful and unnecessary programs such as the gun registry and the sponsorship program to address the agricultural crisis at the farm gate across Canada.

    This motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Macleod is votable.

    Copies of the motion are available at the table.

Back to top

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are reports today in the press that the Minister of Agriculture is delaying additional help to cattle producers until all the provinces agree to the details of his program. The provinces have repeatedly stepped up to the plate without the participation of the federal government.

    Will the minister stop fighting with his provincial colleagues and announce, unconditionally, the program today?

    Hon. Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a good relationship with the provincial ministers. Many of the programs that we unfolded over the last eight months were in agreement with the provinces. We will not stop there. We will work on new programs, and we do have a good relationship.

    Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the provinces have taken the initiative and left the federal government and that minister behind in helping their farmers cope with the BSE crisis. Almost every province has initiated individual programs, so the minister cannot use the provinces as a reason to hold up his new program that he is planning to announce.

    Will the minister stop using the provinces as his excuse and actually do something for our cattle producers rather than just talking about it?

    Hon. Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last year we have put out $5 billion with the provinces. We are unrolling CAISP as we speak and the cull cow program. Hon. members should look at the figures and check the facts.

Back to top

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): There you go, Mr. Speaker, if you have nothing to say, say it loudly.

    The Minister of Agriculture must realize by now that the agriculture sector in this country cannot heal itself.

    Two weeks ago he said that he would go back to cabinet and ask for more money for our cash-strapped farmers.

    I would like to know when he pled his case with cabinet and when farmers across the country can expect a bankable program.

    Hon. Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for asking me my first question in the House. I will try to do my best to answer it.

    Over the last eight months beef farmers have faced a crisis. We have many programs in place, such as the NISA program and the BSE program. We also had the CAISP rolling out last month in which we put $15 million. We also have the cull program that will be coming out. We are just waiting for inventories from the provinces.

    I can assure the hon. member that we will be there for the farmers with more programs in the upcoming months.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for staying true to Liberal form and not really giving us an answer.

    For the first time in history Statistics Canada shows a negative $13 million balance for all agricultural sectors across the country. That is everybody. The primary producers of our safe quality food supply are in peril. They are going down hard.

    Since the government is powerless to re-open borders, will it at least redesign its programs to get money to the farm gate? That is the trick.

    Hon. Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with this from all angles. We are dealing with it on an international level in Washington and we are also dealing with it at the local level.

    In 2002, $3.5 billion went to farmers. Last year we paid over $5 billion to farmers. We will be paying more.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry is the third largest employer of Canadians. It is one of our top five industries. Agriculture is in a crisis. The industry is sinking and the farmers are going down. Their loans are being called in. The industry is on the verge of collapse. This is an emergency and needs to be treated like an emergency.

    I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to tell me if she will ask the Prime Minister to take emergency measures to address this crisis and to do it now.

    Hon. Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are taking measures on all angles to deal with this agriculture issue. It is not the third but the second most important industry in this country. We are dealing with it in Washington. We are dealing with it on an international basis. We are dealing with the farmers and we are working with the stakeholders and the beef industry to deal with this issue down in the United States.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make a correction to what the parliamentary secretary said when he quoted me as saying that agriculture was not the third but the second most important industry in Canada. My words were “It was the third largest employer and one of the top five industries of the nation”. I did not say as he indicated. I would like that corrected.

    The Deputy Speaker: The House will recognize that is not respectfully a point of order. The matter of clarification has been put on the record in the House.

Back to top

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the BSE crisis has put our agriculture industry on the brink of disaster.

    In Saskatchewan net farm income is down 177%. Imagine the Liberal action we would see if that party fell that fast and hard in the polls.

    While the Prime Minister busies himself with scandal, the agriculture industry is sinking. Where do the farmers turn? Why does the Prime Minister have time and money for his Liberal friends but nothing for our struggling farmers?

    Hon. Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a question on agriculture in the House today. It highlights the importance of the desperate situation being faced by many farmers and farm families across this country.

    The Government of Canada has responded. We responded in terms of BSE. We have also brought in a new program, CAISP, that will help farmers in the future deal with their farm income situation.

    The Government of Canada clearly recognizes the trouble in agriculture today and we are working to resolve it.

    The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister on a point of order.

Back to top

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we heard this week in a debate in this very House that the cattle industry is suffering its worst crisis ever.

    We all agree farmers and ranchers need cash and they need it now. Rather than waste money on gun registries and sponsorship programs, can the Minister of Agriculture not find a way to get cash into producers' pockets now?

    Hon. R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we are talking here in this hon. House today, the Minister of Agriculture is out in Calgary meeting with the farmers.

    In 2003, $5 billion flowed through the agriculture industry and the farming industry in Canada. As we are talking here today, the minister is out there ensuring that money will be flowing to the farmers as soon as they make the request and all the farmers who will be impacted will receive sufficient moneys.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all of that rhetoric does not help the producers and the farmers right now.

    It is obvious that the infusion of a new minister does not equate to an infusion of cash into the producers' pockets. The fact is that there has been no money flowing to the agriculture producers. We cannot wait for two years to get a flawed program kicked in so producers can get cash. When we need it is now, immediately now, tomorrow. Will the minister admit to an immediate cash infusion into the agricultural industry?

    Hon. R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member calls $5 billion in 2003 and $4 billion now as rhetoric, then I do not understand the question he is asking.

    Money is flowing through. As we are talking now, the Minister of Agriculture is in Calgary today. The money will go directly to the farmers now, not next year.

Back to top

    Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given that Canadian farmers' groups, including the National Farmers Union and the Canadian Wheat Board, oppose the release of Monsanto's genetically modified wheat variety because of a potential loss of premium markets, does the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food intend to turn down Monsanto's application?

    Hon. Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his interest in Canadian farmers and farm families. As the hon. member should know, the Government of Canada has a science based regulatory system which assures Canadian consumers and world markets that in fact the food they eat is not only some of the highest quality but some of the safest food in the world.

    An environmental assessment is a key component of this. The hon. member can be assured that nothing will go on the market until it is first studied in terms of its environmental impact, its impact on animal feed and also its impact on--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Champlain.

Back to top

October 9, 2003

    Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, Quebec is signing its Agriculture Policy Framework implementation agreement today.

    Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell us what this means for Quebec's farmers?

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. This is good news for farmers in his riding and the entire province of Quebec. Today the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in Trois-Rivières to sign the APF implementation agreement with Quebec. I think we need to thank and congratulate Quebec. This is very good news.

    Some hon. members: Bravo.

    Mr. Claude Duplain: Quebec will receive nearly $88 million from the federal government over the next five years for the four components of the framework. Quebec and Canada will commit to paying $304 million over three years to ease the transition. Moreover, with the Agricultural Policy Framework and its risk management program, farmers will be able to receive money immediately.

Back to top

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan bison, sheep and cervid farmers desperately need to sell their meat to international markets. The problem is that there is no federally licensed slaughter facility in Saskatchewan.

    What is the agriculture minister going to do to help these Saskatchewan farmers market and export their products?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will certainly continue to emphasize and demonstrate to the purchasers of ruminant products around the world that we and our industry have been providing for the safety of ruminant products including those that the hon. member is referring to.

    The provinces have provincially inspected plants. Those are privately owned. There are federally inspected plants. I do know that some of the owners of those plants are looking at changing the status of their plants to federally inspected plants. In so doing we will work with them to assist them in any way we can.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, border restrictions are a major problem, not just for selling their products but also for qualifying for compensation.

    The compensation program demands that bison, sheep and cervid butchering happens at an approved facility, the meat is sold and that it is documented. With the glut of meat on the market right now producers cannot do this.

    What is the agriculture minister going to do to ensure that these Saskatchewan producers are compensated?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not think that the hon. member is suggesting that slaughtered meat that is sold is not inspected and not slaughtered whether it be in provincially or federally inspected plants. I know she is not saying that.

    However the business risk management programs are there. She could encourage those provinces that have not signed it to sign the agreement so that the money can be moved.

    I will repeat it again. We have hundreds of millions of dollars to assist farmers as their incomes change because of circumstances like this. We would sincerely like to move that money to farmers.

Back to top

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have been asking the government for months about a marketing strategy for Canadian beef.

    Public trust must be restored. Where is the public ad campaign to promote the beef industry and what is the government's plan?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that through the work of the government and the industry it is being demonstrated very clearly that the Canadian beef product is completely safe. It has been recognized by other countries in the world by opening their borders in ways that have never happened before as far as receiving product from a BSE country goes.

    That has also been recognized in the numbers. Canadian consumers purchased 62% more beef in July of this year than last year and 72% more in August than they did last year. The beef is moving and we just need to continue to work--

    The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent answer from the member whose government gives millions to millionaires and pennies to seniors.

    Other livestock industries are being affected by the BSE scare: sheep, bison and cervids. Borders and markets must be opened and kept open for these Canadian products as well. Where is the government's plan for marketing alternative livestock?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the markets in the United States opened and when the markets in Mexico were opened those markets were opened in the very same way for the other ruminants, for all the other ruminants, as they have been for beef. The hon. member knows that. I am sure she read the press release. I am sure she read the information that is out there.

    It is the science, it is the record of the Canadian beef industry and it is the work of our processing plants and the work of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that have had recognition given to Canada that has not been given to any other country in the world. We will keep building on that.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian livestock industry is going to change its name to Bombardier.

    Canadian producers know that until our borders open to year round access to American feeder cattle the American border will remain closed to ours. This has been an issue for 10 years. Will the government agree to reverse its position and get all the borders open?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to realize, so I will remind her and others again, that no other countries have had the borders opened such as we have. Unfortunately, we had a cow back in May with BSE, which puts us in the category that we are now a BSE country. Other countries in the world usually do not import products from countries that had a case of BSE, but our track record, our science and the work that has been done, that has been the strategy, and it is working.

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the federal government refused to take its responsibilities, the Government of Quebec was forced to launch the second phase of its own plan to help farm producers who are victims of the mad cow crisis.

    The minister should stop talking about the agricultural policy framework because farmers simply do not want it. Does the minister intend to implement a specific program for dealing with the mad cow crisis, as requested by farmers?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly ready to help farmers more than we have to date and we are already for those provinces that have signed the implementation agreement. That implementation agreement is there with the province of Quebec.

    I have had signing authority since last spring and would be more than pleased to sign that document. That will move even more money into the province of Quebec to help beef farmers and other farmers.

Back to top

September 25, 2003

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for Agriculture hid behind the beef value roundtable he claims he instigated last June. That very roundtable designed a comprehensive plan to deal with the escalating problem of cull cows. The minister rejected its plan as out of hand and replaced it with what? Silence, and lots of it.

    Is the minister stalling so his new boss will get the credit for resolving this or does he just not really have a plan?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the beef roundtable and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association made a presentation to myself and all the provincial ministers Monday morning of this week. The hon. member knows full well that after that meeting we all said that it was the desire of everyone to use the over $500 million that was left first to help address this situation and then we would go from there.

    It was very clear and it was a decision made by the federal government and the provincial governments at a federal-provincial meeting, and the ministers from all the provinces agreed to it.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, if that line were actually true and if he really were telling us the truth here, he would have no problem getting the last signatures on his APF.

    The livestock industry is only the latest victim of the Liberal government's inability to deal with international trade issues. Nobody can wait another six months to see if they can trigger any--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Deputy Speaker: I encourage the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster to be judicious in his words.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that no producers can wait another six months to see if they can trigger any payout from the minister's Russian roulette support programs.

    When will the minister table a national plan that will actually address the health of our livestock industry? When is he will he do that?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I announced on September 19 $600 million to flow to Canadian farmers. A number of provinces have already signed bilateral agreements which will allow producers to apply for interim agreements.

    By the way, Mr. Speaker, I told the truth earlier as well.

Back to top

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the debate yesterday on the extensive efforts that the government has undertaken to open the American border to Canadian cattle, I heard the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food mention that he had recently announced details of $600 million for agriculture producers.

    Can the minister inform the House whether cattle ranchers will be receiving a share of this $600 million? While they are grateful that the border is open to Canadian beef, they will continue to experience financial pain until live cattle can be exported to the United States.

   Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly they will receive a portion of the $600 million in transition funds as they did last year and as they will this year.

    The hon. member knows it is through the work of the government, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, cabinet colleagues, MPs and the industry, that every effort is being made and has been made, and will continue to be made. We will not rest until we have the border completely open into the United States.

    With reference to the $600 million, yes, that will flow to all farmers in all provinces, as it did last year, within a very few weeks. For example, last year, it meant $110 million to Ontario farmers and over $180 million to Saskatchewan farmers.

    Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even if the U.S. embargo on beef has been partially lifted, producers are continuing to lose money and are desperately calling for help. The assistance plan ended on August 31, and the Fédération des producteurs de bovins finds it totally unacceptable that the government is refusing to announce phase two.

    What is keeping the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food from answering the appeal of the government and the cattle producers of Quebec, and from immediately implementing a second phase of the assistance plan for the cattle industry, which has been so hard hit by the mad cow crisis?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House and as I have said a number of times, we did. The federal government put $312 million into the BSE recovery program. The provincial governments added more money. I announced last week $600 million moving to farmers. There is still over $500 million available.

    Let us sign up and use up that money first and then we will go from there.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps on telling us about his famous agricultural strategic framework, but what is needed is not that, but an assistance plan.

    The Fédération des producteurs de bovins has made it clear: the strategic framework the minister is so anxious to sign does not meet the needs of producers. They want a specific assistance plan.

    Why is the minister so insensitive to the drama that is going on in the various regions of Quebec?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is still over $500 million left in money to move to Canadian farmers. Many of those who will trigger that will be beef farmers.

    We will move that money to beef farmers and to other farmers out there that need that support. Then we will talk about where we go from there if that is not sufficient.

Back to top

September 23, 2003

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture's deadlock with the provinces is holding farmers hostage. His refusal to compensate farm families on the brink of bankruptcy until the remaining provinces sign on to the agriculture policy framework is callous and mean-spirited.

    In the meantime, the Canadian agriculture sector is facing its biggest crisis since the Depression.

    When can farm families expect the minister to live up to his own government's commitments and start the flow of compensation? It is a liquidity issue. They need the money now.

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that last Friday I announced $600 million in transition funding to farmers across the country. That is on top of the $312 million from the federal government, plus the provincial money, as far as the BSE recovery program is concerned.

    The hon. member also knows from his experience, legal and otherwise, that there has to be agreements and signatures before money can be moved. Three or four provinces have refused to sign federal-provincial agreements which would allow us to move hundreds of millions of dollars to those provinces.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, that is blackmail. That is blaming the provinces again. His government's inability to strike compromise with provinces and other nations is legendary. When will the minister give up on this stubborn refusal to work with the agriculture sector on this critical file?

    I ask the minister, I ask the Prime Minister and I ask his understudy, when will they get fully engaged on this file? What discussions does the Minister of Agriculture currently have under way with his counterpart in the United States? When will he come forward with a comprehensive plan to get the US border open to Canadian cattle? When will he do that?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last number of months, we have had directly and indirectly, because I have kept track of them, close to 100 interventions with the United States. We have had face to face meetings, phone calls of diplomats, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, my colleague the trade minister, the industry, the food inspection agency and I can go on.

    As far as working with the provinces, I have had signing authority since May. The provinces just need to sign the papers so we can flow the money to the farmers. We know they need money. Those provinces are not even committing their 40%--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.

Back to top

September 22, 2003

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the agriculture minister is holding meetings with his provincial counterparts. There is little expectation that the government and the minister will bring anything new and useful to the table.

    What will the agriculture minister offer to the provinces other than blackmailing them into signing the agriculture policy framework?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again, there are hundreds of millions of dollars that the federal government has available for the provinces. Some provinces have not even agreed to put their 40% with that, so their industry should be asking those provinces why they are not there to support them.

    As well, last Friday I announced the payment to the farmers of the second $600 million transitional fund. That will be there to help producers and that will go to all farmers across Canada whether they sign the implementation agreement or not.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister can do a lot of extra talking but the borders are still closed to all livestock in this country.

    For years Canadian cattlemen have called for year round access to American feeder cattle. Uncertainty is the last thing that the cattle industry needs right now.

    The minister needs to answer the important question for our farmers. When will his government allow year round access to American feeder cattle so that for once and for all we can get this border open?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that is an issue with the beef cattlemen. It is also an issue with the dairy industry which has concerns about that as well, and they are different from what they are for the beef industry. It is an also an issue as far as health is concerned.

    I have asked the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to do another review of the level of risk. That will be done as quickly as we possibly can to ensure that whatever action is taken we have the level of risk in reference to those specific diseases, bluetongue and anaplasmosis, as low as possibly can be.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one mad cow equals 90,000 angry farmers, and today we can add several provincial agricultural ministers to the list, because the federal agriculture minister told his provincial counterparts earlier today that the BSE recovery program cannot be extended without running the risk of countervail.

    How is it that the United States and the European Union can add additional programs to assist their farmers but every time it happens in this country the government cries countervail?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member understands very clearly many of the rules as far as the WTO is concerned. It depends on how one does it.

    Clearly the beef industry has indicated to us that it does not want any action taken which might subject it to scrutiny by the United States under countervail or anti-dumping. The experience of that in the pork industry and the grains industry and some other industries has been very expensive in the past, and the provincial ministers, when we put the BSE recovery program in place, agreed at that time that when the borders started to open the program would end. They have known it since the beginning of the program.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, farmers and agriculture ministers at the provincial level are frankly tired of national agricultural programs that never seem to work.

    The BSE crisis is a case in point. Three Prairie provinces have all kicked in additional money over and above the 60-40 that this government always says has to be done, and incidentally, the federal government has not paid its share. The United States, more importantly, is aware of these provincial add-ons but is not taking any action because it understands the length and depth of the crisis that we have.

    Again, my question is, how can the Minister of Agriculture justify the countervail bogeyman as an excuse once more?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government will pay its full share of the 60-40 BSE recovery program. I might suggest that if the hon. member really wanted the farmers in his province to benefit from the money that is there to help farmers across this country, he would go back home and convince the provincial minister in his own province that they sign on to the agricultural policy framework, because by not doing so they have not even committed their 40% to the programs and the money that is there for the farmers into the future.

Back to top

September 16, 2003

    Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it concerns the United Nations biosafety protocol.

    Given that 57 nations have ratified the biosafety protocol, given the fact that it has entered into force and given that Canada is host to the UN Secretariat on Biodiversity, when will the minister be in a position to give the green light so that the government can ratify this important protocol?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a strong interest in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and supports the environmental objectives of the protocol on biosafety.

    Canada signed this protocol in 2001 and is committed to addressing the concerns of stakeholders in the agri-food and biotechnology industries.

    The agri-food sectors support the protocol's goals and have agreed to work with us in accordance with the protocol and to minimize the uncertainties related to trade.

Back to top

September 15, 2003

Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

    According to Ken Ritter, the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board, 82% of the board's customers say they do not want to use genetically engineered wheat.

    Does the minister agree with the position taken by the Wheat Board's customers and the board's opposition to Monsanto's application to cultivate and market genetically engineered wheat in Canada?

    Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members will know, given our painful experience this summer with BSE, it is important to take a science based approach to cross-border trade issues. That having been said, I have a great deal of concern about the same things the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned about. We do not want to lose either markets or market share. A great deal of work therefore remains to be done to ensure intelligent and responsible behaviour in respect of genetically modified products.

    The government is working very closely with the Canadian grains industry and other stakeholders, including the Canadian Wheat Board, to determine how best to proceed in a responsible manner.

    Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with the collapse of the trade talks in Cancun, Canadian agriculture producers have been dealt yet another blow. Producers in Canada have been placing their future hopes on these negotiations.

    The Minister for International Trade stated that WTO members must redouble their efforts to build bridges and find consensus. The minister needs to redouble his efforts to build bridges in his own backyard. Canadian producers are hurting. When will the Liberal government rebuild damaged relationships with our farmers and our international trading partners?

    Mr. Murray Calder (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that there was nothing in the draft agreement that was agreed to in Cancun, but additional insights have been gained and that will lead to further discussions which will be taking place on December 15 in Geneva when the WTO group meets again.

    Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies continue to destroy international relationships and alienate and harm our Canadian farmers.

    When will the government deal with opening the Canada-U.S. border to live cattle? When will it deal with high tariffs placed on grain farmers? When will it deal with restricted market access to agriculture producers?

    Why is the Liberal government continuing to harm our Canadian agriculture producers?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada went to Cancun to agree on a framework document on agriculture that would allow us to continue to pursue our negotiation objectives, in other words, the elimination of export subsidies, maximum reduction of internal support that distorts trade, and true improvements to market access for all agri-food products, which is very important to us.

Back to top

June 13, 2003

    Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not think bringing in the Rolling Stones is going to solve that problem.

    It is estimated that by next week, losses to the livestock industry will be over $1 billion due to the BSE scare. The beef industry has rejected the government's latest proposal, saying loans simply are not the answer. As they say, “You cannot borrow yourself out of trouble”.

    Now it appears the government is using this disaster to blackmail the provinces into signing its agricultural policy framework. I ask the minister, will the government introduce a comprehensive compensation package outside of the APF?

    Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition does not have the facts. There has been no proposal put on the table because the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is meeting with his counterparts in Vancouver today to discuss this very issue and what can be done.

    Certainly ministers on this side of the House have been working on this particular matter under the leadership of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for the last number of days. I am certain that the discussions in Vancouver will help the situation and help deal with the very terrible crisis that is faced by producers and others in the country.

    Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is part of the problem. No proposal will be put on the table. It has been almost a month since this scare started to affect beef producers and it is an economic loss to the livestock industry.

    The president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association says the minister's BSE compensation plan for loan guarantees is like throwing a rock to a drowning man. The industry needs cash, not more debt.

    I ask again, will the government commit to an immediate cash injection for the feedlot industry that is losing millions of dollars a day?

    Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, all of these issues are under discussion today in Vancouver.

    The hon. member should recognize that the preoccupation of the Government of Canada and the provincial governments and especially my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is to deal with the science in this case to ensure that people are well aware that there is no hazard from other animals being infected. The science is now conclusive and is now being analyzed by our friends in the United States. This leads us to some optimism that the border will be opened in the near future.

Back to top

June 11, 2003

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the end of April the UPA of Grand-Pré and the Envir-Eau-Sol group, which consists of 72 businesses in the regional municipality of Maskinongé, asked the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice personally to guarantee, in their words, “farm income protection systems by increasing the amount provided within the agricultural policy framework so that the Financière du Québec can cover the production costs of our farmers”.

    Can the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to reply in the affirmative to the legitimate demands of these agricultural producers from his riding?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working with the ministries and the representatives of the agriculture producers across Canada to put in place the announcement that the Prime Minister and I made last June of $5.2 billion in additional new money to help in areas of food safety, business risk management, environment and to help build upon the work that is being done in the provinces already, not to detract from that, but to built upon that.

    Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, concern has been expressed in the agricultural community that new products being introduced into the market could actually harm the market unless that introduction is done responsibly.

    Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what is being done to ensure the agricultural community does not suffer unnecessary market harm from such new products?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, we can all be very proud of the rigorous and science based regulatory system that we have that is world renowned and highly respected around the world. However, even taking that into consideration, we are aware of the implications that could happen, not necessarily that may happen, with the introduction of new products such as the member has referred to.

    I have instructed my department to work with the industry and consult with the industry so we can come up with a process to address that. I believe officials from my department will be at the agriculture standing committee tomorrow and will be able to begin initial discussions on that if the issue is raised there.

Back to top

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, earlier today at the agriculture committee, there were groups from Saskatchewan concerned about Canada's current export customers. Eighty per cent of them say they will not buy genetically modified wheat.

    Agriculture Canada continues to listen to Monsanto instead of Canadians and the world to have GM wheat licensed here. That would be a disaster because Canadian farmers will lose their markets. Saskatchewan's major farm and local government organizations are in Ottawa today. They are calling on the government to add a market impact analysis.

    Will the government and the minister listen to this advice and commit to a market--

    The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is not involved in reviewing an application for something such as genetically modified wheat. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the ministry of health are involved in it. That will be based on science.

    I have said before in the House that we need to take a look at the other concerns that are in the marketplace and with the application and that type of thing. That work is being done by the government.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, cattle producers have had their farms quarantined. Their herds have been slaughtered, yet they cannot begin to rebuild their herds or their lives until the government drafts restocking guidelines.

    When will the minister release the guidelines that will allow cattle producers to restock their cattle and rebuild their lives?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is already a program in place and I know the hon. member is aware of this. When animals have to be put down because of a reportable disease, there is compensation to the owner of each of those animals. As soon as that process is finished, if the individuals wish to take that money and restock their herds, they can do that immediately.

    In regard to the criteria of the United States, I will say again, we need the science and we will complete that science as quickly as possible.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of science fiction coming from that side of the House.

    Cattle producers are already looking ahead to restocking their farms for the future. These producers are waiting for the CFIA to give them written guidelines for that restocking.

    Can the minister tell us when the CFIA will publish those guidelines to allow for the restocking of farms and to allow the people to get on with their lives?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I am correct in saying that as soon as the quarantine is lifted farms can then start restocking.

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the responsibility for dead stock removal is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. In Ontario, the legislation that deals specifically with this issue is the Dead Animal Disposal Act.

    Although it is clearly stated in provincial legislation that dead stock removal is the responsibility of the provincial government, there have been increasing discussions in the Province of Ontario that the federal government does have a role to play in regard to this matter.

    Could the Minister of Agriculture please tell the House and the residents in the Province of Ontario whether the federal government has a role in the removal of dead stock in Ontario?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, dead stock removal comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The provinces are responsible, as well, for groundwater and waste management within their jurisdiction. They have guidelines and standards for that.

    Canadian farmers are well-known and have a good reputation for obeying those standards and guidelines, as are waste and landfill sites. I expect and I know they will live up to both the guidelines and the standards.

Back to top

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is trying to force genetically modified food on farmers and consumers both here and abroad. Yesterday, Canada's eccentric uncle, the Prime Minister, was in Europe aiding and abetting the American multinationals while here at home his government has been assisting Monsanto in test plots for adapting genetically modified wheat to the Prairies.

    The list of groups wanting nothing to do with GM includes farmers, the Wheat Board, the milling industry, international customers and most important, our own consumers. When will the government stop jamming genetically modified food down our throats and accept that what is good for GM is not good for Canada?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we have a process here in Canada that is the envy of the rest of the world. The assessment is made based on science and the safety of any genetically modified product to humans, animals and to the environment. Even with that, it does not mean that the product goes to market. If it passes, the opportunity is there. There have been a number of cases. For example, a number of years ago there was a genetically modified flax product that did pass and the industry decided not to take it to market.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister witnessed Canadian GMOs being denied access to the European market. Yet for five years we have been warning the government about the risk of not regulating GMOs.

    How many markets must we be banned from before the government takes its responsibilities and regulates all GMOs?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do regulate GMOs. We regulate GMOs better than any other country in the world. I just gave an answer on how we go about doing it.

    We recognize that there have to be concerns about the marketing of that product. I gave an example of how that has been handled in the past. We will continue basing those decisions on science.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week the Canadian Wheat Board asked Monsanto to withdraw its request to have genetically modified wheat certified.

    Will the Minister of Agriculture admit that if approved, Monsanto's request would make the Canadian situation even worse and close even more doors on international markets? Does the minister intend to say no to Monsanto, as requested by the Canadian Wheat Board?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I gave an example of a product that passed the tests of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Ministry of Health a few years ago. The developer of that product recognized a concern that had been raised by the Canadian Wheat Board and it was not put on the market. The system can work. That is a good example of the situation and how it can work.

Back to top

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 2002 was--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

    The Speaker: Order, please. The minister is, of course, very popular, but we need to be able to hear the next question.

[English]

    The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands now has the floor.

    Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, 2002 was a challenging year for farmers. They faced drought, grasshoppers, frost and floods. However their greatest challenge has been the Liberal government. Farmers are already out seeding and they still do not have a risk management program. They have no program, no details, no way of knowing what their 2003 coverage is.

    When will the minister release the details of the agricultural policy framework so farmers can make good business decisions for 2003?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member was in the standing committee on agriculture a few weeks ago when I went over the proposed program for the producers. That program is out there with the provinces. I have authority from our government to sign the agreements with the provinces, and we will put that in place. One province has already signed so their producers can have that protection for this year, and I await the signatures of all the others.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, farmers are frustrated beyond belief. They did not have much of a program last year and they do not have any program this year. Farm organizations are frustrated. The requests for a one year delay have been totally ignored. Provinces are frustrated. Only one province has signed the implementation agreement for the APF.

    The entire agricultural support system is changing without the average farmer having a clue what the government is doing. When will the minister let farmers know the details of the proposed new risk management program?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over a week ago I sent a personal letter to every holder of a NISA account in this country to explain the program. That is 160,000 letters that we sent out to explain it to the farmers. At the request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the farm organizations we completed a third party review. The results of that have been published. They said very clearly that the proposed program was better than the programs that we had in the past.

    I repeat that I am awaiting the signatures of the provinces. As soon as the provincial governments sign it, that program will be there for the producers. I urge the hon. member to get--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.

Back to top

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, no one likes to be a prop for the Prime Minister, but I was talking about star wars not SARS wars, and I want to ask a question.

    After that brief shining moment of independence we have seen nothing but supine acquiescence on the part of the Prime Minister when it comes to star wars, vetting our marijuana laws in Washington, and now we have the Canadian government joining with the American government in opposing the ban on GMOs in Europe.

    I wonder if this is a sign that someday GM wheat will be imposed on western Canadians whether--

    The Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we have one of the best systems in the world to analyze whether a genetically modified crop is either registered or grown. It is examined by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a number of reasons. That process is taking place at the present time. We do not know what the results of that will be.

    As a government we also know that there are a number of factors that must be taken into consideration in addition to that and we are looking at ways in which that can be considered as well.

Back to top

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, last October the minister for the Canadian Wheat Board was informed that the board was illegally taking money from farmers' pooling accounts. It is taking this money to manage and administer national licensing fees which the Wheat Board Act says the government has to pay.

    The minister said he was going to refer the matter to “officials and law officers”. It has been six months since the Canadian Alliance raised this issue. What are the results of the minister's investigation and why is this illegal practice continuing?

    Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did in fact refer the matter, which was raised by one of the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, to the board of directors of the board as well as its legal counsel. I asked them to inquire into the matter to see if there was anything to the allegations. I have certainly not been advised to this date that there was anything to substantiate the allegations.

    It is after all a matter of the management of the Canadian Wheat Board, which by law is vested in the hands of the directors.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is the board of directors that is breaking the law. The minister in charge of whitewash just cannot get away from that.

    In Australia, licensing fees cost $20 million annually. We cannot even guess how much Canadian farmers have been illegally charged because of the lack of transparency at the Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat Board directors.

    Does the minister know how much farmers have been charged? Why is he allowing the Canadian Wheat Board and the board of directors to operate illegally outside of the Canadian Wheat Board Act?

    Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing at all on the public record to support the allegation that the hon. gentleman has just made. The fact of the matter is that this House created a new governance system for the Canadian Wheat Board. The old system of appointed commissioners is gone. There is a modern, corporate style board of directors, 15 in total, 10 of whom are directly elected by farmers themselves.

    The opposition would like to replace the judgment of farmers with the political judgment of the Alliance Party. I would rather rely on farmers.

Back to top

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certain provinces appear to be ready to sign implementation agreements for the agricultural policy framework.

    Can the parliamentary secretary provide the House with the latest news regarding the implementation of the agricultural policy framework?

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic has raised a very relevant question, since Newfoundland and Labrador is the first province to sign an agreement with the Government of Canada to implement the agricultural policy framework.

    The federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods for Newfoundland and Labrador signed this agreement, and made the announcement this morning.

    Congratulations to Newfoundland and Labrador. We are confident that we will be signing other agreements with other provinces in the very near future.

Back to top

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, amazing but true, cruise ship companies whose food shipments failed to meet the agriculture minister's new labelling requirements “will be required to remove the product immediately from Canada”. Well, duh, that is exactly what they want to do and it is exactly what they have been doing for the last 20 Alaska cruise seasons. What would be the point of leaving the food sitting on the dock?

    I wonder if the minister realizes that these ridiculous new rules of his have already driven some cruise ships to relocate to Seattle.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. If we look at all meat products for human consumption in every area of federal responsibility, and cruise ships in particular, these products must comply with food inspection regulations. That is in the public interest.

[English]

    Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, cruise lines will have to pay $68 plus GST for the minister's inspectors to make one of two decisions: either the food is labelled correctly and it can leave Canada; or the food is labelled incorrectly and it must leave Canada. If the minister cannot see the folly of this ridiculous situation, he needs to visit Vancouver and watch the cruise ships come and go for awhile, that is if there are any left.

    I ask again, when is the minister going to put a stop to this ridiculous and unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense from his department?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): It is a matter of food safety, Mr. Speaker. I think that all foods imported into Canada must be inspected before they are consumed by the public.

Back to top

May 5, 2003

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian Wheat Board minister is not jailing farmers he is failing farmers.

    On Friday the U.S. imposed a 10% levy on all Canadian grain imports. The minister says that Canadian farmers will not be immediately impacted and “that the practical impact at the moment is very small. It is largely in the category of a hypothetical problem”.

    A 10% loss of income and a potential one half billion dollar loss of markets is not a hypothetical problem to prairie producers, especially after last year. When will the government move to fix this looming disaster for Canadian farmers?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very disappointed that further duties will be applied to Canadian wheat entering the United States. We are monitoring anti-dumping investigations very closely to ensure that Canada's international trade rights are being fully respected.

    Marketing systems are policy decisions that are made domestically and will continue to be made in Canada. I find it particularly hypocritical that the United States subsidizes wheat at $108 per tonne, whereas we only subsidize it at $31 per tonne. That is the reality.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, farmers are continually disappointed by the government. After years of denying western farmers marketing choice, and defending the system that is at the heart of the U.S. trade challenge, the Canadian Wheat Board minister changed his tune Friday when he said in the House:

 

...the government defends the rights of farmers to make their own marketing decisions...

    There is a simple solution to this latest trade challenge. Will the minister and the government end the U.S. trade challenge by opening up the Canadian Wheat Board, allow westerners the right to make their own marketing decisions, and give western Canadian producers a chance to compete in a market that both wants and needs our grain?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I say and as my colleague has said time and again, these decisions are decisions that are made in Canada by Canadians, but what western farmers would appreciate at this moment is that the opposition join us in recognizing that the OECD study acknowledged that the Americans subsidize wheat at $108 per tonne and we subsidize it at only $31 per tonne. The opposition should join us in supporting Canadian farmers who are being punitively attacked by the quotas at this moment.

Back to top

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today we hear that the United States is imposing a 20% duty on all Canadian wheat exports to the U.S.

    Western Canadian grain farmers are shaking their heads in disgust while the U.S. slams our grain industry with multiple trade actions and the government stands idly by.

    The catalyst for these trade challenges has been the Canadian Wheat Board, but now all Canadian grain producers will be penalized.

    Will the minister make the Canadian Wheat Board voluntary as so many producers want, or is he prepared to punish all Canadian producers for an outdated compulsory monopoly marketing system?

    Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the allegations involved in the pending American action are not new allegations. They have been in the public arena for 10 to 15 years.

    The Americans have pursued these actions on at least 10 previous occasions. Every time they have been pursued, those same kinds of fruitless statements have been made by the opposition. At the end of the day Canadian farmers have won 10 out of 10. The Government of Canada has stood with them every inch of the way. We will continue to do so.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is rubbish. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has assured farmers for the past year that this U.S. trade challenge has no substance. The Canadian Wheat Board has assured producers for the last year that the U.S. trade challenge has no substance to it.

    Now we find that the United States department of commerce will levy duties of up to 20% on all Canadian wheat sales into the United States.

    Is the minister so incompetent that he failed to take the United States seriously, or has he been deliberately misleading Canadian producers?

    Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has consistently stood by farmers in arguments of these kinds.

    It is significant that the government defends the rights of farmers to make their own marketing decisions in Canada by Canadians.

    The opposition by contrast sent a delegation some years ago to Washington, stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, joined arms with Newt Gingrich and sided with the United States.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, that is a pathetic response.

    Alarm bells are ringing. Mandatory U.S. country of origin labelling regulations will take place September 2004. Not unlike the Minister of Health who sat on the SARS file long enough to destroy the Toronto economy, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is content to sit back and see the pork and beef industry in this country destroyed.

    Why is the minister waiting for someone else to do his job? Does he believe American stakeholders will ride to his rescue? Or does he even care? Maybe he should ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage for help.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, discussions are currently being held; I do not understand the question by the hon. member opposite. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is not waiting for someone else to do his job. Discussions on labelling with regard to this situation are currently being held with the United States.

Back to top

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the government claims to be 1000% behind supply management, yesterday, the Canadian agriculture negotiator at the WTO told farm producers difficult decisions may have to be made.

    Could the Minister of Agriculture explain to producers what these difficult decisions will be?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in some of the recent decisions Canada made it very clear that we would not support the Harbinson's report on modalities. That emphasizes and stresses the support that the government has for supply management in this country. We recognize what it does for producers, for consumers and for the economy of our country. We will continue with that full and strong support for supply management.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's positions are increasingly vague. On the one hand, our ministers are telling us they will not touch supply management, but on the other hand, the chief negotiator told producers yesterday that defending administered prices was not part of her mandate.

    Does the minister not think that the time has come to give his negotiator a clear mandate to protect all three pillars of supply management: first, planning; second, border control; and third, administered prices?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those three pillars are very clear. The industry was part of that. The government was part of that. Part of the mandate to the WTO of this government is that on supply management the decisions of domestic marketing and the protection of that system will be made here in Canada. That is the position of the government. Industry agrees with it and that is the position our negotiators are taking as well.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the dairy farmers of Canada have spent eight years trying to get the government's attention on the butteroil/sugar blend issue and the government has been indifferent.

    Now the working group that was established to study the issue has also pushed producers right out of the loop.

    Why, as has happened in so many other agricultural areas, is the government ignoring dairy producers?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the working group of the four departments involved in this, revenue, finance, trade and agriculture, met with the industry group and took its recommendations.

    Those recommendations are being considered at this time and we will be making a decision in order to see the direction that we can. We recognize the erosion of some products in the dairy industry and we will do all we possibly can to stop it.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to protect Canada from imports of dairy substitutes. The importation of butteroil/sugar blends has reduced the market share for Canadian dairy farmers. It has cost them a pile of money.

    Now the working group has said that its report will not be ready for another month.

    Is the government waiting until after the Perth--Middlesex byelection to give its dairy producers the bad news?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): No, we are not, Mr. Speaker. We are working on that so we can, hopefully, come up with a solution in order to assist the dairy industry in this. However it is interesting to hear the comments about supply management coming from a party that does not even support supply management.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I realize that the concerns of Canadian farmers are rarely top of mind for the Liberals but given that there is a byelection underway in the largely agriculture riding of Perth--Middlesex perhaps they will take them seriously today.

    The government and its Pest Management Regulatory Agency are making it harder for Canadian farmers to compete with their American counterparts by denying Canadian farmers the right to use cheaper and more environmentally friendly farm chemicals that have been approved for use in the United States.

    Why does the Liberal government deny farmers the right to these safe, environmentally friendly farm chemicals?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the system of regulations and registration of agricultural chemicals, as with all chemicals in Canada, is reviewed by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency in Health Canada.

    First, there has to be an application for those by the company that wishes to use them. As well, the government put over $60 million in place to help the industry in minor use registration. We will now be able to move to a program similar to that in the United States of IR-4, but the application for those products first has to be applied for. We will then make sure that the application for those in use in Canada is safe.

¹  (1500)  

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the heroic efforts of the government, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency is approving minor use regulations at 150th the rate in the United States. In 2000-01, a total of 1,200 minor use registrations were approved in the U.S.A. compared to 22 in Canada.

    This forces Canadian farmers to rely upon older, less environmentally friendly farm chemicals. Given that the allowable limit for de-listed farm chemicals in the United States is 0%, this means that failure to harmonize with the United States will result in de facto trade barriers against Canadian farm products.

    What will the federal government do to end the regulatory mess that it has created?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gave that answer to the hon. member. Last year we put forward $54.5 million on top of $7 million just prior to that in order to improve our system. However, I first have to stress that the applications have to be there.

Back to top

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister's agricultural policy framework will eliminate the provincial companion programs.

    The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is opposed to Ontario signing the implementation agreement because the new programs are less effective. A recent report from the George Morris Centre, paid for by the agriculture minister, will not change the fact that the proposed programs are unacceptable to farmers.

    Why would the minister try to impose programs on the provinces that are against the best interests of farmers?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was been briefed and was at the standing committee when I explained that the companion programs that the provinces had at the present time, if they had requested them and they all had, could continue for a transition period of over three years. After that, if the provinces wish to continue them on their own, if they are interested, they can.

    Also, I think the hon. member needs to read the last part of the sentence in the report to which he is referring. It states:

 

--it is clear to us that the proposed new programs better achieve the six objectives of business risk management as agreed to by the Federal and Provincial Ministers in Whitehorse.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that does not change the fact if the farmers do not accept the programs.

    Let us talk about the dairy industry for a moment. In 1995 the government signed the WTO agreement that failed to protect Canada from imports of dairy substitutes. The import of butteroil/sugar blends has reduced the market share for Canadian dairy farmers, resulting in lost income.

    Why is the government doing nothing to correct its incompetence at the international negotiating table?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been a working group in process, involving four ministries of the government and the industry, looking at how we can try to address this concern that the dairy industry and we have.

    As everyone in the House has been told a number of times, the report of that working group will soon be coming forward to the industry and to the House.

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, an independent study has been concluded on the business risk management component of the APF.

    Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House if a report has been released and if so, does the report give credence to farmers' concerns or does it portray a positive program for farmers as we move into the future?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the third party review did determine that the new program design would be a major improvement over the status quo. It concluded that the new program would better stabilize producers' incomes across commodities, better direct funds to areas of need, treat producers more equitably across the country and across commodities, be simpler for both producers and administrators, and help producers in their long term planning.

    This review should certainly give the producers a high level of comfort so that they realize that under the agriculture policy they will have access to more effective programs to increase their profitability.

Back to top

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has taken the agriculture minister two years to come up with a risk management program which so far is a complete disaster for producers. Canadians farmers were hopeful they would finally have long term stability in their safety net programs.

    Could the Minister of Agriculture explain why he waited until the implementation date to hire private consultants to then assess the already beleaguered APF program? Just how incompetent is the minister and his department?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just recently the Canadian Federation of Agriculture came up with examples. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, showing that he has an open mind, wanted to demonstrate again the benefits of the new agricultural policy framework and agreed to prove, with this private firm, that the APF is a very good program.

[English]

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, those presentations were made back in February. This agriculture situation makes absolutely no sense. It has taken a $5 billion department two years to create a program that now needs to be assessed by a private consultant. If this is not incompetence, then this abysmal failure must have been by design.

    Why has the government left farmers standing alone just as they are going back into their fields? What is the real agenda here?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has not been an abysmal failure. As the member just pointed out, we have spent two years developing a new policy framework. Everyone was consulted, including the federation. The federation recently came up with new examples to show that the APF is not good. Our response is that their numbers are wrong. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, once again, has agreed to examine them with a private consultant to prove to the federation that the APF is indeed a good program.

Back to top

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, farmers expected the Minister of Agriculture to have a safety net package in place by April 1, almost two weeks ago, yet it was only a week ago that the minister hired two consulting firms to analyze this program and tell him how wonderful it was, while at the same time directing these same consultants not to consider a proposal raised by farmers.

    Why is the minister afraid to allow a third party consultant to compare the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's proposal with his own?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should get his facts straight and read the letter that I sent back to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture approving the third party participants in this, that it approved as well, and also agreeing to analyze and to review the information it provided to me on March 28 of this year at 6 o.clock in the afternoon, three days before the end of the present federal-provincial agreement that ran out on April 1.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has referred to a report drafted by an interdepartmental working group for the four ministers concerned, and given to them a month ago. Yesterday, the parliamentary secretary informed the dairy producers meeting in Quebec City that a decision by the minister will be forthcoming within two weeks.

    Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food confirm that a decision will be announced within the timeframe indicated yesterday by the parliamentary secretary?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has asked that very same question several times this week and the answer is the same. The ministers have looked at the recommendations and the recommendations will be reported to the industry within the next few days.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be a very good connection between the parliamentary secretary and the minister.

    According to our sources, the report offers three hypotheses: first, modification of the definition and reclassification. Second, a return before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Third, the implementation of safeguards.

    Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food guarantee that he will opt for the first, the only hypothesis that will make it possible to put an end to the importation of substitute products, as the dairy producers are demanding?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, and I have been saying all along. A number of recommendations have been made by the industry and they have been looked at by the four portfolios involved in this. We will be making a final recommendation on that within the next few days.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Ontario farmers cannot operate without the knowledge of what supports are available for disaster assistance for the 2003 stabilization year. With the April 1 deadline past, market revenue insurance and other companion programs could end leaving farmers unprotected.

    Will the Minister of Agriculture extend current safety net programming until an agreement is signed?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the industry and all the provinces have known for over three years that the federal-provincial agreements that were in place would be ending on March 31 of this year.

    We have been working with the industry and with the provinces to put in place a new program that will cover both stabilization and disaster, which is exactly what the industry wanted.

    The industry has known since June 20 of last year that the disaster program that was in place was, quite frankly, not liked by the industry. They requested changes to it and we will be making those changes for this year.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that companion programs are important risk management tools on which Ontario farmers rely.

    Will the minister agree to look at the alternative proposals from the farmers and the provinces and take their concerns into consideration in the agricultural policy framework to end the uncertainty for Ontario farm families that they face with no agreement? Do it for the families.

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have taken that into consideration and the transition is there for the federal participation into some companion programs. The hon. member should be fully aware that the minister of agriculture for the Province of Ontario signed that framework policy in June of this year. They and their industry have known that and their minister signed that on behalf of her farmers in the Province of Ontario.

Back to top

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture said recently that the federal government is letting down Ontario farmers. The province's farmers are left worried and uncertain about the future of their income stabilization program and are without adequate protection from economic hardship.

    It seems the government needs an election or a byelection in order to make a policy announcement. With a byelection in Perth—Middlesex, can we now expect the agriculture minister to say something, anything, that is going to be acceptable to Ontario farmers?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have informed all the ministers of agriculture that I now have the authority to sign the implementation agreements to put in place the agriculture policy framework and all the funding that goes with it to all the provinces. The Minister of Agriculture has the opportunity to sign that for her farmers in Ontario if she wishes to do that for them.

Back to top

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that minister does not know much more about that subject than he does about the definition of a statesman.

    The director general of the WTO issued a statement saying that it was a great disappointment that negotiators missed the deadline on agriculture. Canada contributed to the breakdown of talks due to its rejection of the Harbinson. In short, Canada sided with the developed countries such as the EU against the developing countries in Africa and South America.

    Will the minister explain his rejection of the liberalization of trade in agricultural products and why is he standing with the European Union and not with the developing countries?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member just does not have his facts right on this issue. We did not reject the Harbinson modalities. Some parties in the House were asking us to reject them and we did not.

    We continued to promote Canada's interest. We want major, serious reform in the international trade routes for agriculture. We want the elimination of export subsidies. We want a substantial reduction in the production subsidies and the domestic subsidies. That is our agenda and we will pursue it at the WTO.

    Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is just typical of the government. There is lots of talk but very little action and no positive results.

    Producers and producer groups across Canada desperately need a successful round of negotiations. The minister has fumbled the ball at the WTO and now with Canada's diminished influence on the world stage, how does the government expect to make Canada relevant again in these trade issues? Just agreeing with France on everything will not cut it.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member has been following very closely the role that Canada has been playing at the WTO, whether it was at the last ministerial in Doha, Qatar, where everyone commended Canada's contribution to the successful launch of a round.

    We have been leading since Seattle all efforts that have been made on the implementation working group. We have been contributing to the transparency of the WTO, giving a lot more credibility to the whole trade negotiations around the world. Canada is a leading country.

    Last week we tabled our services offer in all transparency. We are active and proud at the--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Repentigny.

Back to top

April 1, 2003

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Peak of the Market, a successful Manitoba export business, is feeling the impact of the Liberal government's anti-American actions and statements.

    This farmer owned company has had orders from longstanding U.S. customers cancelled. Manitoba farmers and vegetable growers are among the first to feel the economic backlash.

    What steps has the agriculture minister taken to improve relations with his U.S. counterpart?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade, the Deputy Prime Minister, myself and our officials are in constant contact with officials and the industry in the United States.

    If the hon. member has a specific issue, a specific case, that he would like us to look into I would ask him to give that to me because to date he has not brought that to my attention other than just now. If he would, I would be pleased to look into it.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to phone Mr. Larry MacIntosh in Winnipeg. I am sure he knows who he is and he will hear the same story.

    Canadian farmers rely very heavily on trade with the United States and the Prime Minister and deputy minister are making a terrible mess of our trade situation with the U.S.

    I would like to know how large of a negative economic impact the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Deputy Prime Minister are willing to accept before they speak up about the need to improve relations with our best trading partner and friends.

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether that is a promotion or a demotion, but let me say that we have very good relations with the United States, as the ambassador himself said last week.

    However I do not think that Canada can stand by and say that we should not take a principled position on matters of war and peace because we are afraid of some or other trade action being taken by our partners.

    Surely to goodness, the notion of national sovereignty includes the fact that we make political decisions, especially of such importance as when we put our soldiers at risk, on the basis of principles that are bigger than whether or not we can make a buck out of having better relations.

Back to top

March 31, 2003

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is April Fool's Day and the biggest April fool's joke played on Canadian farmers is the Minister of Agriculture and his agricultural policy framework. Earlier this year the minister said:

 

--we need to and will have [the APF] completed by April 1st so that farmers know and can plan with what support there is from the government in the next year.

    The joke is definitely on farmers. Now the minister has no deadline, no plan and no program. Could the minister tell us when farmers can expect his beleaguered policy framework will come into effect, or will the minister continue to--

    The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the last federal-provincial agreement between the Government of Canada and all the provinces expired on the last day of March, 2003. We have said from the start that there has to be a new agreement. If it is not signed by that date, it is to be retroactive to that date.

    He knows that there has not been a disaster program for farmers since December 31, 2002. We are working with the industry to develop that. The member is one of the people who said that we should continue to take some more time to do that.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

    The minister stubbornly insists on implementing his net income stabilization program, which is angering farmers throughout Canada and Quebec.

    With less than 24 hours before the federal-provincial agricultural safety net programs expire, will the minister show good faith and indicate his understanding of the agricultural situation by delaying implementation of the strategic framework he is currently proposing?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture policy framework is the result of concerns raised by opposition members in the House, the government and the industry that the government needed to have a long term program for Canadian farmers for the production of food. Farmers can now plan rather than, on an ad hoc basis each year, not know whether the money would come or what the amount would be if it did come.

    The government put that in place last June. We have been working with the industry and the provinces. We will continue to do so because farmers deserve it and the money will be there for them.

Back to top

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In light of the release of the Harbinson report, will the minister please inform the House what Canada's position is with respect to supply management?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has always been very clear in that we are strong supporters and full supporters of the supply management system in Canada for the benefit of the producers and the benefit of the consumers of dairy, egg and poultry products in Canada.

    Unfortunately, the second draft of the Harbinson report was as fundamentally flawed as the first draft report. Our negotiators, along with industry representatives, are in Geneva this week and we will push in order to ensure that domestic marketing decisions for those products are made in Canada.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we know the Americans are going to require country of origin labelling for imported beef and pork products. The cost of compliance will be staggering.

    We wanted to work with the Americans to have this law amended or repealed, but not only has the Liberal government done nothing to address the situation, it has made it far worse. U.S. consumers are now beginning to boycott Canadian products, while the reckless and irresponsible comments by cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister are destroying our trade relationship.

    Does the Minister of Agriculture understand the negative consequences for agriculture brought about by foolish, asinine comments such as the one by the member who sits beside him, the Minister of Natural Resources?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all very concerned about the country of origin labelling requirement in the United States, but the hon. member needs to recognize that the first two years of that is voluntary. He needs to recognize, and he knows, that we are working with the industry in the United States. We are working through our embassy in the United States.

    There is a growing feeling in the United States as well that the law is flawed. It is hoped by all of us that if the law does not get struck down or changed by the United States, it will at least just keep it to the voluntary system which is not working now and will not work for anybody's benefit, U.S. or--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Champlain.

Á  (1155)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that April 1 was no longer the deadline, as he had suggested previously.

    Will the minister confirm that this statement applies to the entire agricultural policy framework, which includes the net income stabilization account program, the new risk management program and the agriculture income disaster assistance program?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said right from the start that there was not a strict deadline of April 1. The hon. member has heard me say that a number of times. We have time to continue to develop the business risk management aspect of the agricultural policy framework. As the ministers agreed in the last federal-provincial ministers meeting, when that is completed, any federal-provincial agreement that needs to be signed, because they do cease on March 31 of this year, will be retroactive to April 1 of 2003.

Back to top

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture made known his intention to implement, come what may, his agricultural policy framework on April 1. However, we read in the newspapers that the minister has commissioned an independent study, the results of which will be known a few months from now.

    What reasons can the minister give for implementing his framework before even examining the findings of the study that he himself commissioned?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the hon. member get his facts straight before he asks a question.

    The industry has asked to have an independent group look at the programs that are in place and the programs that are being proposed at the present time. I have indicated that we are prepared and willing to do that. It should take only two weeks to do that.

¸  (1440)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Agriculture is operating in total isolation. Farmers in Quebec, and in eastern and western Canada oppose this. The opposition is against it, and even the members of the Liberal caucus are against it.

    Before the minister destroys a perfectly good system that has proven itself, could he not show prudence, slow down and delay implementing this policy framework?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday, the farmers in Canada have not had a disaster program since December 1 last year. With the encouragement of members of the opposition and members of the government party, we got the funding to do so and to develop a better plan than we have had in the past to get that money there on a permanent basis for a number of years ahead.

    I have said all along that April 1 was not a deadline for that, that we had time to develop it this year so that it could be there for producers to use this year, and we will have that in place.

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is supportive of supply management, but dairy producers have expressed concern over unregulated imports of dairy products and subproducts, such as butteroil-sugar blends.

    Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what the report of the working group set up last summer recommended and how the ministers intend to follow up?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the strong support that the hon. member for Peterborough has, and continues to have, with the caucus and the government for supply management.

    The working group that was set up has had a number of meetings with the dairy industry. We recognize the concern regarding the importation of butteroil-sugar blends. There have been a number of recommendations that have been made to ministers in the government. We are reviewing those recommendations thoroughly at the present time so that we can work with the industry to help solve the problem.

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite numerous objections from farmers, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been saying for a long time now that he intends to impose his policy framework. His plan is creating anger and panic among farmers, who have a hard time understanding what the rush is.

    Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food get it into his head that what farmers are demanding is a one-year delay and nothing less?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again, as I did several times yesterday and already today. Since the first of January of this year there has not been a disaster program for Canadian primary producers. The funding was put in place last June.

    We have been working on that since last June with the provinces and the industry. We still have time to develop that because the producers deserve it and there will be a program for farmers this year.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, farmers in Quebec and Canada are concerned about supply management. Tensions mounted again last month when the chair of the negotiating committee at the WTO, Stuart Harbinson, tabled a preliminary report proposing to reduce the tariff quota by half and increase access to markets.

    Does the minister realize that if the Harbinson proposal were accepted, there would not be a single quotaed farmer in Canada who would be able to farm, and does he consequently intend to unequivocally reject said proposal?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Harbinson last week. I was very clear that the document as it stands does not reflect a negotiating framework satisfactory to Canada. We are pleased with some of the progress made in eliminating export subsidies, which meets Canadian objectives, but in terms of access to markets and farmer subsidies, we did not agree with this document.

    I would like to reassure the House and Canadians that this document is also not supported by the European Union or the United States. I think that for now, these terms are far from being approved for agriculture negotiations at the WTO.

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, farmers are criticizing the Minister for International Trade for his lack of firmness regarding supply management, for letting too many products come in.

    However, at the Liberal caucus held in Chicoutimi, the minister pledged to farmers that he would take action to settle this issue. We know that a study was conducted and recently submitted to the minister, at the end of February.

    Can the minister tell us when he intends to table the findings of that study here in the House?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed, when we were in Chicoutimi, the Minister of Agriculture and I set up a working group with dairy producers and supply management officials.

    Our officials worked together and, last week, they submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and myself a report which we have reviewed. A number of possibilities are being examined. These are rather complex issues, and we have to look at the legal impact of any scenario that we may adopt.

    Therefore, we will follow up on this request in the coming weeks.

Back to top

March 26, 2003

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for some time now, the Bloc Quebecois has been pointing out that farmers disagree with the structure of the income stabilization program proposed by the Minister of Agriculture.

    Now the Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture has indicated in a letter to the minister that he is amazed at the degree of unanimity among farmers in demanding that implementation of new programs be postponed.

    When will the minister take off his blinkers and realize that we are right in demanding that this be put off for a year?

¸  (1440)  

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since December 31 of last year there has not been a disaster program in place for Canadian farmers. We all know that it is necessary. The funding is there for that. The work has been there to develop that. I have made it very clear from the start that we have time in order to do that.

    We will continue to work with the provinces and the industry to make sure we have a very good disaster and stabilization program that will treat every farmer in Canada in similar circumstances exactly the same way.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the letter from the Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture also invites the Minister of Agriculture not to repeat the error made with the disaster relief program.

    Does the minister plan to bow to the wisdom of his Liberal colleagues, who are telling him that new programs need to be put off for a year?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone is saying that there should not be a program for this year. I know that all of the opposition members and the industry from coast to coast said very clearly in the past that the programs we had in the past were not as good as they should be and they wanted them fixed. They wanted them improved and that is exactly what we are going to do.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food asked that more time be given to implement programs so that the concerns of stakeholders could be taken into consideration.

    The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is wrong in wanting to impose his new net income stabilization program. Does he not believe he should agree to more time, in order to avoid confusing and angering farmers?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated very clearly to the standing committee the other day that there is more time and we will take that time. We will work with the provinces and the industry over the coming weeks to do just that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is suggesting that it is farmers in Quebec who are resisting his program. However, the letter from the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food indicates quite the opposite.

    Does the minister realize that all of the farmers in Canada want more time?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just answered the question. They keep asking the same question and I keep giving the same answer. I said there is more time. We have time in the weeks ahead to do that and we will be doing it.

Back to top

March 25, 2003

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Agriculture Canada is using a Saskatchewan research station to test GM wheat from Monsanto. Incredibly, conventional wheat is also grown on that experimental farm, which leads to the real fear of contamination. Canadian Wheat Board customers want no part of GM wheat or conventional wheat that has been contaminated.

    Why is the government putting at risk our conventional wheat, the best in the world, by testing GM wheat on experimental farms? Second, what assurances can the government give that these GM wheat tests will be discontinued immediately?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member has given me the opportunity to clear up an erroneous report that was on a national television channel last night. The report said that the wheat was 3 metres apart. That is incorrect. It was 1,500 metres apart. Scientists say that it only has to be 30 metres apart, but it was 1.5 kilometres away from any other variety of wheat.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture wants to impose his income stabilization program and is raising the ire of all the provinces, especially Quebec. His stubbornness is jeopardizing existing programs that have proven effective for years.

    The Minister of Agriculture must negotiate in good faith with farmers. Is he prepared to put his fiscal framework on hold for one year as the Union des producteurs agricoles of Quebec is asking him to do in order to give these negotiations a chance?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian farm income program, which was in place in Canada for a number years, ceased as of December 31 last year. Farmers do not have a disaster income program in Canada for this year.

    We will continue to work with the provinces and industry to ensure that because farmers need it and they deserve it. We will ensure that every farmer in Canada in similar circumstances, no matter where they live in Canada, will be treated the same.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to force the application of his fiscal framework, but will he acknowledge that this is because he wants to get rid of provincial programs so that the federal government will have sole control over agriculture and be able, during future international negotiations, to lower requirements without having to consult?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been more consultation on this than any income program in the 40 years that I have been involved in the agriculture industry.

    Provinces can continue with whatever programs they want. We are saying that in the province of Quebec for example, the province to which the hon. member is referring, out of the $1.60 to go with the 60¢ federal money that goes in there, the federal government is asking it to make some modest changes for 24¢ of that.

    The other money they can use in whatever way they want, continue the programs they have and even do more if the province so desires.

Back to top

Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and it has to do with the biosafety protocol.

    So far 44 countries have ratified the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. Fifty are needed for it to come into effect. In view of perceived conflicting agricultural interests, could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food indicate when he will give the green light so that Canada can finally ratify the biosafety protocol?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada signed the biosafety protocol in April 2001 and we are on a plan to ratify it.

    However, before ratifying it we need to resolve some uncertainties in the agreement. We are doing that in consultation with the agriculture and the agri-food industry. Based on those consultations we have drafted an action plan to identify and deal with those uncertainties.

    There is still more work that needs to be done, but we are committed to resolving those uncertainties that may impact the agriculture and agri-food industry before we ratify.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to reach consensus among farmers but the government has managed the near impossible. Farm leaders are unanimous in their opposition to the risk management program being foisted on them in two weeks, saying the proposals are much worse than what exists now. With 22 major Canadian farm groups arguing they have not been listened to, the only farmers the department has not alienated are those it has not met.

    Farmers want current safety net programs to remain in place for one more year. What is wrong with this very reasonable request by Canadian farmers?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was very vocal in stating that, for example, the Canadian Farm Income Program was not effective. He was very vocal about that in the past.

    The government has moved toward and is proposing a new, far more effective program. That disaster program has been there in the past and will not be there this year. The government will ensure that farmers in Canada have a disaster program for 2003 that they deserve to have.

Back to top

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in recent years Canadian farmers have been plagued by floods, drought, grasshoppers, the U.S. congress, and a Liberal government that just does not care.

    Now the minister, with his new APF program, is expecting farmers to provide an initial deposit of $3 billion to ensure adequate coverage.

    My question is simple this, where does the minister expect that cash strapped Canadian farmers will get this money?

    Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a program worth $5.3 billion to help farmers across this country.

    This is the amount of money we have provided to support farmers. The Alliance Party members said that farmers should not be provided with support and that they should not be subsidized. They should stand up and congratulate the good work that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been doing for many years.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is trying to apply a one size fits all approach when he designed the APF for the entire agricultural industry. This will not address the different problems faced by the various regions in Canada. The gradual removal of federal money from the companion programs will leave farmers with ineffective coverage.

    Does the minister think it is fair to withdraw money from programs that are already working for farmers?

    Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not withdrawing programs. In fact, we have a new framework to improve the programs. We are having a transition period to move from the current programs to the better, more improved programs to provide better protection. The transition period will be over the next three years. The hon. member should take that into consideration when she asks her question.

Back to top

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, more than 80% of Canadian customers abroad say they will not purchase any genetically modified variety of wheat, but this has not stopped Monsanto from seeking regulatory approval to introduce GM wheat in Canada. Because there is no effective way to segregate wheat from genetically modified wheat, and knowing that the introduction of this product will result in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales annually, would the agriculture minister not agree that a market impact test should be completed before genetically modified wheat is foisted upon Canadian producers?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that there is a submission up for review. That submission will take a considerable period of time, in fact, many months before it is completed. There are a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration, including the one that the hon. member just mentioned, before complete registration or the marketing of that product would take place.

Back to top

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Tuesday's budget contained an extra $100 million over two years for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell this House in what areas he intends to allocate these dollars?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased that in the budget the government recognized the important role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the safety and the quality of Canadian food by further providing another $100 million over two years.

    It will allow the agency to continue to enhance food safety in Canada. The regulatory system, along with the border control, will ensure the safety of food exported from our country to other countries and imported from other countries. It will ensure the health of Canadians as well as the health of animals and plants in Canada.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has repeatedly demonstrated to Canadians that it has become arrogant, self-serving and dictatorial. Now it is at it again.

    We are witnessing the public spectacle of the government ramming agricultural policy down the throats of producers. The minister insists that his new agricultural policy framework must take effect on April 1 even though producer organizations across the country vigorously and unanimously oppose his arbitrary deadline.

    If farm policy is for farmers, why is he ramming it through without their consent?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the present provincial and federal agreements end at the end of March.

    The government will not stand by and have the situation happen where there is no disaster program for farmers for this year; no federal co-operation and no money going to farmers through the federal-provincial programs for not only business risk management but for food safety and the environment.

    The industry and the provincial ministers and government have been working on this for 18 months. We need to get it done for farmers by the first of April of this year.

Back to top

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, Naber Seed & Grain went bankrupt. The federal government's system for bonding licensed grain dealers was supposed to protect farmers but clearly failed. More than 100 farmers were owed money and will now receive only 52¢ on the dollar.

    The government is so quick to regulate but so slow to take responsibility. Does the Minister of Agriculture accept responsibility for this fiasco? What is he doing to remedy the situation?

¸  (1455)  

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the jobs of the Canadian Grain Commission is to see that handlers and buyers of seed and grain in western Canada are bonded. It does that on a frequent basis to try to ensure that there is sufficient bonding in order to cover the liabilities it would have, but I have to say that it does not do it every month because of the costs of doing that and the administration there. It was anticipated that it would have sufficient coverage, but it is working with the farmers and with the company in order to do the best that it can.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the facts surrounding the case are clear. If the government had monitored its own financial guidelines, these prairie producers would have been paid in full for their grain. Instead, the licensing system, which is supposed to protect farmers, failed.

    Even though the shortcomings of this system were well known long before the Naber Seed bankruptcy, the government did nothing to fix the situation. Will the Minister of Agriculture admit that his failure to act early left farmers on the hook and out of money?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that in the view of the Canadian Grain Commission, in conjunction with the monitoring of the actions and the economic activity of the Naber Seed & Grain Company, it was viewed to have sufficient bonding. However, there was a situation that occurred such that the assets of the company, for a short period of time, did exceed its bonding, and unfortunately it was not all covered.

Back to top

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is using the strategic plan on agriculture to establish national standards for the agricultural support program from coast to coast.

    The Prime Minister recently wrote to the President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I quote:

 

The current approach is irreconcilable with the principle by which all Canadians are equal, regardless of where they live in the country.

    How can the government justify to Quebec's farmers the fact that it is destroying all of the agricultural programs that have worked for 30 years because the Prime Minister wants to standardize support programs from coast to coast? Everyone is treated the same, is that the price they have to pay to be Canadian?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more, Canadians are Canadians no matter where they live, which is precisely why, during the federal-provincial ministers' meeting in June 2002, the province of Quebec agreed that we should have national standards for business risk management for Canadian farmers from coast to coast to coast. We also should have national standards but with flexibility in how they are delivered within the provinces for such areas as food safety, environment and that type of thing so we can ensure, for trade reasons and equitability, that Canadians are Canadians no matter where they live.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister be so dogmatic and destroy programs that have proven effective for 30 years, instead of accepting that agriculture, which is different from one province to the next, requires different and appropriate support programs?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working with the province of Quebec, and, I think, very successfully, in showing, with the designs, that every farmer is treated the same in the business risk management area and that Quebec producers will be better served. Quite frankly, the Quebec government, because it does decide from its provincial perspective to spend more on its agricultural support than other provinces, will be at liberty to do so and it will have even more money left over to do that than it had in the past. We will have a win-win situation for Quebec farmers.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, whether they sell their produce through the Wheat Board or supply management, the draft proposals released last week by the chair of the WTO agricultural panel spell even more problems ahead for Canadian agriculture producers.

    Moreover the chair's proposal on export subsidies will force Canadian farmers to wait another nine years for the United States and Europe to eliminate their trade distorting largesse.

    In light of these bad news proposals, will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food advise the House and Canadian farmers how the government intends to protect Canadian agriculture in the future?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for accompanying my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, and I to the WTO ministerial in Tokyo in the past few days. We were not happy with Harbinson's initial draft report.

    I can assure the hon. member and all farmers that the government will continue to vigorously support the initial negotiating position that we have put forward in the agricultural trade negotiation talks on behalf of all sectors of our Canadian agriculture.

Back to top

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has invoked land use bans on some elk farms.

    Cervid producers worry it will be expanded even though the Canadian Food Inspection Agency lacks the scientific proof to do so. Therefore, they may not report suspected chronic wasting disease because of the government not having a contingency plan.

    What will the minister do to ensure that the reporting system is not compromised from fear of the CFIA?

¹  (1500)  

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows that for reportable diseases such as chronic wasting disease, if anyone, whether a producer, a veterinarian, or whoever is aware of that or suspects that, does not report that, they are breaking the law. If they do not report it and it becomes known, they will be treated according to the laws that are in place.

Back to top

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday our committee heard evidence from senior officials at Agriculture Canada to the effect that Quebec had three years to adjust downward to match the federal department's program, penalizing those farmers, and Quebec, which are ahead in terms of stabilization insurance.

    How can the minister justify an approach that sets farmers back and denies Quebec's agricultural specificity?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make this very clear. As we know, the contribution the federal government makes to agriculture in the provinces is on a 60:40 basis. The province of Quebec provides $1.60 to its farmers above and beyond the contribution and most provinces make contributions in the low forties.

    The work that is being done with the province of Quebec is to modestly change not how much, but how 24¢ out of the $1.60 is spent in the province of Quebec. It continues to spend the other $1.36 as it can and has for its industry in the past.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec has sound financial tools developed as part of a complete overhaul of its stabilization insurance programs.

    Will the minister finally understand that it is out of the question that our excellent programs in Quebec be jeopardized to accommodate the federal government's visibility objectives?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will say again that if the province of Quebec wants to, it can continue to contribute above and beyond what the federal government contributes on a provincial basis. We ensure that every farmer in every province in Canada under similar circumstances is treated the same way federally for trade reasons and for equality reasons. The province is free, willing and able to do as it has in the past with the extra support to its farmers. As a federal government, for trade reasons and equitability reasons, we are going to treat every farmer in the same way.

Á  (1135)  

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency recently forbade farmers from using their land, claiming that the land might transfer chronic wasting disease. The government neglects to consider how farmers are supposed to earn an income when they cannot use their land.

    Will the minister table before the House scientific proof that CWD resides in soil and is communicable in this form?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have worked with the industry's cooperation in order to try to eradicate chronic wasting disease in the elk herds across the country. There is still scientific work being done to try to find out when a herd of animals have contaminated the soil and are removed, how long the contamination stays there so that animals can be safely put back on that soil and not be reinfected with chronic wasting disease. That work is not solid. There is work that needs to be done. We are working with the industry so that the safety and--

    The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Blackstrap.

Back to top

Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, considering the widespread opposition to genetically engineered wheat by overseas buyers, and considering that several agricultural groups, including the national farmers union, oppose the introduction of genetically engineered wheat, could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food inform the House as to whether he will refrain from approving the release in Canada of genetically engineered wheat?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has not yet reviewed the submissions for roundup ready wheat. There is a process where the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reviews such a submission for safety to animals and safety to the environment. Health Canada reviews the submission for safety to humans. That evaluation certainly is not complete because the submission has just come in.

    I can assure the House and Canadians that submission will be conducted and that evaluation will be very thorough because we understand the concerns of everyone on this issue.

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the discussions on the agriculture policy framework have stalled. The minister decided to throw his weight around. Farmers are worried and do not like it that what they had negotiated with the Quebec government is being called into question.

    Will the Minister of Agriculture listen to all the stakeholders in Quebec and agree to channel the financial mechanisms he is proposing through the Financière agricole du Québec, yes or no?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a government we have said very clearly that we will treat every farmer in similar circumstances in Canada the same with the federal support.

    Even the minister in the province of Quebec in 2001, at a federal-provincial ministers meeting, agreed that we needed to move to a basic program of crop insurance and the NISA, including a disaster payment.

    However, that does not prohibit provinces, such as Quebec, as they have in the past and can continue to do in the future, from supporting their producers as they see fit above and beyond that. We live in a country where the provinces can do that if they so wish.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is brushing aside objections by the farmers' unions and the provincial ministers.

    Is it not time for the Prime Minister to step in to avoid having the farmers pay for the intransigence of this minister, who no longer seems to care about the interests of farmers?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, more consultations have taken place with the ministers and the agricultural industry in the last 18 to 20 months than have ever taken place in the development and the design of the present and the future business risk management programs that we have. That has been very successful. We had a very successful agriculture ministers meeting last week in Toronto.

    There is still more work to be done and more progress to be made but I can assure the member that we have accomplished and met pretty well all the desires of the primary producers, and we will continue to do the best job we--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I beg to disagree. The government is hanging our farmers out to dry with this agriculture policy framework. No agreement has been reached with either the provinces or the farm groups regarding safety nets. The April 1 deadline is fast approaching with no agreement. The federal safety net proposals to date will have farmers paying higher premiums for lower benefits.

    Why is the federal agriculture minister shoving a bad deal down the throats of our farmers?

¸  (1455)  

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member, as a member of the committee, had a presentation this morning which showed, for example, that the amount of money that a farmer needs to invest to ensure stabilization and disaster coverage is considerably less on an annual basis than it has been in the past. It will also give coverage to producers for back to back disasters if that unfortunately is the situation. It will also give immediate coverage for beginning farmers. It will be very affordable. It will be more trade receptive than we are at the present time. I could go on.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister could go on but the farmers will not be any better off. I can guarantee that.

    The $1.1 billion that is supposed to come out every year is in a program that has a rolling effect to it. In fact, if the money is not paid out, it rolls to the next year and then to the next year. What we will be seeing is farmers not getting $1.1 billion a year like they have in the past.

    This agriculture policy framework is putting less money into the pockets of farmers and the minister had better explain to farmers why that should be.

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, until the Prime Minister and I made the announcement last June, the farmers had $600 million from the federal government for business risk management, and then we went on an ad hoc basis each year. The farmers, the provinces and the producers did not know what other support was there.

    We now have $1.1 billion a year there for each of the next five years, and that security is there. I can assure the hon. member that if he takes a look at that he would see that for farmers to have a 70% coverage of a $100,000 production margin, they only need to put $3,500 down on the--

    The Speaker: The hon. member for Yukon.

Back to top

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has 60 days to develop a replacement safety net program for an industry that is on life support.

    He has bullied and intimidated the provincial ministers into accepting his destructive vision for agriculture, but farmers are not buying what he is selling. They want the minister to hold off and maintain the existing programs for one year.

    Why will the minister not do what farmers want him to do?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find this very interesting coming from an hon. member who has stood in his place for a considerable period of time wanting the government to work with the provinces and the industry to fix the system that is there at the present time and not working as well as it could or as it should.

    We have been doing that and working with everyone for 18 months. As a result of a federal-provincial ministers meeting the other day, all of the ministers in the country with the exception of one, and even that exception says its wants to continue to move forward and improve our business risk management support to our producers in Canada, agreed with the communiqué saying that we are going in the right direction and that we need to and will have that completed by April 1, so that farmers know and can plan with what support is there from the government for next year.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister is living in a dream world. Believe me, the stakeholders and the farmers are pulling away from the minister and his APF vision. As a matter of fact, one of the planks is going to be crop insurance. Farmers are going to be asked to pay 30% more for less coverage.

    Why does the minister think that these programs are going to be accepted by the farmers, who right now are not going to buy into that program because of extra cost and less coverage? Why?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement regarding the support for crop insurance is absolutely false. That is not the discussion that is taking place.

    What we are saying is that the federal government will give the same level of support to crop insurance, and the provinces will give the same level to crop insurance across this country for basic crop insurance.

    If a province wants to build upon that on its own, it can do so, but we will be maintaining in the future the level of support from the federal government to crop insurance that we have in the past, and that has been worked out with the provinces and with the producers for many, many years.

Back to top

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the provinces and the federal government readily reached agreement on the objectives of Canada's new agricultural policy framework. However, an important obstacle still exists regarding how these objectives will be reached. Despite the unanimous support of the National Assembly, the UPA, and the Quebec government, the federal government stubbornly refuses to make changes to the program, thereby threatening the viability of the Financière agricole du Québec.

    Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs approve of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's refusal to be flexible solely to maximize the Government of Canada's visibility?

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me this opportunity to answer my first question as Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Agriculture.

    It is completely false to say such things. Currently, we are developing a program, a strategic framework. All the stakeholders are participating in discussions. The minister is meeting today in Toronto with the provincial stakeholders to develop a strategic framework, and it is completely false to make such statements.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here a backgrounder prepared by Agriculture Canada.

 

It says that from the federal government's point of view, it makes sense to stop funding provincial programs because the federal government receives very little, if any, visibility from the provincial programs it supports.

    Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs think it is right for a government to hold all of Quebec's agricultural producers hostage because it is not getting enough visibility?

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some documents became available. In the English version, there was never any mention of this sentence. This sentence was in the French text, and the Minister of Agriculture deleted it immediately.

    I can guarantee that this government will never make its assistance to Canadian agriculture a visibility issue.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, farmers have expressed some concerns about the development of business risk management programs.

    Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain to this House how he intends to alleviate these concerns?

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for a year and a half now, the Minister of Agriculture has been working on developing an agriculture policy framework with risk management programs that will provide very effective coverage for farmers. We have consulted all the industry representatives, producers and members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture who asked for amendments, which were noted and even added.

    Again I repeat, the Minister of Agriculture is currently in Toronto with his provincial and territorial counterparts to continue examining the policy framework.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the agricultural policy framework implementation date will soon be here. Three provinces and the majority of farm groups have fundamental objections to many of the proposed changes. The prospects for thousands upon thousands of Canadian farmers are bleak at best.

    Our farmers need an effective long term solution. Will the minister extend the implementation period by one year to ensure the program will meet the needs of our hard pressed Canadian farmers?

Á  (1150)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course there are various reactions to this program. This is a new program that is being developed throughout Canada so that all producers can benefit from all the existing programs.

    Certain stakeholders do not like the program. We are making changes. People are asking that the program be delayed. It is important to understand that, next year, producers will be able to benefit from all current programs. We are now developing programs for the future. We have three years in which to do this.

[English]

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister is insisting on ramming through his changes to the safety net programs by April 1 even though the majority of farm organizations and a number of provinces are opposed to the deadline of April 1.

    Now the minister is threatening the provinces with no federal funding for their producers until they have signed on to the APF. Why is the minister threatening the provinces and trying to force this program down the throats of the farmers?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no threatening going on. We are currently developing the program. The Minister of Agriculture and his provincial counterparts are still working today in Toronto to develop this program. In due course, all producers will be able to access all the funding they need for their programs.

Back to top

January 30, 2003

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the negotiations for the agricultural policy framework agreement, the Minister of Agriculture is trying to impose a single model for all the provinces. Faced with opposition from some of the provinces, including Quebec, the minister is even threatening to cut their funding; this could cost Quebec farmers roughly $100 million a year.

    Will the minister admit that an agricultural policy that does not take into consideration the reality of the provinces is doomed to failure?

¸  (1450)  

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the first time in many years we have locked in, for business risk management to help producers, $1.1 billion as a result of the announcement by the Prime Minister and myself in June of last year.

    It is the goal and the intention of the government to make sure that all farmers across the country, with those business risk management programs that are being developed with and for the industry, are treated in an equitable manner, no matter what sector of the industry they are in or what province they are in.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all agricultural stakeholders in Quebec recognize the key role of the Financière agricole du Québec. Only the federal Minister of Agriculture is ignoring this reality.

    Why does the minister want to destroy a perfectly good system that everyone in Quebec is happy with?

[English]

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the system that is being developed, as I said, will be equitable to all farmers in Canada from a federal perspective.

    That certainly leaves every province at liberty to do the similar types of programs that they may be doing at the present time or even adding to them, as a number of provinces have in the past. The province of Quebec has chosen to do that. It will be at liberty to do that as a provincial government in the future.

Back to top

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, here is another joke for the Liberal government. For three years the agriculture department has been in chaos. Programs are dysfunctional. The agriculture policy framework is a failure. Staff morale is at an all time low. This bureaucracy has completely failed agricultural producers.

    Now we understand that this year's farm programs will be delayed by one year. There are only 10 weeks left until farming begins. What past unworkable program will the minister be dredging up and forcing farmers to endure in 2003?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member has just said, we will have some changes to the support for agriculture, starting in April of this year. Crop insurance will continue, with some improvements. The industry and the producers have asked us to take a look at improving programs such as NISA, including a disaster component to a new design of NISA with different levels of contribution and different participation choices by producers.

    I can assure the hon. member that we will continue those discussions with the provincial ministers this Friday.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has admitted that the APF is a failure. It will not meet its deadlines. He and his department have spent two years planning a new agriculture policy framework and the government is once again failing farmers.

    Twenty-two farm organizations have written directly to the Prime Minister about their concerns about the APF. Farmers realize that the minister is wrecking NISA. Farmers fear they will be stuck again with CFIP in 2003 and they are facing reduced crop insurance coverage.

    The minister knew years ago that these farm programs were ending and needed to be replaced. Yet he can still not get new programs in place. Why?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been consulting with the industry and consulting with the provinces. We will continue that.

    I can assure the hon. member that every province will have the opportunity to make improvements to their crop insurance program, for example, for the 2003 crop. That is what the producers have been asking for. They have been asking for changes to the net income stabilization account. We are discussing those changes. I can assure the hon. member that we will have those changes in place for the 2003 crop year by April 1 of this year.

Back to top

December 13, 2002

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of marketing boards operating on behalf of agricultural producers. None of these boards have a minister in the government except for the Canadian Wheat Board.

    If the Wheat Board is farmer directed as this government always says that it is, then why do we need a Wheat Board minister? Why not scrap his position and save a few tax dollars?

    Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the rationale is fully laid out in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. There are certain powers and provisions there that have to do with financial guarantees and the issuing of export procedures. There is obviously a public interest that needs to be served, and that is why there is a role for the minister.

    I would point out to the hon. gentleman that not once since I became minister in 1993 have I ever issued a directive to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board minister wrote the legislation for himself. The Wheat Board is not the only government agricultural wreck. The government said that the new agricultural policy plan was a five year plan. We did not think that it meant it would take five years to implement.

    Here we are a year and a half later and still nothing for farmers. Last year farmers had to do with second rate farm programs. Now we are less than four months from seeding time and instead of having a plan in place, the government is still fighting with the provinces.

    Why has the government been so intransigent and so incompetent in its farm planning that farmers will once again be left with inadequate coverage?

    Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the questioner for the opportunity to tell the House where the minister is at this moment. Right now in Ottawa the minister is meeting with several farm organizations and producer groups from across the country. We continue to meet with the provinces and territories.

    I want to remind my colleague that last year we invested more money in Saskatchewan in a calendar year than we did before. We have given interest free loans for the spring and we will be there in the fall. We have just extended the interest free loans.

    This government believes in our farmers, appreciates our farmers and invests in our farmers.

Back to top

December 12, 2002

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing to address the situation many of our farm families are facing as result of this year's record drought and disastrous growing conditions.

    And now a lack of will by the government to deal with harmful trade policies and an inefficient transportation system has further compounded an already critical situation.

    Why has the minister abandoned his commitment to support all sectors of the industry by allowing the importing of butter oil sugar blends and allowing domestic policies that are hindering the flow of grain?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the concern of the dairy industry with regard to butter oil sugar blends has been taken before the CITT here in Canada. The government did that. The CITT ruled on that and, of course, as the government does, we will abide by the ruling of the CITT.

    Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the dairy industry is very upset with that ruling. As a matter of fact, it is having a rally next week to protest what the government is doing. Grain producers are also unable to ship the grain, what little they have left.

    Why will the agriculture minister and the trade minister not get up off their collective sacks of unsold agricultural products and go to bat for Canadian farmers and solve these issues?

    Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade and I are constantly working with, not only our industry here but with other countries around the world in order to improve the international rules through the World Trade Organization and our membership in the Cairns Group as well.

    In conjunction with the industry, we put together a very strong negotiating position, which is supported by the industry across the country, to take to the WTO to support and work with them on their behalf.

Back to top

November 25, 2002

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate comments by the Prime Minister's director of communications regarding the U.S. president will clearly not help trade relations between our two countries, but more on that later.

The Canadian Wheat Board is now enduring its 10th challenge in 12 years and like a punch-drunk boxer, we just absorb the pounding. Even if we win, the latest challenge will cost $10 million in legal costs and Canadian farmers will have to pony that up.

Would the minister responsible for the board tell us when this country will start pounding back?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this hon. gentleman would certainly know everything about eavesdropping, given his record and reputation.

However let me say this about the Canadian Wheat Board. The government has stood by the Canadian Wheat Board in all the previous challenges. The United States, through a whole variety of U.S. official organizations, has raised these allegations not once, not twice, not three times, but nine previous times. The Canadian side has successfully defended every one of those challenges. The score now is nine to nothing in favour of Canada, and we will fight the fight again.

Back to top

November 22, 2002

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, western farmers are not in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Western farmers did not get a vote to establish a monopoly. Farmers did not vote on Bill C-4 in 1998. Farmers do not set the initial price. Farmers do not vote on all 15 directors. Farmers do not vote on the appointment of the president. Farmers do not vote on amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act, only politicians can.

How can the minister say that farmers are in charge when he makes all the decisions?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is comprised of 15 directors, two-thirds of whom are elected by western Canadian farmers.

The Canadian Wheat Board is not a crown corporation and, contrary to what the member said, the minister does not control the Canadian Wheat Board.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is worse than that. The board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, with this minister's knowledge, has been stealing prairie farmers' money to pay wheat export permits for Ontario and Quebec farmers. This activity actually directly contradicts the minister's own legislation.

The board is breaking the law and working against the interests of prairie farmers. Will the minister continue to allow the board to operate outside the law or will he step in to recover the money stolen from prairie producers who now need protection from the Canadian Wheat Board?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member says that the farmers need the protection of the Canadian Wheat Board. What I do not understand is that the Alliance itself came forward with a motion calling for the end of the Canadian Wheat Board. This contradiction should be known by western Canadian farmers.

Western Canadian farmers have the tools to make the necessary changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. They have the vote. The government respects the democratic rights of western Canadian farmers.

Back to top

November 21, 2002

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's incompetence on the trade front has resulted in our largest trading partner, the United States, targeting the wheat sales of prairie farmers. The Americans are alleging that the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly results in subsidized exports and dumping. Thousands of wheat farmers on the Prairies do not even want the monopoly because it results in them receiving lower prices for their wheat along with lost marketing opportunities.

Why does the government not give prairie farmers freedom of marketing choice like it does in the rest of Canada?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the same export rules apply everywhere in Canada. The same export permits are required in every case. The authority over the Canadian Wheat Board is vested in the hands of farmers themselves through a producer-elected board.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that in fact the Wheat Board is not run by farmers; it is run by government appointed people. The minister also knows that farmers in the rest of Canada do not have to go through a buyback.

I am asking the minister directly, should farmers in Ontario have to go through the buyback through the Canadian Wheat Board?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, farmers in all parts of Canada, whether in Ontario or the west, have the ultimate control over the situation through a democratically elected system.

Let me make one point. The government stands for farmers. Not like the opposition whose previous leader went to Washington, stood on the steps of the U.S. capitol, joined hands with Newt Gingrich, and sided with the United States.

Back to top

November 18, 2002

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, right this minute there are four western farmers who have been denied their basic freedoms as Canadians. Jim Chatenay, Bill Moore, Ron Duffy and John Turcado are serving their third week as political prisoners. This is not China, Iraq or North Korea I am talking about; it is Lethbridge, in western Canada. The government jails farmers simply for selling their own grain.

Why does the minister responsible for the Wheat Board believe that western farmers should not have the right to sell their own products to whomever they want?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1996, 13 farmers conducted a protest against the laws of Canada. They went through the legal process fully. Thirteen farmers decided that they would go to prison instead of paying their fines. I am pleased to advise the House that today 10 of those 13 farmers have paid their fines and are home with their families.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the member should be ashamed of himself.

In Ontario--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order. I think some of the language I am hearing may be unparliamentary and we would not want that.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast has the floor and I know hon. members will want to hear his question.

Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the government should be ashamed of itself.

In Ontario farmers can grow their own wheat and sell it to the highest bidder. Cross the border into Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and they cannot do that; they go to jail instead.

This should be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister to let him answer the question. Will he demand that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board table legislation that would allow farmers to sell their grain freely and set those farmers free?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is highly respected and supported by western Canadian farmers.

There is a process in which the Canadian Wheat Board Act can be not applied. It requires a plebiscite of western Canadian farmers and a recommendation of the board of directors, two-thirds of which are western Canadian grain farmers.

I would also advise that in 1998 the government tried to change the rules to facilitate precisely what the opposition is asking for and they denied it.

Back to top

November 7, 2002

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the walkout of grain handlers at the port of Vancouver has been going on for over two months. Now picket lines at Prince Rupert have completely shut down the movement of grain out of the west coast. Due to the drought, this is one of the worst years that farmers in western Canada have ever had. Now the government will not even ensure that their meagre grain crops can be shipped to customers.

Why will the government not help powerless farmers caught in the middle of this dispute?

Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about the dispute and the farmers. On this side of the House, I had a meeting with several ministers today on that account.

Our conciliators are meeting with both sides. We urge both sides to go the table so they can create a good collective agreement. That is what democracy is all about.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, is this situation not just hunky-dory? We have farmers who are locked up and grain workers who are locked out.

Farmers cannot afford to have the Prince Rupert port closed down. Producers view this lack of action as just one more example of the government's inattention and disregard for western Canadian farmers.

When will this member of the government step in and use final offer arbitration as a means of solving this dispute?

Back to top

November 6, 2002

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, seven days ago the government was eager to lock up prairie farmers because they sold their own grain. They are still in jail. Yet the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has been aware for some time that the board is operating illegally by charging the cost of export licences to prairie farmers.

Could he tell us why he locks up prairie farmers but takes no action against the Wheat Board when it breaks the law?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member and all hon. members that any conduct inconsistent with a statute of Canada or a regulation of Canada is subject to prosecution. Quite frankly, if the gentleman has any information that ought to be brought to the attention of the law officers of the Crown, rather than grandstanding, I invite him to do it.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister received the information two weeks ago. He created the law that jailed these farmers. He insisted that the farmers go to jail. He has kept farmers in jail for the last week. Why is he so eager to jail farmers and so reluctant to enforce the law when it applies to his own department?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the correspondence that was first referred to in the House by the member for Yorkton—Melville has in fact been referred to officials and law officers to determine if there is any fact there that merits any further inquiry.

I would also point out to the hon. gentleman, in respect of the farmers who were protesting by means of the conduct which he has referred to, that they had options and alternatives. They themselves have said that they chose this option.

Back to top

November 1, 2002

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a politically motivated group is again backing anti-Wheat Board candidates and thumbing its nose at rules and regulations to ensure free and fair elections. By refusing to register as a third party, this group is funnelling money from grain companies and railroads to fund anti-Wheat Board candidates without disclosing from where that money is coming.

It is a repeat actually of what happened the last time there were Canadian Wheat Board elections. Would the minister responsible please explain why the government refuses to take the steps necessary to ensure that Canadian Wheat Board elections are conducted fairly, honestly and in compliance with the law?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a procedure in place to ensure just that. If there are violations of the rules, those violations can be investigated and the appropriate steps can be taken. If there are facts that are being alleged here that should be drawn to the attention of either me under the law or the election coordinator, I would welcome that information and the appropriate adjudication will take place.

Back to top

October 31, 2002

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today some hardworking prairie farmers are going to prison. Why? Because they grew their own wheat on their own land, doing their own work, taking their own risks. Yet this government says they cannot market their own product. It is an industry that is going bankrupt yet the government puts farmers in jail for trying to make a living.

My question is very simple. Why is the government throwing farmers in jail for selling their own wheat?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The protesters from 1996, who are facing the difficulty in Lethbridge today, have chosen this particular route to express themselves. They chose this particular method. It was not imposed upon them. They have been seeking to maximize their publicity in this matter. That is their right. However, let us be clear, the choice with respect to the jail proceedings is one that was chosen by them.

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to see that member make the choice, that lawyer make the choice of running in a rural riding in Saskatchewan.

The government chose to make it illegal for prairie farmers to market their own grain. The government chose to change the rules to ensure this was the case. The government chose to have a completely different set of rules for western Canada than for eastern Canada. The government also chose to charge these farmers.

Why is the government refusing to allow prairie farmers the same right to market their own grain that it gives to other Canadian producers?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comparison to Ontario, it should be noted that in fact grain is marketed in and from Ontario under the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board. The flexibilities that have been achieved in Ontario have been achieved by the democratic decisions taken by the directors of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board. The act of the Canadian Wheat Board was amended in 1998 to provide directors of the Canadian Wheat Board in western Canada with the ability to make the same decisions in western Canada.

Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it blames the farmers. The government is losing a grip on its own caucus. It should loosen its grip on western farmers.

It is hiding behind the board. It is a government that allows child pornographers to go free but jails farmers. It is a government that allows Hezbollah to operate in Canada but denies farmers the freedom to sell their own wheat. Today, farmers will be handcuffs because of the policies and decisions made by the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister.

For prairie farmers and their families, I ask one more time, why are they being locked up for doing what should be legal and is legal in the rest of Canada, selling their own product?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. If any farmer wishes to export wheat from any part of Canada, it requires an export permit. That applies nationally across the country.

The changes we made in 1998 include these facts: the Canadian Wheat Board is no longer a crown corporation; it is no longer run by government appointees; and it is controlled by a board of directors with a two-thirds majority directly elected by farmers themselves. All the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board are vested in those directors.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is Halloween today and the Liberals' policy is as pathetic and scary as their responses.

Today the Liberal government will throw prairie farmers in jail for what is perfectly acceptable in the rest of Canada, selling their own wheat. This is not a complicated issue. Farmers should have the individual right to sell their property to the buyers of their choice.

When will the government stop throwing farmers in jail and give them the freedom to market their own wheat?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation that was enacted in 1998 provides very clearly for how the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board can be changed. That mandate requires consultations with the board of directors and it requires a vote among prairie producers.

Interestingly, when we debated that legislation in 1998, this side of the House wanted to put in provisions that would allow farmers to trigger the whole change process and that was taken out at the request of the opposition.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Speaker: Order, please. I encourage members who want to carry on discussions that are not on the record to do so perhaps in the lobby. Those of us who are in the House want to hear the questions that are asked. The member for Crowfoot has the floor and everyone will want to hear his question.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the only thing more distasteful than this policy is the government's refusal to take responsibility for it.

In 1996 the first farmer to be charged with selling outside the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly was found innocent. Immediately the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board rushed out to change the regulations, ensuring that all subsequent charges would result in a conviction.

When will the minister admit that he is personally responsible for sending those innocent farmers to jail?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's allegations are patently ridiculous. What is being suggested here by the opposition is that there should be some intervention in a court proceeding. That would obviously be an ethical violation and I will not do it, even when requested by the official opposition.

Back to top

October 25, 2002

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the Iron Curtain fell in Europe and democracy brought a brighter future. It celebrated the ability of people to decide how they wanted to conduct their own lives. They buy and sell their property and products in a free marketplace, a marketplace that ensures they get a fair market price.

In 1996 Canadians were charged for freely selling their farm products. Now they are going to jail charged, not by a Communist hold out, but by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Why does the government defend the Canadian Wheat Board in its undemocratic actions instead of our prairie grain farmers?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the people need not break the law to have their voices heard, and that is the point: Do not break the law; change it.

The member should also acknowledge that 85% of western farmers support the Canadian Wheat Board.

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I can say that I am one of the members in the House that has the Canadian Wheat Board permit and I understand it more than he does.

The government is jailing our grain farmers for selling their own grain a decade after Communism fell. The Prime Minister offered advice to the Ukraine. He said that monopolies were not worthy of a great nation and a great people, that we must create a class of entrepreneurs to break away from the Communist legacy.

Why will he not follow his own advice and get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board were elected by western Canadian farmers. If western Canadian farmers want to change the Canadian Wheat Board, they have the means to do it and they should take care of the problems that they have.

Back to top

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills - Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I know farmers who have shown the courage of their convictions. I know farmers who will sacrifice their freedom for the principle of fairness. I know farmers and their families who are paying an incredible price for defending their principles. One week from today the government will be jailing these same people. They too get no compassion from this government. They are here, in Ottawa, today.

I ask this for them and their families. Why are they being locked up for doing what is perfectly legal in the rest of Canada; selling their own wheat?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware of legal difficulties that the member describes and we regret that legal circumstances affect producers who oppose marketing laws and regulations.

Let me assure the House, we understand that court proceedings are not very pleasant, but the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has not and will not interfere in court proceedings.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board minister keeps dodging his responsibilities. He is the one who charged farmers under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. He is the one who lost the first court case. He is the one who changed the customs regulations to make these men criminals. He is the one who ignored the Alberta plebiscite.

He is personally responsible for the situation in which these farmers find themselves. When will he and the government quit persecuting prairie farmers and give them the same rights as producers in the rest of Canada?

Mr. Paul Szabo (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will well know that two-thirds of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board are elected by western farmers and they are responsible for the policy and strategic direction of the Canadian Wheat Board.

In this regard though, it is totally inappropriate for the minister to interfere in any due process of law.

Back to top

October 23, 2002:

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has been notified of illegal activities at the Canadian Wheat Board in regard to licensing costs.

Legislation clearly prohibits the Canadian Wheat Board from paying all export licensing costs out of the wheat sales of western Canadian farmers, yet the board has done it anyway.

How long has the minister known that this is happening and why has he not corrected the problem?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman alleges that I have been informed of something.  Quite frankly, I have not been informed of it.  If there are facts to be discovered here I will find them out and I will take the appropriate action, but he should make no allegation that I have not acted upon information that has been known to me, because it has not been.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister should read his mail.

The Canadian Wheat Board Act states that the minister "may...direct the Corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations... shall be conducted...", so clearly the minister has a responsibility for licensing.

In addition to this, the buyback that farmers are forced to go through does not have a legislative requirement.  This has become like an extra fee for Prairie farmers only.  Ontario and Quebec do not have to buy back their grain in order to export or process it.  Why will the minister not correct this problem as well?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that falls within the purview of the management of the Canadian Wheat Board.  That management is responsible to the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board and the directors are two-thirds elected directly by western Canadian farmers.  As long as I have been minister, I have never given the Canadian Wheat Board a direction.  I believe its authority should rest with farmers.

Back to top

October 21, 2002:

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a travesty of justice is taking place, not in some third world country, not in a communist dictatorship, not under some oppressive regime, but right here in Canada.

A group of farmers, the very same people who grow the food we eat, have been sentenced to go to jail for selling the wheat they grow on their own land.  This unjust situation exists only in western Canada and could not happen in Quebec, Ontario or the Maritimes.

This is due to the monopoly of the western Canadian Wheat Board, supported by the Liberal government, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Public Works.  The claims the government makes to have the best interests of farmers at heart ring hollow as 14 farm families prepare to face the reality of their breadwinners being incarcerated.  These farmers should not be going to jail for doing what farmers in the rest of Canada can do legally.

I call on the government to end this insanity, to end this extremely tragic situation, and to bring an end to the monopoly of the western Canadian Wheat Board.  After all, are not all Canadians equal?

Back to top

October 21, 2002

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills - Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am a prairie grain farmer.  I can grow wheat, but I cannot sell it.  Federal law makes it illegal for any prairie farmer to market wheat without a licence from the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would like to market my own wheat.  I can market canola.  I can market oats.  I can market lentils, canary seed, flax and rye, but not wheat.

I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in land and machinery.  Each year I purchase thousands of dollars worth of fuel and fertilizer to see my wheat seeded, harvested and stored in my grain bins, but once it is there I cannot sell it.

I can log on to the Internet and buy or sell items of any kind.  I can trade my vehicle, buy a horse, get a loan, or purchase land, but I cannot sell my wheat.

I can travel around the world in a leaky air balloon, risk my life in extreme sports, gamble away my assets in a casino, engage in high risk business deals or try my luck on the stock market, but I cannot sell my wheat.

I am free to choose which political party I will belong to and which religion I will adhere to.  I can quit working, quit taking my medication or even quit eating, but I am not allowed to sell my wheat.

Back to top