Debates of May 14th, 2009

Agriculture and Agri-food--Main Estimates, 2009-10

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, the Liberal government asked for a pilot project to be done, and the minister knows it. Could the minister table that pilot project with the committee?

I have a number of other questions.

We have determined thus far that the minister seems willing to leave hog producers to the ravages of an unbalanced marketplace; in other words, let them go broke. He has basically said here tonight that he is not going to consider ad hoc funding.

In answering the question with respect to the Prime Minister's commitment of $100 million per year for cost of production, the minister confirmed that there has been no money paid out under that program. Therefore, the Prime Minister obviously broke his word.

He has confirmed that the government broke its election promise on AgriFlexibility, which was $500 million over five years. It has now promised $400 million over five years, but it is really only $190 million in new money, and it is not allowing it to be used flexibly for the risk management program in Ontario, or ASRA in Quebec.

He confirmed that the $12.4 million announced for the P.E.I. crop loss damage was only partially paid out and that the $6 million committed to the Atlantic beef plant was not delivered. That is another broken promise.

With regard to the hogs and beef market, the minister is looking at new markets, and I have congratulated him for that. However, the most important market is the market we have. Do not lose it. What is the minister doing to try to keep the market we have in the United States? That is our most important market. When we lose it, it is gone. All the others will not make up for it.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, there are a number of issues there.

Certainly in our new suite of programs we are working to address cost of production, which made the straight cost of production program redundant. We even had the program in place last year, yet nobody could trigger it. It was not triggerable.

The last statistics I saw showed that Ontario only triggered $2 million last year. If we did not want to send any money to farmers and we did not want to make farmers profitable, that is where I would park the money. We will not do that. We will make sure they get programs that will trigger and build a stronger market for them.

I can assure the hon. member that AgriInsurance has already paid out $15 million to potato producers on P.E.I. AgriRecovery is paying out another $1.4 million. We also have another program with the province that will trigger when potatoes are left in the field, which we asked them to do. It will pay out on potatoes that were put in storage and for the cleaning of those storage facilities. We are working on how we flow the full amount of money to the province. We fully intend to do that. We do not make false promises. We follow through.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, the minister had better talk to some of those producers on P.E.I. The fact of the matter is that AgriRecovery money, which was supposed to be a disaster program, only covers the costs of getting rid of the product, whether they disc it down or get it out of the warehouse. That does not deal with the crop loss damage cost, which is loss of income to the tune of $2,800 per acre. Those are the facts.

The fact of the matter is, though, that in the 2007 estimates, it was indicated--

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the hon. member there. There is only about 10 seconds left for the minister to respond, if he would like.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, I will certainly take the last point under advisement. I could not hear it over all the hollering back and forth. We will check the transcripts and make sure we get back to the hon. member.

The member is setting aside the point that potato producers on P.E.I. received $15 million of AgriInsurance. I am not sure how he is missing that.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Chair, despite some of the partisan bluster that goes on in the House from time to time, I would like to start my speech tonight by reiterating the minister's comments about our former agriculture chair, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, who is at home with his wife after surgery. I know that all members of the House have him and his family in their hearts and prayers.

I would also like to congratulate the Chair tonight. I understand that it was recently his birthday. Thirty more years and he will catch up to the member for Malpeque.

It has been real honour to serve on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for the last couple of years. Some of the finest people are on this committee, from the chairman and the parliamentary secretary to the committee members who showed their devotion to show up for countless hours of subcommittee and main committee, all trying to work for a better future for our farmers, both young and old.

That leads me to the discussion I would like to have tonight on an important issue that has become increasingly crucial to my constituents regarding honesty in product labelling and the criteria that must be met for an item to be given the product of Canada designation.

Product labelling affects the ability to market and sell most goods produced by farmers in all regions of Canada. I was proud to take the time to listen to hours of testimony and participate in debate last spring and fall listening to Canadians who were calling for immediate changes to the product of Canada labelling regulations.

Thankfully, on May 21, 2008, the Prime Minister unveiled the new food labelling initiative together with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. In conjunction, they also launched the Canadian food and consumers safety action plan, which was committed to reviewing the policy on the use of product of Canada and made in Canada labelling claims on food labels and in advertising.

These substantial changes to labelling will have a direct effect on the industry and, consequently, they sat down with many stakeholders and community groups who were affected by the proposed changes, to learn how they feel that will personally affect them.

Consumer groups, food processors and retailers, as well as farmers, have been consulted. Over 1,500 people completed an online survey about labelling legislation and many more called or wrote in to make sure their views were heard.

Overwhelmingly, the response was the same. Canadian stakeholders wanted and needed new labelling so that they know consumers can clearly and confidently identify their product as made in Canada or product of Canada.

In order to understand how important these changes are, one must take a look at the regulations before they were changed by the minister. They had nothing to do with food content and everything to do with the pricing formula, ensuring merely that 51% of the total content was produced or packaged in Canada.

During our consultations as a committee, however, time and time again industry and, in particular, Canadians consumers called this not only misleading, but borderline fraudulent. Consumer confidence is increased when they know they can count on the product to be Canadian made, locally grown and processed.

Many stakeholder groups that were consulted believed this would promote uniquely Canadian foods and build on the consumer desire to buy locally.

The policy on voluntary product of Canada claims on food products and advertising came into effect December 31, 2008. These specified that manufacturers would only be allowed to use product of Canada labels if all or virtually all of the contents were Canadian. The made in Canada label may be used if a food product is manufactured or processed in Canada, regardless of where the contents are from.

There are several different approaches to labelling product to help farmers and producers get their made in Canada message across without using those two terms but that still communicates to consumers their local Canadian base. A food product may claim the product of Canada term when all or virtually all major ingredients, processing and labour used to make the food product are from Canada. This means that all significant ingredients must be Canadian and non-Canadian material must be negligible.

This is what consumers and our producers were asking for. Ingredients that are present in a food at very low levels that are not generally produced in Canada, including spices, food additives and vitamins, may be used without disqualifying the food from making a product of Canada claim. Generally, the percentage referred to is very little or minor and is considered to be 2% or less.

The former food labelling guidelines had not been changed since the 1980s and we owe Canadians the best regulations possible. As the Prime Minister Harper said, “Our new guidelines are designed to redefine Canadian food content labels to better reflect the true origins of products in today's global marketplace”.

Our government is tightening the definitions of these familiar labels so Canadians know exactly what they are getting and get exactly what they want.

The consumer support for this initiative has been overwhelming.

I would like to ask the minister to please comment on the benefits of the new product in Canada labelling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind members not to use proper names. Even though we are in committee of the whole, members still have to refer to colleagues by their riding or their title.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Chair, as the member for Westlock—St. Paul said, it is an honour and a privilege to serve on the agriculture committee. I had the great opportunity to do that for a number of years and ended up chairing it over a couple of seasons. We worked very well and the member for Malpeque is giving me a compliment. I want that circled on the agenda because it just does not happen often.

When it comes to product of Canada, we were after a situation where the consumers were served in their best interests and also it helped Canadian producers to showcase their top quality products.

We started with a consultation phase over some months that saw some 1,500 interventions. Over 90% of them recommended the 98%. We built a very fulsome program that has been embraced by the vast majority of Canadian consumers and by the vast majority of Canadian processors.

They are struggling to come to that standard in a number of different ways. As I said earlier to some of the other interventions, we are seeing some great work done with 100% Canadian potatoes and then listing the other ingredients as well, but it lets people know that the base is 100% Canadian. I think that is an excellent opportunity to showcase all those different situations.

A 98% product of Canada is the ultimate marketing tool. It tells consumers that there is no concern. Everything is Canadian and it lives up to those very high standards that we enforce.

If we were to drop to lower standards, it would allow for the perversions that we used to see under the old rules where it was based on cost and not content. We want truth in labelling. We want a marketing tool that benefits consumers and benefits producers here in this country.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to switch topics a little bit to talk about input costs.

I see that the members of the official opposition actually found out today that we had a grower-requested own use program. I am not sure they understand the program itself. This is an issue with the OUI program that I have been working on for a couple of years trying to ensure that six million litres of product that is used through the own use import program by Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers, giving them a direct savings to their input costs, has been able to be continued.

I know that the minister was personally responsible for helping to keep that program alive until we got the GROU program up and running and a little bit more productive.

I would like an update from the minister on the grow program and I have a couple of questions for him. I would like to know how many pesticides are now eligible. When we first started this program there were many problems and could only get one or two pesticides through. How many pesticides can our producers now use?

I would also like to know what the minister is doing to decrease the time it takes to register a pesticide, as well as adding new pesticides. Is he still continuing to move toward adding new pesticides to the program for our producers?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, as our producers struggle with rising input costs, it is very beneficial to them to have access to other lines of product.

We saw the great work done to get generic glyphosate. As he said, several millions of litres that go through predominantly Saskatchewan and Alberta for the crops that we grow there have been a boon to those farmers. We have a few more of those registered now. Glyphosate was the only one registered under the OUI. Under the new growing forward there have been some 186 regulatory submissions. The list is getting shorter. We have 151 projects under way. We are now working in conjunction with some of our trading partners taking their science and adding to ours rather than starting at zero all the time.

We also, through the growing forward network of programming last year, funded some 30 different chemicals and pesticides and did a double flow with PMRA to speed up that regulatory registration process so that producers could have access to those new cost effective tools and better environmentally impacted tools that we can give them.

Under the new grow program, as the member said, it is grower requested. Therefore, we work through the system what producers want. That helps in keeping the queue down that we are working on the priorities for producers.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to switch gears once more and talk about the farm improvement and marketing cooperatives loans act and a little bit about what happened today in committee.

We have had a history of this in our agriculture committee over the last couple of years. When it came to product of Canada labelling, on May 21 the member for Malpeque was putting his own press releases out and taking credit for it. Now he is in committee attacking it. It is tough to get where he is at on these issues. However, I understood that the official opposition was in favour of Bill C-29, the farm improvement and marketing cooperatives loans act.

This is a very important piece of legislation to my farmers. It would give them access to the credit they need to be able to grow, to expand and sometimes just survive these troubling times. Even during the week, I thought we had unanimous consent to move this legislation forward quickly. Today in committee, when the government side requested to put forward a report that the Canadian Wheat Board admits it has and supposedly has no problem tabling with the public, the official opposition, led by the member for Malpeque, stalled, stammered and at the end of the day just walked out of the room on us, not allowing us to move forward with the legislation.

In fact, at one point he even threatened to delay our legislation until late next spring simply because his ego was bruised that we might ask for a report tabled to be made public on the Canadian Wheat Board's loss of over $300 million of western Canadian money.

Could the minister tell the House what the Liberals have to hide when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board? Will the minister commit to continuing to push the opposition to move this legislation forward, even with the Liberals now stonewalling at the committee?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, I was not at committee so I cannot comment on what went on. I am certain that everybody can read the transcript if they want to know what happened.

However, I am sure cooler heads will prevail. As I said in my opening statements, everyone here has the best interests of farmers at heart. We may disagree on how we deliver those programs but at the end of the day we all know it needs to be done. The changes to the FIMCLA and bringing it up to date are very important.

Agriculture is a capital-intensive business. We all recognize the fact that most farmers out there are approaching retirement age and are looking to move their enterprise on to a son, daughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law or a neighbour for that matter but they need access to credit to do that. The new proposal is all about modernizing that particular act to trigger roughly another billion dollars over the next few years so that beginning farmers can actually have a chance to take over dad's farm like I was able to do.

My son will not have that opportunity because of the changes that I have made in my life. He has gone on to work in the oil patch. This is such a capital-intensive business that he will not get his opportunity. We are saddened by that because he would have been the fifth generation farming and that would have been fantastic to see. However, we have gotten beyond that but we are here to help other people to have those opportunities.

I am quite excited by the changes that we have made. Beginning farmers will have access to some $500,000, which is double what they used to have, with a 10% down payment rather than 20%. That loan, being backstopped by the federal government, will be at a preferred rate. We will ensure that the banks, credit unions and so on acknowledge that and work fairly with farmers when it comes to those loans.

I am quite excited by it and I think the members opposite will come to grips with that too. We did have an example earlier about moneys going into a cooperative type of situation. I think it is time to reinvent that so we can get on top of some of these input costs and so on.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Chair, my thanks to all our colleagues for coming together this evening to take part in the debate in committee of the whole with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. I thank him also for his presence, and for taking part in this extremely important exercise. I hope that when I have finished all my questions I will still be in a good mood. I also hope that the answers he will give me will be satisfactory to the potato growers in my region, who have been waiting a long time for answers.

When the Canadian Food Inspection Agency came to their farms during the summer and fall of 2006, they were told to be cooperative and to work with the agency. They were told not to be apprehensive, because the agency was there to help them. They had hopes of a solution, despite the fact that on October 12, 2006, the area surrounding Saint-Amable was declared a regulated zone. They knew this had to be done and they accepted it gracefully, because they were well aware that the border needed to be reopened. They were wholehearted in their solidarity with all the other growers so that trade could continue.

Nevertheless, they suffered some setbacks, since things were not resolved right away. However, on November 22, 2006, the parliamentary secretary to the previous minister said that the problem facing the producers in Saint-Amable would be resolved. A year later, I had to raise the issue again. Once again, I had to ask questions. That time, the Secretary of State (Agriculture), who is now the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, told us, “Things are going well with the producers. We are talking and a plan is being implemented as we speak.” That was October 26, 2007.

The situation is still unresolved today. Potato producers in Saint-Amable are still wondering if anyone on the other side of the House is listening to them and if the government is going to do something. Since they are watching us on television at this time, I hope they will be able to hear the minister's answers.

The situation was not resolved and an election was called. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable said that it would be discussed among the ministers and that a resolution was not far off. We were told not to worry, that it would come. Once again, nothing happened. At the end of April, that is, a few days ago, when the minister announced his new agricultural policy in Sainte-Croix de Lotbinière, the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma, who is also the Minister of State (Agriculture), said that something would now be done. He said that by the end of May an agreement would be presented that would meet the producers' expectations.

I have a question for the minister. Will the producers really see a satisfactory agreement by the end of May?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

There is a little background on that situation, Mr. Chair. There are 21 affected farmers in the member's riding. To date, they have received some $8 million of government program spending.

As he has alluded to, another package is being worked on right now. I know the date that was agreed on by the provincial minister, my counterpart, and the industry is the end of May. I certainly intend to honour that date. We will work with the producers that are affected.

We are also looking at the opportunity or the possibility to use the new agricultural flexibility program to develop a pilot, as the farms are small by western standards, 60 acres roughly on average, to build economies of scale to move into some product base that will actually work for them. Corn is not going to do it. We understand that. Soy is not going to give them the return they need off of those small acres.

Is there something we can do to bring them together in a co-operative way, such as forming a pilot project? Is there something we can do that will take it through to a finished product that will bring them back into the farm sector on that ground? We are happy to work with them and continue those discussions.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Chair, this answer is a step in the right direction. However, I will ask the minister a more specific question. His first offer to farmers was rather modest. There was $5 million for the long-term recovery plan over a three-year period. As the minister himself mentioned, the acreage is small and not suitable for extensive corn production. The soil will also remain contaminated for a number of years because the golden nematode does not just disappear but remains dormant in the soil for several decades.

We will have to review the issue of markets. New crops cannot be planted until good market studies have been conducted and without a certain amount of market preparation or without knowing all the other players and creating a niche. It becomes rather complicated. There is also the matter of reputation. The minister is certainly aware that, since the arrival of the golden nematode, the municipality of Saint-Amable, the farmers, nursery workers and horticulturalists of that area have been subject to prejudice. The situation requires a complete repositioning. The warehouses and machinery were suited to the production of potatoes. If they have to change crops, they will need a transition program over a longer period of time.

The minister ordered an independent study that set the transition period at 10 years. It established the amounts required for the complete restructuring of the regional agricultural economy at about $30 million or $31 million. The farmers are prepared to provide up to 20% of that amount.

I would like the minister to tell us if the new offer will respect these parameters, which prevent the use of existing standardized programs. The farmers of Saint-Amable are in an extraordinary situation.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, the government understands the situation. The key point in what the hon. member has said and what I have spoken about is whether it will this be satisfactory. Somehow I doubt any amount ever would be. When the member talks in terms of $30 million to $31 million, I can be very frank and honest and say no, we will never get to that type of situation in a one-time payment.

We will do everything we can in joint work with the province of Quebec. We will continue to work with producers on pilot projects. He talks about a transition and he is on the right track. I intend to work with producers.

No one is going to cut and run. We realize this is a long-term process. We will work with producers. It is more than just money at stake here. As the member says, they want to rebuild their reputation. We are happy to work with them to do that. It is not just about money; it is about building a future and economies of scale and working toward something that will rejuvenate that area. We are happy to help.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to finish my question about amounts. The minister seemed to be saying that the amounts in the study he himself ordered were excessive.

If independent analysts, people who are in no way involved in decision making and who examine a situation impartially and consider different parameters, looked in depth at the economic fabric, the environment, the quality and amount of land and the type of workers, in short, all the necessary parameters for a credible, relevant study, how did they arrive at such an amount? Would the minister not be inclined to go with what these independent experts came up with in their report?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, I can do nothing but reiterate for the member opposite that we will continue to work with the affected producers, but there is a finite amount of money the taxpayers will put forward, and we will stretch it as far as we can.

I can assure the member opposite, we will do everything we can, but the whole point is this. It is more than just money. It is about rebuilding the quality of lifestyle, it is about rebuilding the area and it is about giving them an opportunity to move forward.

As I said, we will work with them to transition. We will work with them with pilot projects. However, when he talks in terms of $30 million, that is probably beyond the scope of what taxpayers can afford at this time and place.

We will continue to discuss this and work with them. We do have a one time payment that we will be bringing to them by the end of this month. We will continue to have those discussions and we will move forward from there.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Chair, on another note, but still related to the appearance of the golden nematode in Saint-Amable, in chapter 4 of her 2008 annual report, the Auditor General of Canada indicated that the golden nematode appeared for the first time in Quebec in 2006. That was the first time the golden nematode had shown up in Canada. At the beginning of her remarks, she wrote:

The yearly pest survey plans of the Plant Health Surveillance Unit are not risk-based and focus almost exclusively on existing invasive plants, pests, and diseases rather than identifying potential new threats before they become established plant health emergencies.

Further on, she wrote:

Overall, the Plant Health Program lacks quality management processes in import-related activities key to keeping invasive alien species from entering and becoming established in Canada.

After I read the report, I wondered whether it was possible to conclude that, if the Canadian Food Inspection Agency had been much stricter in its assessment of exotic threats, the golden nematode might never have appeared on our agricultural lands. I would like the minister to comment on that.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, unfortunately I cannot speak to the earlier years because we were not the government of the day, but the CFIA was forced to be a responsive agency as opposed to proactive. We made some changes so there is more proactive work done to try to curtail this type of thing before it gets a root hold in the area.

We take the advice of the Auditor General seriously. We accept her recommendations and strive to put them in place. Unfortunately, it is kind of after the horse is out of the barn.

We will continue to work with the area that is affected and with the producers who are affected to try to build them a future that is workable.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Chair, I wish I could believe the minister when he says that, basically, the government has received the recommendations and will do something. Back in 1996, the Auditor General had already identified a number of shortcomings, particularly with respect to information management. She said that the agency was still having problems in that area in 2008.

When the government accepts recommendations, does it do so just to get good press, just to enhance its public image, or does it then take action to achieve the goal?

Recently, during the listeriosis saga, we learned that self-regulation had become the norm and that pilot projects had been launched. Will budget cuts make the Canadian Food Inspection Agency more efficient and capable of fulfilling its mandate?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, let me just clarify one point from the Auditor General's report. That report was focused on imports. The golden nematode in question in that area of Quebec was not an imported pest. It is an important to make that distinction. To clarify the record, it was based on surveillance of farm practices that actually brought it to the fore, so it is not an import type of pest.

The member opposite is not factual when he talks about stresses on the CFIA not being fully funded by the government. As I have said constantly, the two largest budgets in the last two years, pilot projects come and go, we pick the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will have to resume debate, the hon. member for Elgin--Middlesex--London.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the Minister of Agriculture has said many times before, the bedrock principle for all of our agriculture programs is farmers first.

We have to keep the farm gate strong to keep our processing and retail sectors strong. We will do what it takes to help Canadians weather this global economic storm. We will help protect the jobs of today while readying our economy to create the jobs of tomorrow. We are taking Canadian agriculture to new markets.

This minister is opening markets around the world, so that Canadian farmers can sell more products to their customers. I am also glad he travels Canada, talking to farmers first. I was glad to have him in our riding talking to farmers there.

Our government is targeting markets, such as the United States, Russia, Japan, India, China, Korea, Mexico, the Middle East, Morocco and the EU. We are building stable, bankable programs so that farmers can weather economic storms.

Farmers expect governments to work together, and we have worked with the provinces and territories to finalize the new suite of programs under growing forward. We have strengthened our food safety system and are ensuring that Canadians continue to have confidence in the products our farmers grow.

As I already said, we are facing the impact of a global economic storm. This government has been on top of this situation with proactive measures to make sure we come out stronger than ever.

In January our finance minister announced more than just a budget. It was an economic action plan for Canada to see us through this global downturn. That plan was based on good ideas from thousands of Canadians.

In my riding, as I am sure in others, we met with many groups from agriculture, business to producers to gather ideas for the budget. We wrote this economic action plan based on what was best for the economy and what was best for Canadians as we build toward the future.

The economic action plan included a flexible new community adjustment fund in the range of $1 billion to help communities as they adjust to changing economic realities. We are cutting taxes for families and businesses to make sure they have the cash in their pockets to keep our economy running.

The government's action plan also delivered on key investments for Canadian farm families and for the farm families in southern Ontario and right in my riding, too. We all know we need more young people taking over the farms. Unfortunately, it is often impossible. It takes a huge capital investment to buy the equipment, land and quota necessary to get going. That capital is now harder to get than ever because of the current credit crunch.

That is why our government announced changes to the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, or FIMCLA as it is known. These changes will make it easier for new young farmers to get the credit they need to get started on the farm and to keep Canadian agriculture growing.

This government is working with Canadian producers to put farmers first in every agricultural policy we put forward. We are keeping our promises to Canadian farm families. We are keeping our communities strong by focusing on real help on the hardest hit. This government is taking good ideas from everyday Canadians to make sure Canada weathers the storm.

Young families and new farmers want a way of life, some want what mom and dad and grandma and grandpa had, and some really want a special way of life. In discussions with young farmers, not one has mentioned wanting cheques, just a fair shot at being a farmer, to have a family live the good life.

Can the minister expand on what we have done to make that possible?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, I would need another hour to get that all in. It is just a great suite of programs that we have been able to develop working with industry, taking those good common sense ideas that industry brings forward, and working with the provinces and territories to introduce a new suite of programs that is national in scope but gives the regions the flexibility they need to deliver in the best interests of their farm gate.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank farmers for their strength, their dedication to their industry, and for their great common sense ideas, as I constantly say. I want to thank my team, too, all the folks who work on the agriculture committee. They all bring something to that committee. As I have often said, when we think with our heads and leave the politics behind, we can always develop better farm programs.

I also want to thank the Department of Agriculture and the CFIA for the tremendous work that they do and the job that they do getting those programs put together and through the machinery of government, which is not always easy, everybody understands that, and developing them and delivering them for farmers.

As I have said all along, we are not scared to step back, take another look, and make sure that what we are delivering helps farmers and hits the farm gate target that we are after.