Andy Mitchell

[Agriculture, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is actually very much at odds with what the hon. member said.

First of all, two weeks ago the rule change moved out of the USDA and into the White House office of management and budget. That is an important piece of progress. It puts in place a 90 day timeframe in which a decision needs to be made, after which it comes into force 60 days later.

Moreover, in a discussion between the Prime Minister and President Bush, the President said clearly, when he was here this week, that he will expedite that process in the OMB and that he will instruct his officials to do so as well.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is simply not accurate.

The income support programs that the government has put in place have been of assistance to producers in Quebec in the past and will be of value to them in the future. The cull animal program that we put in place specifically to deal with BSE has applied to producers in Quebec. The transitional industry support program that we put in place last year has applied directly to producers in Quebec as these programs have applied to producers all across Canada.

The hon. member is simply incorrect. The federal government has been assisting producers in Quebec and right across the country.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not correct when she talks about a February date. Our CAIS program, which is an income support program, is a permanent program of the Government of Canada. It does not expire in February. The BSE programming that we put in place on September 10 will run over the next year and a half. It does not expire in February.

We are determined to deal with the issue of cull cows in Quebec. There are other issues that will impact that and we will be taking those into account as well.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in that historically the share between the provinces and the federal government is normally 60:40. In this particular instance, there is at this point in time no specific request of the federal government. We understand that there is a particular issue. We will work with our colleagues in the province of Quebec and with producers in Quebec as we will work with producers and provinces right across this country to deal with the issue of cull cows.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions in the House, the federal government has been fully engaged in the province of Quebec in providing assistance both in a general nature and in terms of BSE.

I think the hon. member is referring specifically to the issue of cull cows and the work that is being done in that respect. We have said that the federal government understands that is a particular concern in Quebec, as it is in other provinces across the country, and that it is important for us to take measures to assist in that respect.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made the comment that he wanted to be assured that President Bush had been approached directly with respect to the border and BSE. I can give him that assurance, having done that personally.

In addition, he talked about the program of September 10 as being a repositioning program and said that he felt that was an appropriate route to go, if I understood him. He had some criticisms with it, which I understand, and I agree with him. However he also said that there has been no progress in respect of that. Through the work we have done with CFIA, by next week we will have two new federally regulated slaughter plants.

In terms of our set aside programs, we have seen very good recovery, not as much as we would like to see yet, but good recovery on fed cattle prices. We are seeing recovery on the feeder cattle side.

In terms of the additional markets, we have achieved success with the work we have done in Hong Kong, on the agreement with China, and the work being done and progress being made in both the Japanese and Taiwanese marketplaces. We have a managing older animals component of that program that has not been fully taken up. A lot of suggestions have been made on how we can turn that program into something that works better in terms of cull animals, and I do not disagree with that.

In terms of the September 10 program and those specific component parts, does the member have any specific recommendations on how he would like to see it approached differently so that we can get even more progress than what we are getting right now?

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I have a comment and a couple of questions, and I will take the opportunity to answer part of his question.

In terms of the review of business risk management which he referred to in his letter, I fully agree with the member that it is important that producers and members of the industry be part of that review. That is why we are ensuring that at a minimum, 50% have to come from industry. That is appropriate because the review needs to be driven by those who are experiencing the issue.

The hon. member makes another important point by making the distinction between the income support program that deals with the impact. He has made it crystal clear that he believes there needs to be some changes and he does not believe that it is as effective as it should be. We agree with parts of it. We may disagree with other parts of it, but we will work together on that.

The other component part is the structural issue, which he says differs from CAIS. We need to address some specific issues to change the way the industry operates. I would be most appreciative if he could perhaps give some input on some of those things in terms of the development of slaughter capacity and how to deal with the oversupply?

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the recognition; the hon. member is correct about the importance of understanding this issue. It is why I have travelled to British Columbia to meet with producers. It is why I have been in Alberta three times to meet with producers. I have been to Saskatchewan four times, in Manitoba, all over Ontario, and in the Maritimes. It was particularly important, after having been minister but a few short days, that at my initiation I met with UPA and the executive of that organization because I realized the importance of the situation in Quebec.

It is unfortunate that the Bloc chose, on the day that I was going to be speaking to a larger audience, to put this motion in the House at this time. There will be other opportunities and we will take those opportunities.

I have a specific question for the hon. member. He says there has been no assistance, nothing provided to Quebec producers. Could he define how $89 million in the 2003 income stabilization program is nothing, or $100 million for the 2004 program, the $90 million of wedge funding that is going to the Province of Quebec, the $32 million over the BSE recovery program, the $18 million in the cull animal program, the $65 million in the TIS program, the money that is available for the development of increased slaughter capacity, both the fed and the feeder set-aside programs, which can be delivered under the ASRA program in Quebec? How can he quantify them? Could he explain to me and to the House how they all represent no support to Quebec producers?

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what I suspect producers will remember is a party that said there has been a crisis for 18 months, which is 480 or so days, and that many of those have been sitting days.

The Bloc could have brought in this motion on numerous occasions during that period of time. It had several opposition day motions over that year and a half but it chose today. It was not the government. It was nobody on this side. The Bloc chose to bring this motion into the House at this time knowing full well what else was going on. For the Bloc to suggest that it will bring forward a motion critical of the government's agricultural policy and not believe that the Minister of Agriculture will be in the House to debate that motion is ridiculous.

I have a very specific question for the hon. member. He spoke about wanting to regionalize the health and safety issues. At the same time, he and members of his party indicated that there was a problem with slaughter capacity in Quebec, in that there was not enough of it. If he creates a separate region and does not allow for any interprovincial movement of animals, does that not limit the possibilities of where these animals can be slaughtered and therefore limit the possibility to have more of a competitive environment for the slaughter of older animals?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in respect of opening Canadian borders, we have made some very good progress.

In respect of the United States, we were pleased a week and a half ago when the rule was put into the White House office of management and budget. A particular timeframe, 90 days and counting, has begun.

In respect of other borders, I am very pleased to see that Hong Kong opened its borders to Canadian beef from animals under 30 months. I am very pleased to see the agreement that we had in China in respect of genetic material from the dairy industry. I am very pleased to see the progress we are making with Taiwan in the meetings that are happening this week.

We are making progress in opening the borders.