Andy Mitchell

[Agriculture, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the answer to the Leader of the Opposition, $1.9 billion of federal money is dealing with this issue.

In terms of repositioning the industry, we were out there in September with the provinces and with the industry with a repositioning strategy. We will pursue that. There are many issues that need to be dealt with. Older animals is one of them. We are committed to doing that. We will do that working with the industry and with the provinces. We will come up with approaches that will do what they are supposed to do and work to deal with--

[Agriculture, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have been fully engaged with the United States in making the point that the opinion of many in that country is ill-informed. In fact the critic from the hon. member's party was engaged in that process with us. That is why, rather than having the U.S. government opposed to us, in this respect both the USDA and the President are four-square behind Canada in our move to get the border open.

We have seen new plants in Prince Edward Island. We have seen new plants in British Columbia. We will partner with additional new plants across the country.

[Agriculture, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to correct the hon. member again but the budget did in fact contain tax measures to help with agricultural co-ops. I believe it is on page 143 of the budget if the hon. member wants to look at it.

Alberta and other provinces are announcing a combination of things, not just increased slaughter capacity, which we are there for and which we believe needs to be done, but as well, as we announced back in September, the need to create new foreign markets. It is not just an issue of having increased capacity. It is an issue of having a place in which to sell that capacity. We understand that and we are doing both.

[Agriculture, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that the hon. member is incorrect when she says the border is closed to Canadian beef. Indeed Canadian beef continues to cross the border. It is important that producers know that continues to be the case.

In terms of slaughter capacity, from a low of 65,000 animals per week, we are now at 83,000 animals per week, a 30% increase. We have seen two new plants opened in the last few months. We will continue to assist the industry. We will make revisions as necessary to put as many resources out there as quickly as possible.

[Agriculture, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in a take note debate in the House a couple of weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition said that quite frankly he did not understand the details of the particular issue and that he would allow others to answer. He clearly is demonstrating that.

Quite frankly, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to score cheap political points as opposed to trying to deal with the issue. The reality is that $1.9 billion beyond CAIS have been invested into the cattle and beef industry in this country. As the Minister of Finance said, we stand by our industry and stand to make new investments as necessary.

[Agriculture, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that comment is absolutely ludicrous. As most Canadians know and as the hon. member should know, the U.S. administration stands firmly behind Canada's position and is working with Canada.

Unlike what the hon. member asserts, we did not go into that unprepared. In fact, in September we put forward a strategy to deal with the industry being profitable with or without a border opening.

[Sport Fishery, February 25th, 2005]

Quite to the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Even though the CFIA does not have a direct mandate, we have asked it to put in a protocol to assist lodges so they can continue to compete effectively.

Beyond that, we also are engaging the European Union, both in terms of having it change the minimum weight amount so it can be increased, as well as to ask it to deal with the policy in its overall context so we can have others besides the CFIA do the necessary inspections.

[Agriculture, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, to be charitable, the hon. member is simply ill-informed. The reality is that the work that is being done in science will continue to be done. The people who do the work will continue to do the work.

What we are doing as a department is cutting the overhead so that there will in fact be more money to do more science to the benefit of producers.

[Agriculture, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to a similar question from an hon. member on that side, I made the comment that it was political rhetoric. I want to make sure we make the point crystal clear.

Each one of the members on that side knows that the CAIS program is a federal-provincial program that requires both the federal government and the provinces to agree to the changes. They know that is the case but in their questions they try to infer that it is something else.

Do they want to help producers? No they do not. Do they want to make political rhetoric? Yes they do because that is all they are capable of.

[Agriculture, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member conveniently ignores, which is not the case that he puts in his question, is that real money has gone to real producers to assist them with real needs.

I know it does not fit the member's political agenda to have to admit that, but the reality is, and all those folks over there should listen, the real money has gone to real producers to deal with real issues and not simply the rhetoric that we hear from the other side.