House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was farmers.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Income Tax Act April 4th, 2001

Madam Speaker, for my very fine colleague, a hard working member on many committees, I want to have the opportunity to present some facts.

Officials from the regulatory departments are reviewing and considering the recommendations of the Royal Society, the expert panel's report. Further, members of the Canadian aquaculture industry have publicly stated that they have no interest in growing transgenic fish. However, in the long term the technology could prove publicly acceptable and may confer certain benefits to the industry.

Over the next three years, DFO will spend $3.4 million in research to enhance the regulatory system to control the potential risks associated with this new technology. Until these regulations are in force, all applications for the commercial use of transgenic fish are subject to an evaluation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, as my hon. colleague mentioned.

In addition, any proposal to move transgenic fish from a hatchery to a grow out site, where they mature, or between any other locations, is subject to an indepth federal-provincial introduction and transfer review under the Fisheries Act.

The member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore also expressed concerns about what the minister and department are doing to protect the interests of commercial fishermen and the wild salmon stocks in Atlantic Canada from the potential use of transgenic stocks.

It is in the best interests of both the aquaculture industry and governments to minimize any escapes. To address this, under the leadership of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, the aquaculture industry met with government representatives here in Ottawa in February 2001 to further develop a code of containment for salmon culture. It is expected that this code will lessen the chances of cultured fish escaping to the wild and will contribute to the sustained growth of the aquaculture industry.

In Canada, no transgenic organisms are being grown outside secure containment facilities. In addition, our policy on transgenic organisms requires that reproductively capable transgenic fish used for research purposes be maintained in secure land based facilities. As an additional safeguard, all transgenic organisms destined for containment in natural environment facilities would be required to be sterile if they received regulatory approval.

Income Tax Act April 4th, 2001

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Lanark—Carleton, who is a very successful business person, tabled a question about the main estimates. First I want to answer that and hope I have time for the foot and mouth issue.

The minister has said on several occasions since the main estimates were tabled that the budget allocated to farm income has not been reduced for the year 2001-02. On the contrary, we have increased our funding commitments to farmers.

Over the next three years we have committed to inject up to $3.3 billion of federal funds into the farm safety net system. With the provinces under the framework agreement of 60:40 cost sharing, this amounts to $5.5 billion over three years. As well, on March 1 the minister announced additional funding of $500 million which provides, along with the provinces cost sharing, $830 million more.

The year 2000 was a transition year. In the 2000-01 main estimates Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had to account for both the 1999 AIDA program and the new Canadian farm income program, CFIP, for the 2000 tax year.

This was done in accordance with the accounting practices of the Government of Canada which requires departments to recognize liabilities in the year the decision was made to incur them. Since CFIP started in the 2000 tax year the budget allocated to that year of the program was reported in the 2000-01 main estimates. As I stated before, the Government of Canada remains committed to helping farmers. I thank my colleague for his confidence regarding the CFIA.

We had a great debate in the House last evening. In fact, it was not a debate but rather input from all sides. It was an opportunity for all Canadians to make a difference and keep the country free of foot and mouth disease, as all of us on all sides of the House want to do. I look forward to talking more on that subject.

Education March 28th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide some more information on the main estimates to my colleague from the great riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands and a colleague who is a very valuable member of our all party Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I am new at being a parliamentary secretary, but it is very human that we would make some changes on the road. However, my colleague tabled his question and then things changed. However, I know my colleague is very interested in the main estimates because that is what he questioned the minister on.

As the minister has said on several occasions since the main estimates were tabled, the budget allocated to farm income has not been reduced for 2001-02. On the contrary, we have increased our funding commitments to farmers. Over the next three years we committed to inject up to $3.3 billion into farm safety net systems. As well, on March 1 the minister announced additional funding of $500 million, a half a billion dollars more, which brings the total federal commitment to $3.8 billion.

The year 2000 was a transition year. The 2000-01 main estimates of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had to account for both AIDA and our new program CFIP. This was done in accordance with the Government of Canada's accounting practices which required departments to recognize liabilities in the year the decision was made to incur them. Since CFIP started in the 2000 tax year, the budget allocated to that year of the program was recorded in the 2000-2001 main estimates.

As I stated before, the Government of Canada is committed and remains committed to the farmers of this great country.

Health March 28th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, Canada is doing everything it can to stop this disease from entering this country.

We are banning the import of susceptible animals and animal products from the European Union and from Argentina. We are increasing the inspection and surveillance of passengers, baggage and luggage from these countries. We are implementing disinfectant shoemats at all the international airports.

We are increasing our investigations on the handling and disposal of international garbage at airports and seaports. These precautions and many more will continue until we are—

Supply March 20th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I watched the news today on farmers from across this country. It reminded me of my colleague who does a lot of great work on our committee. I believe we still will. It is a committee that gets along probably better than any other committee on the Hill.

I was reminded of Canadian cattlemen. I would not want to include a list of which members opposite belong to this wonderful association. I admire the Canadian cattlemen, I appreciate them and support them. However they are asking, as they and their colleagues have before, that we not support giving money to our producers.

We cannot have it both ways. I am not asking my colleague to stand up and say that we will hand out a few dollars today, but we will not be there tomorrow. We will be there tomorrow for our producers.

Supply March 20th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the invitation. I am sure he wants to include all of us.

I have visited his great riding, which includes Yorkton, in the last two years. I am glad we have an infrastructure program so we can do a little better job on the roads north of Indian Head.

However, I know my colleague will agree that I have met with many farmers from Saskatchewan in the last few weeks. Many of my colleagues, urban and rural on both sides of the House, have met with these farmers. Our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has met with the farmers and spokespeople. We met with them here on the Hill in the last few days. As I said, our minister spoke to our U.S. colleague.

To answer my colleague, I would like to see the Prime Minister also visit his riding. However, let us put forth right now the fact that the Prime Minister has met with farmers from Saskatchewan more than once in the very last few months. The Prime Minister was very kind to extend an invitation to Nick and his combine. I did not say that the combine was on the grounds at 24 Sussex, but I was very glad that the Prime Minister met with Nick.

More important and most serious, the Prime Minister and his office met with more of these producers in the last few days, and we shall again.

Supply March 20th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hard working rural caucus colleague from the great riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.

Before I put some of the good programs before the House, I have to point out some falsehoods that were put forth by the last few members who spoke, especially those from Saskatchewan.

I want to be very careful and very accurate in my description here. They talked about the money that has not gone to the Saskatchewan producers, which we are all working for. I say to my colleague from the Alliance, I would not laugh when we see from the statistics that it is very fair to point out that Saskatchewan farmers have now received very close to $400 million from AIDA. Yes, more than 80% of that money has been delivered directly to those producers. Yes, the province has helped up to this time, but now the province is denying the money to the producers.

The last $500 million, half a billion—yes, it could have been more—will be invested. The cash will get to the producers between now and the end of March. That is how fast we want to hand out the money. I would ask my colleagues, for all the right reasons, to lobby their own minister, as we members will, so that we can get the money through to our producers.

Also, my colleagues across the way were very correct in pointing out that we must have the co-operation of the European Union and the United States in bringing down the tariffs. They are right. I want to point out that our minister of trade spoke with his counterparts in the United States in the last few days. In fact, the minister of agriculture spoke to his counterpart in the United States yesterday. Our minister spoke to his colleague yesterday in Washington, and we are working on it.

I am very pleased to join this debate, but I would ask my colleagues on the far side to clarify where they stand on this situation. Perhaps that is why only once have we heard the leader of the CA Party on his feet asking questions in the House on this very important issue. The rest of the time the CA leader never stood up on this subject. That leader never stood up to be counted.

Earlier today my colleague from the great riding of Ottawa Centre pointed out that several years ago Reform Party policy was against all subsidies. When it comes to present research, the same situation exists. Less than one year ago the policy papers—I am sure they come from the leader's office and the backroom people, and I am sure my colleagues are ashamed of them—pointed out that the party is still against subsidies for our producers and our growers. It is very unfortunate.

Certainly agriculture is very important in this country and we in the government will continue to be there for our farmers. It is true that agriculture is essentially a rural industry, but rural Canada, its people and its communities are more than agricultural communities.

The federal government has resolutions and plans in place to address rural needs. Whether or not it is the main industry, whether it is agriculture or not, the government will be there for the people. In fact, rural and remote communities are a vital part of our national fabric and the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that they are able to share in and contribute to our prosperity.

Most rural communities rely on the income and the industry that agriculture generates, which is why it is essential that we support this sector beyond our farm income programs, and that is exactly what we are doing. We believe that two factors are critical to the success of our communities. First, communities must take charge of their own future. Second, the programs the government puts in place must stimulate economic development rather than just supplement it. Also, the programs must be initiated by local individuals. In other words, they have to come from the bottom up, from the grassroots.

I would like to look at what I believe are the two specific roles for government in this process. The first role is to ensure that communities have the tools to pursue their particular interests. The federal government has worked hard over the last several years to develop a series of tools that communities can access in a way that makes sense for them. I would like to take a minute to review some of them.

Canadian rural partnership is a four year, $20 million initiative that was launched in 1998. It has proven to be a great success. It includes a pilot project component that has helped fund 239 community based projects in the first three years. There is also a rural dialogue, which has given rural and remote Canadians a real voice in the decisions that affect their communities, and a rural lens, through which all government policies, programs and services are examined to make sure they respect the needs of rural and remote Canadians.

Community futures is one of the greatest programs we have had for the last decade. Our government has expanded this program by an additional $90 million in the last budget.

I am proud to say that the Secretary of State for Rural Development accompanied me to my riding this past Friday. The government invested $750,000 in the riding. The money was invested because the decisions on the money lent to small business and invested in small business and entrepreneurs will be made by the grassroots people, the great people who give their time and who are the directors of the CDC in North Hastings and Central Hastings. I would like to extend a thank you to those individuals.

In budget 2000 we announced $2.65 billion over the next five years to rebuild our national infrastructure. Work will include improvements to grain roads in the west as well as federal bridges and wharves. Most of these will be in rural Canada.

Last summer the secretary of state and the hon. minister of agriculture announced the Canadian agricultural rural communities initiative, CARCI. Funding of more than $9 million will be provided over the next three years to help agricultural rural communities adapt to change.

These are just some of the ways our government and our programs help rural communities, including farmers, achieve profitability and stability in the long term and prevent sole reliance on farm income programs. By encouraging and investing in local development, the risk of becoming one industry towns is minimized.

There is a second role for government. Community development requires more than the investment of dollars. It requires an investment in people, an investment in community leaders, not just the decision makers but all the people who have innovative ideas and all the people who make important contributions to provide the vision their communities will have in the future.

We have to foster that culture of creativity in our communities. We can have initiatives that sound great on paper, but without the individuals who have the skills and the initiative to set the economic wheels in motion, we will not succeed in achieving long term sustainable development in our communities.

This development can only happen when all partners are working together and everyone has common long term goals. The key to helping rural communities move away from being dependent is to be self-sufficient.

In that speech the government said:

Canadian communities of all sizes—whether urban or rural, aboriginal or multicultural—face diverse challenges and have unique needs. The Government of Canada will strive to ensure that, whenever possible, its actions and programs are co-ordinated to help build local solutions to local challenges.

This empowering of local communities will govern our actions as we implement our campaign and our throne speech commitments. This will be evident as we carry out our commitment to our rural communities.

Specifically, the Speech from the Throne said:

The government will help Canada's agricultural sector beyond crisis management—leading to more genuine diversification and value-added growth, new investments and employment, better land use, and high standards of environmental stewardship and food safety.

The government provides funding but to be effective it is essential that initiatives are developed by local individuals to address local needs and priorities.

The people at the grassroots are the best ones to make decisions that affect their communities. It is this bottom up approach that is absolutely essential to effective community development.

One-third of our population lives and works in rural Canada. They are a vital piece of our social fabric that makes our country. I am sure we all agree on one thing. We are very proud of the citizens of rural Canada.

Supply March 20th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I will soon have the opportunity to address the debate. However, I know the very excellent and hard working member who just spoke would want me to clarify something for the people watching and listening.

It is something he may have omitted, but the fact is that the Ontario whole farm income program is administered by his colleagues at Queen's Park, the Harris government. The money is there and the cash is there to be spent between now and the end of March. I would ask my colleague to speak to those colleagues.

Food Inspection March 19th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, the premise of my hon. colleague's question is absolutely wrong. I will not accept it at all.

CFIA testing is accurate and certainly we can trace these animal feeds. A bit of this feed went to animals but that does not in any way affect the health of human beings, In fact in the United States this product is licensed for animal feed, but we do not have that here and we will not have it here.

Food Inspection March 19th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, any of the shipments that went as far as New Brunswick happened before the Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued an advisory. It has now issued an advisory that it is wrong.

Our testing is working because we found trace amounts of this substance. The shipments that went to Nova Scotia or to New Brunswick were used solely for animal feed. There was no health risk to these animals and we are testing corn products or corn flour. Health Canada will take very strict and very strong actions if any is found.