Madam Chair, there were a number of issues. I certainly act with respect toward the member opposite. When my colleague the Minister of State for Agriculture, also the Minister of National Revenue, which is a great combination, answers questions in question period, he respects the francophone language and so forth. He does a tremendous job representing agriculture producers in Quebec and the rest of Canada in his role, as I feel I do in my federal role as well.
We meet constantly with farm groups from Quebec. I had a meeting a short time ago with Christian Lacasse, the leader of the UPA in Quebec. I met a few days ago with Laurent Pellerin, who is with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I meet all the time with the province's minister, Laurent Lessard, who was reinstated in his position after the election in Quebec. It was a tremendous opportunity to work with him again. He is a solid man and very much onside with Quebec agriculture.
I am not sure what the member opposite is talking about. Various members of our government have hosted a number of round tables in Quebec. We are fortunate to have tremendously strong representation from rural Canada. We have the numbers and we have the background. We have producers in this place who make the necessary changes to ensure the farm gate is secure.
We do not see provincial lines maybe the same as the Bloc does. We try to develop programs that are fair and reasonable and work well across the country.
The member specifically talked about agricultural flexibility and the budget. It should have come as no surprise to him or anyone else because that was a campaign pledge. This government is nothing if not solid and secure in following through on what we say we are going to do.
We said we were going to discount the GST, and we have done that. I had a schedule. It is down two points. When we talk about tax cuts, that is great news for farmers because they pay taxes too.
It should come as no surprise for the member opposite that we followed through on agricultural flexibility. We had some discussions with industry groups. There are certain ones that want to see that dumped in on top of the business risk suite, but there is no need to do that. We have a tremendous suite of programs, under business risk, that will trigger in when farmers need it the most. We have seen that happen.
We needed a proactive pillar, and that is what agricultural flexibility is. It will commercialize good ideas, find new ways to push innovation and cut input costs, all those great things that farmers have asked us to do but were never able to fund under the old suite of programs, which were so narrowly focused under the APF.
Under growing forward, we have the reactive programming. Under agricultural flexibility, we will have the proactive programming to help farmers move forward.