Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's good to see some friends here again. I want to thank everybody for their excellent presentations, for taking the time to come out here, and Mr. Preugschas for talking to members on both sides of the aisle to make sure we get some resolution to these issues that are affecting us back home very dramatically.
Jurgen, you're from just outside my area; you know the family. In the hog business it's tough times right now, and we need to find some solutions going forward.
One of the things I find reassuring is that we now have an agriculture minister who's a straight shooter. He's out there right now doing consultations across the country—he was just in the chair's riding yesterday—talking to producers, listening to producers, listening to producers' concerns on the programs, on the path forward, some of the issues. The programs aren't perfect. The minister came here and said that, and said that they're willing to look at some of these programs.
I want to thank organizations and individuals such as you who take the time to help us fight the good fight on this. Mr. Orb helped me fight to keep costs down on some of our pesticides and chemicals last year, and it's important that we have this support when we take on the issues.
One thing, though, that really disturbs me is the continuous revisionist history that we get from the opposition. The member from Malpeque is the best at this. I'll read you a couple of things, and this comes from his recommendations:
That all governments place a priority on measures that will enhance farmers' economic returns from the marketplace.
—I emphasize “from the marketplace”—
That ministers and ministries of agriculture see their primary role as advocating on behalf of primary producers. That governments consult primary producers and their representatives in the design and review of farm support programs. That the Competition Bureau be restructured and instructed to review the impact of current and proposed consolidations--
—this is something that he votes for here at committee, but then says “It's not a priority, we'll look at it after I get my political views out of the way”—
That the Competition Act be strengthened so that the impact of corporate consolidation on the primary producer can be taken into account.
—something he votes for at committee and then refuses to make a priority going forward—
That governments work with primary producers to identify costs, such as inspection fees, that government can either reduce or pay for entirely, while remaining compliant with trade agreements.
Then he comes today and says well, don't worry about trade agreements, we have to fight for producers first. And we have lots more of this. A whole section on competitiveness--things that our minister has already done and already accomplished. These are all from the member from Malpeque's recommendations when he's in government, but the minute he gets out of government, then he can start railing for what he really believes in, apparently.
This is the kind of sanctimoniousness that we have to be aware of. We have to realize that when we have these discussions with farmers we have to be straightforward and honest with them about the direction we're going in. It's one of the things that I've always respected.
We had Carol Skelton on this committee last year—