House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, it is just another member of the new Conservative Party over there, and I am just wondering if he too supports the new Conservative Party, the old Alliance, just a regurgitated old Reform Party, which always has spoken out against supply management.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The Liberals are never old. They are always renewing themselves. We have a new leader. We have a new agenda. We had a tremendous throne speech and the member opposite knows it.
For the member opposite who just spoke, I am wondering what his position is on supply management. I just want to quote what the website for the Conservative Party is saying. It really means doing away with supply management, the policy implemented by the former Liberal government that has really brought a lot of economic health to a lot of the supply management industries: chicken, dairy, and eggs. The Conservative policy says:
A Conservative government will ensure that any agreement which impacts supply management gives our producers guaranteed access to foreign markets and that there will be a--
And here is the important part:
--significant transition period in any move towards a market-driven environment.
Really? When we read through that, we see that what they really mean is that they will do away with supply management and they know they are going to have to provide compensation in some way. Does the hon. member really agree with that kind of policy?
Gary Schellenberger Progressive Conservative Perth—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will reply to that. Of all of the parties that the member calls the new Conservative Party over here, I never heard him say Progressive Conservative Party. Is that not funny? I happen to know a little about that.
I do know that when I was in Cancun I supported and we do support supply management. Maybe we could get a few of the transcripts from that particular time. The member can read into it what he wants. We are supply management people.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the former member of the Progressive Conservative Party about this. Now that the members have dropped the word progressive, I guess that means it is the regressive conservative party. It used to be Alliance of course, and Reform, and Saskatchewan's Saskatchewan Party, and maybe it will be cold porridge next, I am not sure.
I have here from the Conservative Party of Canada website a statement on the Canadian Wheat Board. Does the member agree with his former Reform and Alliance colleagues when they say, “The simple process of eliminating the monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board will relieve most of the trade tensions in this area”?
As he knows, if we do that, we will get rid of single desk marketing and single desk marketing is the basic principle of the Canadian Wheat Board. Does the member agree with this new policy that is dominated by the former Reform and Alliance members since he was a Progressive Conservative, or is he now one of those regressive conservatives?
Gary Schellenberger Progressive Conservative Perth—Middlesex, ON
I am a very proud member of the new Conservative Party of Canada. I feel that the Wheat Board is a very important part of our trade agreements, but I also feel that it should be the choice of the farmer if he wants to deal through the board. That is where I stand.
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to use this opportunity afforded by this occasion to let farmers and their families know that the government and indeed all Canadians share their distress when trying times hit. More than this, I think I can speak for every Canadian when I say how much we admire and respect those who, in the face of unpredictable disasters, which could be anything from drought, flood, BSE, any number of calamities, continue to make the Canadian agriculture industry the best in the world.
However, as much as our sympathy and admiration might be appreciated, they are not enough when it comes to securing the future of Canadian farmers. In the face of serious challenges to the viability of farm operations, it is incumbent upon the government to offer support that will keep our farms vital and productive.
We know from the recently published 2003 Farm Income Forecast that, while not all farmers came out of 2003 with empty pockets, the story for many was not a happy one. Caught in the pincer of low sales and prices for cattle as a result of the BSE situation, a Canadian dollar that appreciated against the U.S. dollar and an ongoing drought in areas of the west, some farm operations saw their incomes squeezed painfully hard.
Not one of us can prevent acts of God or control the decisions of another country. What we can do, however, is manage the risks that are endemic to farming, risks like BSE or drought.
That is one of the key aspects of the new agricultural policy. With business risk management tools in place, farmers will have a buffer against the bad times that nature cannot help putting us through now and then. Instead of reacting to bad times, we are preparing for bad times.
The new Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, or CAISP, is specifically targeted to help farm income against small or large declines. This new program, developed with input from the industry, is a shift away from the ad hoc payments, which used to be the typical response when disaster hit, toward full time overall protection that is here before it is needed. CAISP is here in 2004 for producers.
Production insurance will replace crop insurance to allow for the inclusion of other commodities that were not covered under crop insurance, and there are other improvements that make this program more user friendly than its predecessor: average production periods are longer, payments are faster and it complements the CAIS program.
However we did not leave producers in the lurch by waiting until these programs kicked in. Program payments in 2003 were close to $5 billion. That clearly demonstrates that the government was there to help reduce the impact of the past unfortunate year.
In addition to income support payments, last year we saw the government announce special funding specifically targeted to the BSE crisis; the BSE recovery program and the cull animal program, for example.
The record is very clear on all the ways that the government has financially supported the agricultural industry, nor is this support given begrudgingly. In fact, one might even say that it is self-serving. Canada's agricultural and agrifood industry accounts for more than 8% of Canada's GDP and Canada's GDP is over $1 trillion a year.
Keeping that number high means keeping our agricultural industry producing. I can assure everyone in the House that is the goal of the government. That is why we have the agricultural policy framework. That is why we back supply management. That is why we have financial farm programs. That is why we are working strenuously to convince our trading partners to open their borders to Canadian cattle and beef. That is why my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, is making every effort to listen to Canadian farmers.
Canadians have every right to be proud of the agricultural industry in this country. It is recognized worldwide for the safety and the quality of the food it produces. It is at the forefront of innovative production practices and products and makes sure that the environment gets mixed into the production equation.
We have a good thing going for us with our agriculture industry and we are going to keep it that way. There are bad times now and then, and that goes with the territory, but the industry and the governments working together can beat the bad times every time. The federal government, the provincial and territorial governments, and the industry are in the process of realizing the vision embodied in the agricultural policy framework.
Across the country, programs are unfolding to keep the industry moving on a course headed for prosperity: programs to enhance food safety and quality; programs to help science and innovation move agriculture forward; programs to protect the environment; programs to help farmers and their families deal with social and financial pressures; and programs to take up the financial slack when necessary. These programs will also be subject to an annual review to make sure they continue to respond to the needs of the industry.
At the same time, knowing that the success of our industry relies in part on exports, we are pushing hard in the international arena, at the WTO, to secure a level playing field for our farmers so that they can compete on a fair basis in the global market.
The government is doing all the right things to keep Canadian agriculture on track. We are proud to work with our farmers, to make sure they are ready to face a new day with confidence in themselves and in the system that they have helped create.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. Why did his government in 1995 negotiate and sign the agreement that has put supply management on the current round of negotiating table for trade talks in regard to agriculture, wherein the market access to Canada will have to increase and our tariffs will have to come down? Why did he and his government negotiate and sign that in 1995?
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
First, Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member across the way gets his dates straight. It was January 1, 1994 when the WTO agreement was signed. Article XI, section (b) was the one that was in question. At that time 117 nations were part of the WTO and 116 were not backing supply management and article XI.
It was his former government, the Conservative government, that was leading us to brinkmanship. It was our government in 1993 that renegotiated TRQs that in fact protected supply management.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for putting some facts on the table instead of the kind of rhetoric that we are hearing from the other side.
I know the member was a member of the task force on the future of farming and I know he did good work on that committee. Could he outline for the House the kind of balanced approach that the government took at the time and the kind of response to that report that the Prime Minister had set up, the kind of response to put income into the farmers' pockets? If he could relate that to the House maybe the members in the Conservative Party would understand some of the facts.
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque was also a member of the agricultural policy task force that the Prime Minister put forward at the urging of rural caucus, of which I was the chair at that time.
What we heard from farmers when we went across Canada was that they wanted policy and programs in place that they could rely on and take to the bank. That is crucial, to take to the bank. We in turn went back and dealt with the agriculture minister of the day and also with the agriculture minister that we have right now, who also was the chair of that task force.
I believe, through the agriculture policy framework, the CAIS program and the new crop insurance program that we have in place right now, these are not ad hoc programs. These programs are specifically designed to help keep farmers on the farm and can be reviewed and updated if the situation changes and it warrants a change in those policies.
Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, of course the task force those members are talking about was a Liberal Party task force. As its fortunes in rural Canada dived down, it decided to go out and do some damage control by consulting with some farm groups.
I would like the member to explain to us why, of all the farm groups and provincial governments that his party spoke to, not one supported the APF magic bullet that the minister and his government came up with? Not one supported the CAIS program and the business risk side of that.
If those members actually did their job as a task force and came up with that misdirected malpractice suit in waiting, how can the member stand in his place today and say they actually heard what producers were saying? When pen met paper, not one producer group and not one province supported that initiative. How can he stand there and defend that?
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, let me see, the APF provincial endorsements. Clay Serby in Saskatchewan, “Saskatchewan is signing the APF because we were able to achieve a number of significant improvements over the previous safety net agreement”.
Steve Peters, Ontario minister of agriculture, “I am confident that this agreement will provide farmers with the resources necessary to build a stronger, more competitive agri-food industry”.
Ken MacAdam in P.E.I., “This agreement will help support the strategic directions that we have established for the agriculture and agri-food industry in Prince Edward Island”.
Quebec is signing the implementation agreement today because it is convinced it will receive its fair share of federal funding and this agreement will benefit its producers.
Rosann Wowchuck in Manitoba said “I am pleased to be here to ensure the continuation of the income stabilization program in partnership with the federal government”.
The minister in Nova Scotia says “The agriculture industry constantly faces a number of challenges”.
British Columbia, “Farming is integral to B.C. heartlands economy strategy”.
Shall I keep going, Mr. Speaker? I think the hon. member is out to lunch.
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the member opposite, after reading off all those provinces and stuff, that there is a sector of our industry that has been suffering for over five years and it has been neglected by the government. That is the cervid industry in this country. The government keeps saying that it will look at the BSE issue and it will go for the science base. The cervid industry has the science base but the government has not opened the borders to other countries for that industry.
If the government's agricultural policy is so good, could the hon. member tell us why it has not worked with the cervid industry?
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, the agriculture policy framework that we have is not ad hoc. It will pass the test of time and, as I said, it can be reviewed.
We will deal with the cervid industry. We can probably incorporate it into the agricultural policy framework, because I said it would be reviewed and be expanded.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I recall that when those provinces signed on they were told quite clearly by the former agriculture minister that if they did not sign on they would not get any support money for the BSE issue. Farmers were so hurt that the provinces said they had to take what little miserly bit they could get from the federal government.
The member talks about the CAIS program and how happy he is that it has been set up and says that we can it take to the bank. I took mine to the bank the other day, because when we have a $100,000 reference margin, we have to go to the bank and borrow $24,000 so we can make our farmer's deposit in order to qualify for the program. The federal government does not deposit any money into any bank accounts. Why is the government being so hard on the farmer that the farmer has to put his money up front instead of just having a letter of credit from the bank stating that if he makes a claim on the program, the farmer's portion will be there?
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, on the hon. member's first statement about us forcing the provinces into this, I do not really buy that for a minute. I hope the hon. member is not telling me to send money where I have no assurance as to how it will be spent. On this side of the house, we take very seriously how money is being spent.
On the second part of the hon. member's question, we will respond to all instances within agriculture. He talked about the CAIS program. He better go back and talk with his accountant more. For instance, we said that a young farmer might have a hard time coming up with the $24,000, so it was put into three payments. We even said that if the young farmer could come up with the first payment of the three over three years, then he would have 100% coverage on this.
I am sorry, but the hon. member better go back and talk to his accountant.
Carol Skelton Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he can tell all the farmers in western Canada, who have had negative margins for the last three years, what and how effective this new program will be for those young producers who have had that situation.
Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is one reason we went to the Olympic average, so it could be taken over five years because we heard the same thing the task force heard. If farmers made nothing for the last three years, how would they come up with what their income should be? Therefore, we took it to the Olympic average over five years.
Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring attention to the important issue of lineups and waiting times being experienced by Canadians seeking health care treatment.
Since its inception by the late Tommy Douglas, time and time again Canadians voice the fact that universal and efficient health care is a cornerstone to Canadian society.
The Liberal government, under the present Prime Minister, remains soundly committed to the five principles of the Canadian Health Act: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility.
Within this commitment, there is the need for cooperation between various levels of government and the need for key investments are required to help reduce waiting times, by directing investment into developing ways for faster diagnosis, and the provision of more doctors and nurses.
I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his efforts, as it has been determined that the federal government will now be able to provide--
Brian Fitzpatrick Canadian Alliance Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a serious case of amnesia. He does everything to escape his past and the Liberal culture of corruption.
He says that he is innocent. He says that as finance minister, he was out of the government's loop and he did not know. He blames public servants for the problem. He says that it is not his problem, that it is his predecessor's problem and his gang of Liberals.
The Prime Minister's own actions set the tone for the culture of corruption. In respect to his business interests, there never was a blind trust. The Prime Minister was in a conflict of interest, and a very strong case can be made that he used this conflict of interest to benefit his own business interest.
No, the Prime Minister cannot escape his past. He is very much a part of this corrupt and incompetent Liberal government.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Hillsborough, PE
Mr. Speaker, beginning today in Charlottetown, the Confederation Centre of the Arts, in partnership with the Government of Canada and Tourism Prince Edward Island, will host the second annual Faces of Canada Festival.
This event features four days of music, dance and storytelling, artwork, costumes and culinary delights.
Again this year, the festival offers a wide range of activities and events, including a multicultural brunch, an international tea house and live concerts featuring local, national and international performers.
The festival's first event, a citizenship ceremony, is taking place as we speak.
The Faces of Canada Festival and events like it across the country strengthen the bonds between Canadians and provides an opportunity for us to experience and appreciate first-hand the multicultural nature of Canadian society.
I hope members will join me in wishing the Faces of Canada Festival a very successful weekend.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Forum for Young Canadians, a non-political organization that teaches young Canadians about the processes of government, among other things, is holding one of four annual sessions this week.
One of the students, Josiane Gosselin-Dubois, made a statement while taking part in the parliamentary simulation. She condemned the working conditions in numerous factories and plants in underdeveloped countries, especially Haiti.
In addition, she finds it unacceptable that children work in such places. She is demanding a legislative amendment regarding clothes labelling to inform consumers about the origin of the products they buy.
I want to congratulate this young Canada for her thoughts on a current trade and humanitarian issue, as well as for her approach.
I want to take this opportunity to say that Canada is aware of the problem and is committed to helping the least developed countries, including Haiti.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS
Mr. Speaker, February 24, 1979, is a date that weighs heavy on the hearts of many Cape Bretoners, for it was in the early morning hours on that day that 12 coal miners lost their lives in an underground fire in No. 26 Colliery in Glace Bay. Four co-workers were also severely burned.
This tragic accident, which rocked our community, serves as a harsh reminder of the dangers and hardships these men faced on a daily basis.
The bond between coal miners runs deep and true and the impact of this tragedy was shared by all. To the co-workers and brave draggermen who risked their own lives in rescue and recovery operations, we say thanks.
I know colleagues on both sides of the House offer condolences to the family and friends, as they continue to deal with their loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.