Lost his last election, in 2006, with 40% of the vote.
Agriculture March 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, once again, a question that has no basis in reality. Nothing done for producers? There were record payments in 2003. Canadian producers received $4.9 billion. We have an income stabilization program. We have production insurance. We have spring advances to assist with the planting. We have fall advances which are used to help market products.
As we have said and demonstrated yesterday, we will continue to make investments in this important Canadian industry.
Agriculture March 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in answer to a previous question, the federal government, yesterday, made a new investment of $50 million to assist the industry.
In addition to that, specifically on slaughter capacity, we reached a low of 65,000 animals per week. We are now at 83,000 animals per week and that will probably be around 88,000 by the mid part of the year.
We need to continue to assist as a federal government. We will take a look at all the different ways we can do that, particularly in slaughter capacity, and we will make the changes that are necessary to make our programming the most effective that it can possibly be.
Agriculture March 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of the hon. member on the other side using rhetoric. Nobody in the House said that the American president would open the border by casting a veto. What was said was that he would take the action that took place in congress and that he was prepared to veto that.
The member is quite prepared to make rhetorical statements in the House and not prepared to do anything in the best interest of producers, because that is what we do on this side of the House.
Agriculture March 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, that transaction has nothing to do with increasing slaughter capacity. It is simply about changing from one ownership to the other. Obviously if we are trying to increase slaughter capacity that is not the way we are going to invest public dollars.
I have indicated quite clearly that it is important to assist producers. It was great to see the Canadian Dairy Commission put up new money through the price supported milk to assist specifically with cull animals. We will continue to assist. That is an absolute commitment of the government.
Agriculture March 11th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased yesterday when the Government of Canada announced $50 million to assist in the marketing of beef. This is in addition to some $2 billion we have already invested.
As the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have said, there is significant additional work to do and we intend to do it.
Agriculture March 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, since it obviously was not heard the first time, let me say it clearly the second time.
The Government of Canada does help our producers, including grains and oilseeds producers. We have an income support program. We have production insurance. We have a spring advance program. We have a fall advance program.
We are working within the WTO to deal with the structural issues, so that our producers can compete on a level playing field in the international market.
Agriculture March 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, assisting our grains and oilseeds sector is a priority for the government. That is why we have in place an income stabilization program. That is why we have a spring and fall advance program. That is why we are working within the World Trade Organization to create a level playing field between the various trading partners so that our producers have an opportunity to compete in a fair and equitable situation.
Agriculture March 9th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I think all members in the House are very much touched by a story such as this about a particular producer. The reality is there has been substantial assistance provided to producers, particularly in respect to the BSE, some $1.9 billion.
As the finance minister and I have said, we will continue to work with the industry and with the individual producers to provide them the kind of assistance that they require in light of the circumstances surrounding the border.
Canadian Livestock Industry March 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, before I ask the member a couple of questions, I want to point out some figures.
As of last week, CAIS has paid out $1.1 billion to producers so far. In terms of the conversation here, between the Alberta program and the national program, CAIS was able to quickly provide liquidity in the order of some $265 million to the cattle producers. I think both those figures speak to getting money out to producers.
However I have two very specific questions for the hon. member.
First, as he is aware, as he is very knowledgeable about the industry, we have put in place, along with the provinces, both feeder and fed cattle set aside programs. I would be interested to know the member's view as to whether they have worked in the past and the value of continuing them into the future.
The second question concerns the issue that he mentioned about cull animals and the age of the herd. I wonder if he would talk about what he would feel in terms of some of those specific solutions, particularly how any of those solutions may relate to the slaughter capacity that may be available to deal with handling that particular part of the problem.
Canadian Livestock Industry March 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about a range of trade issues, but I want to stick to the subject of the debate here tonight which is agriculture.
I want to first of all point out that the ruling in the United States in terms of pork indicated that no countervail action was to be taken. It had to do with anti-dumping issues and not countervailing issues. The reality is that Canada clearly does not subsidize its pork industry.
He raised another issue which has been brought up in the House on a number of occasions, one which is important to re-emphasize. It is not President Bush's position that the border ought to remain closed between Canada and the United States in the trading of live cattle. His position is the exact opposite. He is supportive of opening the border. He has indicated clearly that he is willing to take what for him would be an unprecedented step which would be to cast a veto should Congress move to disallow the particular rule.
The U.S. administration is clearly speaking in the same voice as Canada, that the border ought to be opened and it should be opened on the basis of science. That science exists and it states clearly that there is a strong regulatory regime in Canada to ensure that animal health and human health are protected.
This is not an issue between the President and the Prime Minister or between the USDA and the Canadian agriculture ministry. It is the result of a group in the United States which brought a court action and achieved a temporary injunction which the USDA intends to vigorously argue against.
The member talked about a litany of other issues, but in terms of the agricultural issue, the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada clearly have a similar position in that respect. In terms of this particular agricultural issue there is no division between Canada and the United States. Both governments believe that the border ought to be opened and it should be opened based on science and that it should occur now.