Lost his last election, in 2006, with 40% of the vote.
Agriculture and Agri-Food December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, here is a great example of the Bloc trying to suck and blow at the same time. The Bloc members put a motion to the House condemning the government's agricultural policy. Then they criticize the Minister of Agriculture for being in the House to address that motion. That is absolutely ludicrous, and every Canadian realizes that.
Agriculture and Agri-Food December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, we have been providing producers in Quebec, through our business risk management programs when they are fully availed, some $366 million. In addition to that, they have been eligible for some specific programming in terms of BSE, including the TIS program, the cull animal program and the repositioning program.
As the hon. member points out, there are issues with respect to cull cows. We have been negotiating with the Province of Quebec. We have been in discussions with UPA. We are working with them toward a solution.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way is a very knowledgeable individual about this particular industry.
I want to ask him a question because he is from Manitoba. I share with him the necessity and the desire to create increased capacity in Manitoba. I also understand the frustration of some in Manitoba but I think it is absolutely something we have to work toward. My question for the member would be in terms of the context for that to take place.
Our view is that whatever proposal is put forward it needs to be supported by a good business plan, it needs to be something that will be sustainable even after the border is open and it needs to be something in which the government participates, with the private sector and, because of the situation in Manitoba, the producers making a significant contribution.
Does the hon. member feel that our approach should be taken under those types of conditions?
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I will make this point again about the absolutely ridiculous position of the Bloc. It comes into this House on the day its choosing, it is an opposition day, and puts a motion critical of the government in terms of its agricultural policy. It then rails against the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in the House to answer its questions. It is utterly and totally ridiculous.
I have travelled from one end of this country to the other to meet with producers and with farm leaders. I have met with them on an ongoing basis and will continue to meet with them. However, today I am here in this House at the behest of the Bloc who put this motion forward.
The hon. member says that there has been nothing done. I would like to ask him to define for me which of these nothings he is referring to. Is it the $90 million that is going to Quebec producers in respect of the CAIS program for 2003? Or perhaps it is the $102 million that will be going to Quebec producers in respect of 2004? Perhaps it is the $93 million that went to Quebec producers under the TIS program? Maybe it is the $18 million under the cull program? Or maybe it is the $55 million under the crop insurance program that the hon. member is referring to?
Which of these investments, which of these monies flowing to Quebec, and which of this assistance to producers in Quebec, in his mind, represent nothing?
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, if I heard the hon. member correctly, he is suggesting that the dairy farmers in Quebec do not like the supply managed system, that they do not want to be under supply management and that it is not serving their needs. That is the exact opposite of how members on this side feel. I am shocked to hear the hon. member suggest that supply management is not a positive thing for dairy producers in Quebec.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet with a number of producers from northeastern Ontario when I was in New Liskeard. We talked about the September 10 announcement and the component parts to that. There was enthusiasm about the component parts of the program.
Let us be honest, producers are facing difficulties. They have challenges and they want to see those challenges resolved. I would like to explain something and then ask the member a question.
The CAIS program was designed to deal with impacts. It deals at the back end of things. It has an important role to play in the sense that it deals with unexpected income declines for a whole series of issues, such as, frost, drought, a border closing or something like BSE.
A combination of things are necessary when we are facing something like BSE. We need to have programs in place. We have had four of them to deal with the structural issues on the front end and the CAIS program deals with the impact on the back end.
The hon. member said that he was uncomfortable with the programs. He mentioned that he does not believe they are working. I do not agree with him, but that is not surprising. We can debate that point. Does he have some concrete suggestions or some concrete program parameters that he believes would be more effective? I would appreciate hearing about that from the member.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. member specifically on the development of slaughter capacity. The numbers are in that $150 million to $190 million range as the estimate of investment necessary.
I am interested in the hon. member's opinion. From our perspective, we see government being a part of that, but we see that the role of government is to trigger private sector investment so that the plants put in place are subject to financial due diligence. This is so they are sustainable, they have sound business plans and they will be sustainable with or without a border opening. That is the sort of approach the government has tried to take.
Does the member see an alternative approach or does he have some specific comments on how we should tweak what is being done? I would appreciate hearing his comments.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Madam Speaker, how duplicitous. What cowards. The cowardliness is putting a motion before the House criticizing the government specifically for agriculture and then asking the minister responsible to flee the House so they can talk about this issue without the minister present.
The reality is this. I had been the minister for only four weeks when I travelled to the headquarters of the UPA in Quebec. At my request and at my volition, I met with the head of the UPA and we discussed those issues. We have been interchanging with the UPA on an ongoing basis since that time.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Madam Speaker, those are two good points.
In terms of increasing slaughter capacity, in my view, that needs to apply to all ruminants, not just cattle. It needs to apply to bison and sheep. We need to have the capacity. There are regional issues on how to develop that capacity. The loan loss reserve is available for that. As I mentioned to the hon. member across the way, if we need to tweak that to make it work better, particularly for producer-owned operations, which we may conceivably see in other ruminants as well as in beef, then we will do that.
In terms of traceability, as part of the announcement we made on September 10, as well as our previous announcement, providing and investing in traceability is a key and critical component. Part of having access to foreign markets is to ensure that we have a strong traceability system so we can demonstrate to foreign markets that our animals are safe. We are undertaking that major initiative in conjunction with the industry. We will have the best in the world.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Madam Speaker, I will answer my colleague's questions in reverse order.
With regard to slaughter capacity, it is a $38 million plan and the idea is to lever additional private sector investments. Investments between $140 million and $150 million could be triggered.
I believe the hon. member was with the member for Newmarket--Aurora, the trade critic. She made some very straightforward comments. She said that farmers did not want government handouts to do this. She said that they wanted loan guarantees and a loan loss reserve. I agree with the member in this instance. That is the program we put forward. If we need to tweak it or if we need to make some changes to it to make it more effective, we certainly will take a look at that.
The process in the OMB is we see the rule as it went to USDA. When it comes out of the OMB, we only see any changes to it. We are anxious to see the particulars of that. We will react quickly to the specifics of what the changes may be.