Andy Mitchell

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member makes a good point, and it is important to emphasize this here.

In the program that was announced on September 10 and the component parts to it, because there are many component parts, the flexibility is there and the different provinces will choose to use different parts of the program. That is essential. Different provinces have made different decisions on how they will participate. Ontario has made a different decision than Alberta, and again for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I believe that flexibility is absolutely in place, and that is the appropriate way to go.

I think the hon. member realizes this, but we should emphasize it. The design of the program comes from the people in the industry itself. It spent a great amount of time consulting with its members. It spent a great amount of time travelling across the country to develop the component parts to this program.

The member is right. The industry leaders have the expertise. They live with this every day. They have an understanding of what the needs are, and that is why I felt it was imperative to built that program in a collaborative way, working with them and because they are also an important partner, working with the provinces. That is the process we followed. I was pleased we were able to come to an agreement on the parameters of the program. We are working to ensure that we have the details so we can begin the processes of setting aside animals, building new capacity, expanding our foreign markets, and continuing the process to urge the Americans to reopen the border.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, let me first point out to that member and the member who spoke before him, there are three very specific commitments in Speech from the Throne

One is to ensure that we could strengthen the agriculture industry. I think that is a fairly strong commitment. Second is to deal with the border issues particularly related to BSE. Third, and most important, is the importance of ensuring that we have a strong and viable rural Canada. That is a very specific commitment in the Speech from the Throne as well.

I spent four years as the secretary of state for rural development. I travelled rural Canada from one end of this nation to the other trying to ensure that we had strong and viable communities and that our young people could have a future in those communities. That type of commitment is a demonstration of the government's ongoing willingness to deal with the issues facing rural Canada, including agriculture.

In terms of the specific meeting that the member talked about, those individuals engaged in the meeting are primarily engaged in developing the parameters around the set aside programs, not in dealing with the CAIS program. The issue there, and the hon. member from Ontario would appreciate this, is to find a national platform for delivering a set aside program so the necessary number of animals are removed from the marketplace and the price can continue to do what the price has been doing in recent days, and that is recovering.

The initiative needs to reconcile the different perspectives by different parts of the industry and by different provinces, but we are determined to find that solution. We are determined to have that national program. We are determined to bring some rationality back into the marketplace so producers can make business decisions based on a market that is rational and operating in a way that it should. The men and women of good faith are engaged in that process. They worked through the day yesterday and through the day today. We will work with them to ensure that type of solution can be found. As the hon. member mentioned, it is critical and it is important. I have given my instructions to them to ensure that they work towards a solution that will result in a program that will benefit producers from coast to coast.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, let me congratulate the hon. member on his first intervention in the House. I know that he is very knowledgeable in this industry and I know we will appreciate the knowledge that he will bring to this debate.

I have a specific question to this member from Manitoba. We have heard a number of perspectives here in terms of the feeder set-aside and the appropriate date. From a Manitoba perspective, could the member share any particular views he would have on what would be an appropriate date?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I know the hon. member was there for the press conference so I am surprised that he may not have heard what was said. As I said before--

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member talked about another important issue with regard to other ruminants and the importance of dealing with them as well. With respect to the program that I announced regarding the development of increased slaughter capacity, it would apply to them but they have their own set of issues.

I just want to mention to the hon. member and all hon. members in the House that a sheep summit, which my department helped to organize, is taking place here in Ottawa tomorrow morning. I will be meeting with a range of producers and others in their value chain, specifically with the sheep industry, but others as well, to address their issues. I am appreciative of the member bringing out the fact that there are other issues such as ruminants.

I agree with him with regard to his other point. We do need to make sure that we have flexibility in the program. I quite clearly demonstrated that. Contrary to what other members have said, I have met with my provincial colleagues on four occasions since being made minister essentially to consult on how to put together this particular BSE program. We have to make sure we have a platform that works for all of the provinces. I understand that it is important for Alberta and a percentage of the industry. However the needs and concerns of other provincial players who have a significant portion of that industry need to be taken into account as well.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I just have a point and I know the hon. member did not mean it this way. I know Mr. Eby and he is a honourable man. To suggest that his actions were motivated because somebody waved money under his nose, I do not think the hon. member meant to say that. I think that he may want to suggest something different.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I just want to make a couple of passing comments and then ask the hon. member a question.

I will just read from this: “BSE recovery program $465 million, disbursed; Cull animal program $110 million, disbursed; TISP $567 million disbursed; CAIS program for 2004, $250 million disbursed”. Phantom? I think not.

Phantom payments and bad announcements, maybe he would like to reconcile that with the position of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association that indicated they were fully supportive of the initiative that was put forward on September 10 and fully supportive of its design components. Maybe he would care to comment as to why the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is wrong in that support.

On a very technical issue, the member talked about unrealized equity losses and the need to deal with them. I would be interested because I think that is important. That is an issue with which we need to deal. How would he also deal with, at the same time, unrealized equity gains and how we would do a design so that we could capture both of those if we were to deal with equity losses?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the hon. member for his first intervention in the House. I know that he was in another house in a previous life. Let me try to clarify some things because I believe there is some confusion in his understanding of the factual information.

First of all, let me say clearly that I have met with producers across Canada. Very recently I met with producers in northern Ontario to discuss the specific issues that face agriculture in northern Ontario. I was very appreciative that my colleague from Nipissing arranged that and I thank him.

In respect to the program that was announced on September 10, there are 488 million new dollars. It has absolutely nothing to do with CAIS. It is 488 million new dollars. Of that money there are dollars that are going into increasing slaughter capacity. There is money that is going into set aside programs to try to bring the marketplace into balance very quickly, that is both on the fed and on the feeder side. And then finally there is new investment in trying to develop markets beyond simply the United States and to allow our producers to diversify when they are selling abroad. That is 488 million new dollars.

Beyond that, the member mentioned TISP. The TISP is not being rolled into this money. That was a separate announcement that had been made previously. All of that money will be flowed. There is a reference to TISP in the press release that was announced, but simply to say that the last of the TISP money was to be advanced by the end of this month or the first week of November, a commitment to fulfill the total payout in that.

In respect of what was said in the CAIS program is beyond everything else that was in the program. Recognizing that there were challenges in terms of producers waiting until the year after they experienced the loss, which is the way CAIS works, one reconciles the books for one year and then the payment comes the next year, realizing the necessity and the urgency of putting cash into these producers' hands, a special component of CAIS was designed to make straightforward cash advances to them very quickly. That is not the $488 million we talked about. That is new investment to do those things that I talked about. On top of that, we dealt with ensuring the last of the TISP money was brought forward and that we made sure that we could advance more quickly at a time when producers needed the CAIS advances rather than in the following year.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, realizing a floor price is one of the options that has been put forward, the issue, if I understand it correctly from talking to producers, is to try to see a price recovery for those cull cows. One of the suggestions on how to do it is to directly intervene in the marketplace and establish a floor price. There are advantages to doing that and there are some disadvantages to doing that.

Another way to ensure that is achieved is to ensure that the capacity to process the animals is roughly equal to the amount of animals coming onto the market and to produce that in an environment that is competitive so there is some bidding from which a producer can choose.

There is more than one particular approach, but my commitment is to examine the different approaches, to deal with the industry and the producers and to come to a collective decision as to the best way to proceed.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I spent a good amount of time in Algoma and northern Ontario and I appreciate the challenges the producers face in that part of Ontario. I am as committed to them as I am to producers everywhere in Canada to working with them to deal with the issues.

I do not know if I fully agree with everything the hon. member said, and that probably comes as no surprise. I know that his determination and commitment is certainly genuine.

I believe there has been a lot of work done to date. Has it solved all of the problems and dealt with all of the issues? No, but there have been close to $2 billion committed specifically to BSE and much of it has been delivered.

We are dealing with issues in this package in terms of trying to build increased slaughter capacity and trying to ensure that we have a wider range of an international market, not simply that of the United States. We are working to restore that market as well. We are trying to bring some rationality to the marketplace so producers can make some business decisions based on some certainty. As I said the beginning of the debate, we trying to ensure, beyond all else, that our producers can operate profitably so they can continue to do historically what they have always done in the country, which is to contribute to a secure, safe food supply for all Canadians. All of us, no matter where we live, owe a great debt to our producers.

As I mentioned to the hon. critic from the Bloc, there are specific issues in respect of cull cows in the dairy industry. I have said that I met with a number of individuals, including the hon. member, to talk about this issue. There are component parts and additional issues that we need to deal with specifically in that respect. I have made a commitment to deal with producers, members in the House, the industry and the provinces to address those issues.

The member and the entire House has my commitment in that respect. We will work on that.