Andy Mitchell

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Listen to them cackling over there, Madam Speaker. They are obviously pretty excited.

The reality is that 2003 and 2004 were difficult years for Canadian producers and they deserve more than the political games that the opposition is playing here today.

The basic problem here is that the opposition just does not get it. As important as it is, and it is important, to provide support to our producers, in 2003 the government provided producers with $4.8 billion. Never in the history of this country has that kind of support been provided to our producers. The opposition members do not want to admit that. They do not want to talk about that. They do not want to deal with that because it demonstrates clearly that the government does in fact support producers.

In this current fiscal year we have provided to date well over $3 billion, but again they do not want to admit that. They do not want to talk about that because it does not fit into what their main objective is here today, which is not to help producers but to score cheap political points, which is their normal process.

The point is that opposition members do not get it. Success cannot be measured by how much the support payments are. That is important and we need to be there, but that is not the measure of success. The measure of success is what we do to create the environment that allows producers to receive from the marketplace a fair return for their labour and their investment. That is the point they miss and the point on which they make absolutely no suggestions on how to deal with it.

I have to compliment my parliamentary secretary for the work he has done. Rather than dealing with the important work the parliamentary secretary has done in respect of dealing with the long term decline in farm income in certain commodity sectors, what did the House leader deal with regarding the parliamentary secretary? He was only concerned about where he was sitting in the House, with great glee and laughter over there. Well, it is not a laughing matter. Helping producers and providing them with support is not a laughing matter. I am totally disgusted with the approach the opposition takes on that.

Let us talk a little bit about the support that producers have received. The opposition members talk specifically about the CAIS program. They say that no money has been paid out in CAIS, that no producer has been helped in CAIS and that nothing is going on in CAIS.

The reality to date is that more than $700 million have gone to producers, payments for the 2003 year will reach close to $1.5 billion and there will be similar amounts in 2004. This clearly reflects the challenges that producers faced in those years.

The opposition members then said that there was no other specific program, nothing to deal with the specific problem taking place. I want to remind the House and producers of some of the programs that have been put in place and the amounts that have been paid out. Canadians have an interest in this and I am glad that we have a chance to speak to Canadians, although I realize the opposition would prefer not to.

We paid out $830 million under the TISP, $444 million under the BSE recovery program and $106 million under the cull animal program. Our spring and fall advances are providing literally millions of dollars in assistance for our producers to operate. Our production insurance program provided $1.7 billion of coverage on those commodities covered under production insurance.

I will not disagree that it is important to continually evaluate and look at what we do and to make every attempt to do it better and as well as we can. I know opposition members would like to think that they always get it right but they do not. All of us need to constantly re-evaluate things. However to suggest that there is not a strong commitment to producers, to suggest that they are not receiving financial assistance, and most important, to suggest that we are not focused on the long term issues that face farmers is totally ludicrous and totally wrong.

There is something else the opposition forgets and something that is absolutely critical. When dealing with agriculture it is important to understand that it is a three-legged stool, that it is not just simply the federal government. And that is not to shirk the responsibility of the federal government. We take that onto our shoulders, as well we should, but in order to make this work it is a three-legged stool and if one of those legs is missing, it will not stand. This is something that needs to be done, yes, by the federal government, by the provincial government and by producers. We have been engaged with all of those parties over the last seven months to continually develop and enhance the programming that we put in place.

The hon. member talked for a minute about the announcement of the BSE recovery program back in September which was designed among other things to see a price recovery in both feeder and fed animals. What the hon. member did not say is that in fact the price for feeder animals and the price for fed animals have recovered from their lows in July as we said the program was designed to do. Are the levels at what we would like them to be? No, but they have recovered.

Producers are the best of business people in the world. Our Canadian producers produce the best in the world. They are not going to buy what the opposition is saying, that everything is wrong, that nothing works, that there is no support. What they will buy is a government that understands the challenges, a government that provides them with the assistance, and a government that works with them to enhance it even beyond the current levels.

I have said on many occasions that the CAIS program is one that provides support to producers. It is one that has been put in place in recent times. It is one that we will work on in order to ensure that there are things that will be changed. It is not as if nothing has been done since CAIS has been put in place. We saw a change with the coverage of negative margins. The opposition members are saying that nothing has been done. I would assume that means they are opposed to the coverage of negative margins.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to the supply motion brought forward by the opposition.

As I said in my question to the Leader of the Opposition, I do not agree with a large part of the motion for a number of reasons. However there is a portion of the motion that I feel is important, which is that we should be dealing with farm income programs and that we should be dealing with the support we provide to producers on an ongoing basis, to refine it and to make it as effective as we possibly can. I have been doing that since I became the minister last July. I am not doing it in the way suggested by the hon. member, to just, by a fiat, have something changed, but rather by doing it according to the Constitution.

Agriculture is a federal-provincial responsibility and, of course, I work with my provincial colleagues, as well as, and this is very critical, working with members of the industry.

However let us try to understand what the motion is all about. It is not about the opposition trying to help producers. If it were about that, there would be solutions in it, but they are not there. It is not about trying to actually get something done, because if it were the opposition would have suggested a process that would need to be employed to get it done. But no, it has not made that suggestion. It has suggested something that is not possible to do.

Why would the opposition suggest that? It is because this is not about helping producers, not about the commitment that the government has to help producers in this country, which we demonstrate day in and day out, no, it is about pure, unadulterated politics. First, not helping producers, that is simply not factually correct. I will demonstrate clearly that we do that.

In terms of dealing with the options around CAIS, trying to purport that nothing has been done on that, that all of a sudden one day the opposition walked into the House and for the first time wanted to have it discussed and dealt with and that this had to do with the fact that the opposition one day woke up, that is rubbish. The reality is that on this side of the House we have been dealing with these issues that are important to our producers on an ongoing basis day in and day out. That is the absolute reality.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

They are cackling over there because I am pointing out to them that they do not do what they call for in one case or another.

Let us get to the nub of this. As the Leader of the Opposition said when he began, and I appreciate this, there were others who had a better technical knowledge. I understand and appreciate that, but what he fails to point out in putting forward this motion as some sort of solution is that the CAIS program is not a federal program but a federal-provincial program and that making changes to it does not happen through a resolution in the House. It happens when 7 out of 10 provinces representing 50% of farm gate receipts make a collective decision to do it, and even beyond that, because this is a three-legged stool, it also requires federal government, provincial governments and producers, not that top-down directive approach that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting.

If the Leader of the Opposition could provide some reasons as to why we have a motion in front of the House that purports to deal with the issue but does not present the issue in a way that is actionable, I am sure all Canadians and producers would like to hear how he intends for that to happen.

[Supply, February 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are going to have an opportunity to debate agriculture today. I look forward to that.

I have a couple of questions, though, for the Leader of the Opposition, because there are some issues that I think we should have right up front.

The Leader of the Opposition, since this Parliament commenced as a minority Parliament, has made the point, particularly in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, of the importance of working in a collaborative and collective way. He made the point particularly in the wording of the amendments to the Speech from the Throne itself, and how it would have been nice from his perspective if those discussions had been able to take place beforehand and we had had a collective agreement.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. He wants to talk about agriculture and put forward a motion that we can deal with, but there was no consultation to see if we could arrive at a collective agreement.

[Faculté de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, once again we hear the hon. member from the Bloc. Is he concerned about agriculture? Is he concerned about increasing our knowledge? No. This is about one part of the country against the other and we will not play that game with him.

We will support agriculture right across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

[Faculté de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as a federal government we are very committed to ensuring that we have the right mix of science and education. We do that through our veterinary colleges right across Canada, including Quebec. We support those significantly. We constantly review our programming to see how we can do it better. We are always working hard to ensure we accomplish that.

[Agriculture, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that those producers who today have received almost half a billion dollars in CAIS payments would totally disagree with the hon. member.

We have worked very diligently with the industry and we have worked very diligently with producers to make sure that we take any actions that we need to so that this program can be delivered in an efficient and timely manner.

[Agriculture, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, at this time we are assembling the personnel who will be conducting that review. We have asked for nominations, both from provincial governments and from the private sector. We have received some of those names and we are awaiting some additional ones. Once all of the personnel are in place we will commence that review as quickly as we possibly can. I had hoped we would have it in place on December 1. It will take a few more days, but we will get it in place as soon as we possibly can.

[Agriculture, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member says, it is an important industry, part of the overall agricultural industry. Its ability to export is critical. That is why we have been moving with initiatives in that respect. We will ensure that we put them in place as expeditiously as we possibly can.

[Agriculture, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that, rather than just giving us partisan rhetoric, he should take a look at what is actually occurring in the marketplace.

Thanks to the program that we put in place on September 10, particularly with our set aside programs with fed and feeder cattle, we have seen a substantial recovery in price. It was around 65¢ for fed cattle. Last week it was up to 85¢. That represents, over an annualized basis, $1 billion from the marketplace to producers. We will continue to work to get the U.S. border open, but at the same time, we are ensuring that we assist producers in dealing with this situation.