Andy Mitchell

[Report on Rural Canada, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the third annual report to Parliament on rural Canada, entitled “Celebrating Success in Rural Canada”.

[Rural Development, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have just engaged in a process of consulting with northern Ontario citizens, over 400 of them. Through that we have developed an action plan to deal with a number of specific areas, including access to capital, access to a competitive business environment, access to infrastructure, and access to a higher quality of life.

I look forward to working with the stakeholders, along with my caucus colleagues in northern Ontario, to bring this action plan forward and to carry out these actions. We are committed to creating an environment in northern Ontario in which wealth and jobs can be created.

[Infrastructure, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Canada infrastructure program, the $2.1 billion, I am happy to say that $680 million of that is being invested in Ontario. To date 318 projects have been announced in the areas of water, waste water, health and safety projects and many others. To date this is a $461 million investment.

We realize this is a work in progress. That is why in the Speech from the Throne we have committed to a new 10 year infrastructure program in the future to help municipalities and others.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member and I know that over the years he has worked on rural development files and is very dedicated to the issues of rural Canada.

In terms of funding, as I am sure has come up in this debate already, in the year 2000 the federal government put an additional $21 billion into the health care system. We have transferred increasing dollars to the provinces for health care. It has been an important thing to do and we have worked in that respect. However reform of health care is more than just an issue of dollars, although the hon. member is right, dollars are important. It is also an issue of how we will redesign the health care system, what kinds of structures, delivery platforms and new technologies will be in place.

I do not agree with the hon. member when he suggests that the solution is easy and we should simply just stop talking about it. That is not the case. Just transferring money will not solve the problem. There are some real structural issues in reforming the health care system with which we need to deal. We need to ensure that we understand it. We particularly need to understand it in a rural context. That is why I rose in debate. That is why it is appropriate to have this discussion, and I am pleased to see members participating in this debate.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on debate today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this debate, which is about putting forward ideas about health care. This debate allows members of all parties on all sides of the House to give us, collectively, ideas about how we should move forward into the future. This is an opportunity for a brainstorming session, so that all members can give us their ideas about the types of approaches that the government ought to take.

In speaking to my constituents and talking to Canadians as I travel right across Canada, I have learned that they are not particularly interested in hearing a partisan debate about health care. They are not particularly interested in seeing one level of government point a finger at another level of government or one side of the House point a finger at the other side of the House. They do not want to hear that. They do not want to see that. They want us as parliamentarians, as governments, to come up with the solutions to deal with the renewal of health care in the 21st century. That is what Canadians want and that is what this debate is about. That is why I am pleased to participate in it today.

I want to follow up on comments made by my hon. colleague in terms of talking about health care from a particular perspective. It comes as no surprise that as the Secretary of State for Rural Development my perspective deals with the realities of rural Canada. If we are going to be successful at renewing our health care system, and if we are going to develop something that will work in the 21st century, we need to ensure that we take into account the realities of rural Canada. That is something I am absolutely convinced of. When we develop a health care system we have to ensure that it is not an attempt at making one shoe fit all. Rather, we have to understand that we need a flexible system which would allow for the delivery of health care in a rural context in an effective way.

That is important. Besides the reality that 30% of Canadians live in rural Canada, there are some unique and particular realities about rural Canada and health care. First, if we take a look at the demographics, and this is important in terms of health care, generally speaking there is an older population in rural Canada. That puts a demand on our health care system to a greater extent in a rural context than in an urban context.

If we look at the issue of life expectancy, there is a lower life expectancy in our rural areas than in our urban areas. The mortality rate in our rural and remote areas of Canada, particularly the infant mortality rate, is almost twice as high as it is in our urban areas. These types of health care outcomes speak dramatically and specifically to the need to design a system that is particular to rural Canada and will deal with the issues in rural Canada. Another important issue is the number of physicians available to rural Canadians. There are about half as many physicians available for a population of 1,000 in a rural context than in an urban context.

These are health care outcomes that make it absolutely essential that as we reform the health care system we do it in a way that will meet the needs of rural Canadians and rural communities.

When looking at the types of initiatives that we ought to undertake in this renewal, there are some that I would like to put forward to my parliamentary colleagues and place on the record in respect of rural areas in Canada, initiatives that I think we should consider.

First is a principle that I believe it is absolutely essential to follow, that is, access to the health care system should be based on Canadian citizenship and not on where we choose to live. In other words, all of us, whether we live in rural and remote or urban Canada, should have access to a good and totally accessible health care system.

That is a principle that I believe we need to keep in mind as we reform the health care system in the 21st century. It is something that I firmly believe in and I believe rural Canadians across this land think that is an important principle we need to follow.

Second, is the whole issue of technology. I and my colleague beside me have often spoken about the need to ensure that our rural communities have access to high speed and broadband Internet access. It is not that we want to have quicker e-mails or more computers in rural communities. It is about ensuring that we have the technology so that our rural communities can have access to health care in a new and innovative way.

The opportunity to have a diagnosis done remotely is important. It provides the kind of access that rural Canadians need. This technology, which we want to assist through a public-private partnership being rolled out in rural Canada, will help in that respect in terms of treatments as well. It goes beyond just diagnostics. We can use the new technology to treat Canadians in rural remote areas in a way that we could not have even dreamed about when medicare was first brought into force in the 1960s. As a second principle, we need to look very closely and strongly at this and move to ensure that rural communities have access to the technology that will give them an opportunity to have full access to the health care system.

Third, it is important that when we train health care professionals, be they doctors, nurses or other health care professionals, we do it in a way that makes sense for rural Canada because the issues that a physician, for instance, may face in a rural context can be very different than those of an urban context. For instance, oftentimes, if one is practising in a rural area, one is expected to undertake a number of additional tasks that one may not have to do in an urban context where there is a far greater number of specialists that may be available.

What that means is that physicians who are intending to practise in a rural area need the training in a broad range of functions that they may have to undertake. That is why it is important, when we look at reforming the health care system and look at how we train our health care professionals, that we understand and recognize there may have to be a different rural curriculum than there is, a broader curriculum or at least an additional part of the curriculum that reflects the kinds of challenges that a physician or other health care professionals may face in a rural context. It is absolutely essential we do that. That would be a third issue that I would like to see put forward as we reform the health care system.

Fourth, is the whole issue of health research. Many of the health related issues that are faced by rural Canadians are a bit different or can be somewhat different than those faced by the general population. It is absolutely essential, as our Institutes of Health Research undertake their work, that they apply what I like to refer to as a rural lens to ensure that it is undertaking that research in a way and on issues that have an impact directly on the lives and on the health of rural Canadians. As a fourth issue, we have to take a very close look, when we do health research, to ensure that we do it in a way that will address the challenges and address those issues that rural Canadians face.

My fifth point is particularly important. It has to do with the recruitment of health care professionals. Most of us who come from rural communities have faced, and our communities have faced, the challenge of attracting health care professionals to those communities, whether it is doctors, nurses or technicians. That is a key issue. We need to undertake some steps that will help to alleviate that. In many respects the provinces will need to undertake some of that activity.

Being a fellow member of Parliament from northern Ontario, Mr. Speaker, you will be familiar with this. One of the innovative things that we have been able to do through FedNor is to help with a study that is leading to the establishment of a northern Ontario medical school. What that means is that we will be able to train our health care professionals in northern Ontario. What the evidence has demonstrated to us is that where people train is where they tend to practise. This is a major step forward in terms of ensuring that we have health care professionals in a rural area, in a northern area.

In closing, let me just say I am pleased that we have the opportunity to have this debate and that all members have an opportunity to help chart the course for the reform of health care. I would very much want to ensure that we undertake those issues that affect rural Canada in a way that makes sense to rural Canadians and to the communities of rural Canada.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, to continue in this vein, there are 4,100 communities. The way it works is this. We have a Speech from the Throne and we outline our objectives. That is followed by a budget. In that budget we will see exactly how we will pay for it, in a balanced way.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

The chap across the way says that it is already there. Well, I know he has to challenge sometimes to keep up with things so I will give him a hand with that. I imagine our television audience would also want to know this. I want to inform the House that there are 4,100 rural communities today that continue not to have access to high speed Internet. That diminishes their access to important things such as health care, education and lifelong learning and a competitive business environment.

That is why it is so important to have a Liberal government that understands there are differences between urban and rural Canada, that understands that if we are to be successful as a nation we need to have both a strong urban and rural component because we cannot move forward unless both parts of this nation are strong. We in rural Canada depend on urban Canada and urban Canada depends on rural Canada.

That is why I believe the Speech from the Throne paints a vision that would be good for Canada and good for Canadians.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate today. In looking at the time and realizing that we are in day six of the debate, we are close to the conclusion of the House's consideration of the motion in respect to the Speech from the Throne.

We have heard a lot of information, many points of view from all sides of the House about the Speech from the Throne and about the vision the government is putting forward to Canadians and about where we want to take the country over the next several months. It would be appropriate to take a moment to recap what was in the Speech from the Throne and to remind Canadians of the commitments and the ideas that were put forward in that document.

I should begin by making a point which perhaps has been lost a little bit, at least in the parts of the debate that I have heard. That was the commitment in the Speech from the throne to fiscal responsibility.

When the government came to office nine years ago, the country was in debt to the tune of $42 billion. Through the hard effort of Canadians from all walks of life, from all parts of the country, we now operate in a fiscal surplus. We have been able to pay down our debt.

One of the commitments that was made in the Speech from the Throne is that we would not go back into deficit, that we would not take the efforts that Canadians have put forward in all of those years and toss them aside. Yes, there are significant issues that we need to deal with as a government, significant issues that we need to deal with as a country, but we are determined to do it with the same fiscal prudence that has earmarked this government's administration over the last nine years.

I want to say to all Canadians that they can be assured that through the leadership of the Prime Minister, through the leadership of the Minister of Finance, of cabinet and of caucus, we will adhere to that principle.

There were a number of commitments and a number of important issues raised in the Speech from the Throne that we need to deal with as a nation and as Canadians.

Something which I believe will seize Canadians with debate in the not too distant future even more than it has over the last little while is the issue of health care. The Speech from the Throne talked about the issue of health care. It made some very important commitments. It talked about the process Roy Romanow has been undergoing for some time to make some suggestions about how we should reform health care, how we should make sure we have a health care system that is responsive to the needs of Canadians in the 21st century, and the types of things we need to do as the federal government, as provincial governments, and simply as Canadians to reform our health care system.

There were two very important commitments in the Speech from the Throne with respect to that. There was a commitment by the Prime Minister that he would bring together the first ministers from all the provinces and territories shortly in the new year after Mr. Romanow tables his report. They will discuss the actual content of the report and the types of strategies that ought to be undertaken to reform health care. That is the appropriate way to do it.

Health care is the responsibility of the provinces. Also there is a federal responsibility involved in it. Quite frankly, from Canadians' perspective, from what I have heard in my community and as I have travelled around the country, Canadians want all governments collectively to work together to resolve health care.

There was also another very important commitment in the Speech from the Throne. The Prime Minister said that after those consultations and those discussions with the provinces, we will make the necessary investments in order to have a sustainable health care system in the 21st century. That is something Canadians view as a priority and it was in the Speech from the Throne.

The second pillar that was discussed in the Speech from the Throne was Canada's place in the world. That is an important issue for Canadians. It is an important issue for the family of nations.

One of the commitments was that we would continue to work as we have in the past year in response to the tragic events of September 11 a year ago and that we would deal with security issues as we have in the last 13 months. We will work with our American allies both in terms of multilateral issues around the globe, but also in our bilateral issues dealing with issues on the border.

The Minister of Finance in his role with respect to security relationships with the United States signed a border protocol with Governor Ridge. It outlined many important steps that we would be undertaking in order to ensure not only that we have a secure border, because that is important, but also that we have a border that is effective in terms of the commerce that takes place between our two countries.

In talking about our place in the world an important component of it is the commitment to increase international assistance as a member of the family of nations. We are one of the family of nations that is fortunate in terms of the wealth we have been able to achieve as Canadians. We have a responsibility to others in the world who have not been as fortunate. Through our international aid program we are exercising that responsibility. I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne a commitment to continue to do that and in fact to continue to do it at increased levels.

The Speech from the Throne also spoke clearly to the issues surrounding the Africa agenda and making sure that we move forward with that.

The third pillar was in terms of the environment and a commitment to deal with those environmental challenges we face as Canadians. This is an important issue for all Canadians. It is a particularly important issue for rural Canadians as they deal with many of the issues as stewards of our natural environment. I was pleased to see the commitments. I was pleased to see the Prime Minister commit to the Kyoto accord.

We heard the opposition say that we need a made in Canada solution. I think I heard one of the members from Alberta say, “Kyoto isn't in Canada; it is in some far away country”.

We may have arrived at the objectives collectively as a group of nations. We may have met in Kyoto to come to the conclusion as to what those objectives will be. However the made in Canada part, the part that is essential, is how we go about achieving it in our nation. That is a made in Canada solution that will be made by the government. It will be made collectively in the House by Canadian parliamentarians through consultations and input from the provinces through consultations and input from business, from other organizations in society. Indeed it will be made collectively as Canadians.

It will be a made in Canada solution to achieve an objective and a goal that was collectively arrived at by the family of nations. That is an appropriate approach. Any suggestion that what we are going to do is something that is not a Canadian initiative is simply not accurate.

Also included in the Speech from the Throne was the issue of dealing with our children and those children who live in poverty and the importance as a government to take steps to alleviate child poverty.

One of the unique things the government has done was the creation of the national child benefit. That instrument has been very successful in alleviating poverty among children. It has not been eliminated. There is much that still needs to be done. There is more that needs to be accomplished, but it is a good initiative.

I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne that we are going to continue to build on that initiative. We are going to enrich the child benefit to make sure that even more and more Canadians have an opportunity to utilize and take advantage of that program. There are also commitments in terms of access to additional child care benefit and increasing it.

I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne, and I think I am probably joined by all members in the House, a commitment to increase criminal penalties for those who would abuse our children. I am sure that as that legislation comes forward from the Minister of Justice all members in the House will see that as an important legislative commitment that we need to deal with.

The Speech from the Throne also dealt with the issue of communities, the importance of having strong communities and the importance of ensuring that Canadians, whether they live in urban communities or in rural communities, have an opportunity for an increased standard of living and an improved quality of life. That was a clear and concise commitment in the Speech from the Throne. We are determined as a government to bring forward measures that will help us accomplish that objective. Some of those measures were suggested in the Speech from the Throne.

I was particularly pleased to see the commitment to a new national infrastructure program, a 10 year commitment to infrastructure for communities in things like transportation, environmental infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure. All of these are critical.

As I have travelled around the country in my role as Secretary of State for Rural Development, one of the things that municipal leaders have said to me was that although they were very appreciative of the government's infrastructure programs in the past, that it was absolutely necessary to have some certainty and some sort of clarity so they could see how they should budget in the future and how they should do their commitments.

That is why I think it is particularly important in the Speech from the Throne to see a 10 year commitment to an infrastructure program so we can work in partnership, where the opportunities present themselves, with provincial governments and the municipalities to do some long term planning and deal with some of the infrastructure deficit that exists in the country. I was particularly pleased, in my role as Secretary of State for Rural Development, to see a commitment to do some of this infrastucture in the rural parts of the country.

I should also say that I was pleased, in looking at the Speech from the Throne and hearing the Speech from the Throne, to see some very specific commitments in respect of rural Canada and the needs of rural Canada.

First, we saw a commitment to implement the agricultural policy framework and the related measures that would give rise to that policy framework. That is something that I know members on this side have worked hard to develop. It was something that I know members of the opposition have often said that we need a long term vision in agriculture and that we need to know where we are going in agriculture.

I was pleased to be with the Prime Minister this past June when he announced the $5.2 billion toward the agricultural policy framework and related measures, and particularly pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne a commitment that we would continue to implement that.

I was pleased to see the discussion about regional development agencies and the importance of changing the programming in our regional development agencies in a way that will deal with the knowledge-based economy, with innovation and with learning. I think that is an appropriate approach for our regional development agencies. That is particularly important for the rural components of the country. I am so pleased to see a commitment to deal with our regional development agencies.

The infrastructure program, as I mentioned, is one that will also have very significant and positive impacts on rural Canada.

One of the smaller mentions in the Speech from the Throne, but a very important one from a rural perspective, is the work on two very large projects in rural Canada that will create or have significant job creation opportunities and also add significantly to the economic well-being of the country. In the east, it will assist with the development of Voisey's Bay to make sure that we have an opportunity to see that project move forward, to see the wealth that will be created in an area of the country that has historically had some challenges in creating wealth, and to see the jobs that will flow out of that wealth creation. I am pleased to see that commitment in the Speech from the Throne.

I am pleased to see the commitment toward assisting with the development and construction of our northern pipeline. This will help create jobs and wealth in a part of the country that historically has had more difficulty in creating that wealth.

Another pillar in the Speech from the Throne is the commitments toward our aboriginal communities, something to which the government has long had a commitment and something to which I know the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has had a lifelong commitment. This is important, not just for Canada as a whole, but it has a particular resonance in rural Canada where many of our aboriginal communities are situated. We need to provide assistance and the legislative framework.

I was pleased when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tabled a bill last June in terms of governance, which will be brought back into the second session of Parliament. I think that is an important issue.

The Speech from the Throne also talks about rural issues and rural commitments. It is important for all members to understand, and I believe they do, that the challenges rural Canada faces are different than those faced by urban Canada, which is why it is particularly important that we see specific initiatives that are undertaken in respect to rural Canada.

If we think about those challenges, we have the issue of geography. One of the realities is that when we operate in rural Canada there is a great deal of geography. This is one of the reasons that many of us live in rural Canada. However that does create some challenges in terms of delivering government services and private sector services. Therefore programming has to be delivered in a rural context differently than in an urban context to deal with the issue of geography.

In terms of rural Canada we tend to have low population densities as compared to some of our large urban centres. That is an important difference. In a large urban centre where there are high population densities, the private sector may be willing to make those infrastructure investments totally on their own.

That same investment will happen in a rural area, particularly in terms of infrastructure, which all Canadians should have an opportunity to have access to. It is critical sometimes to have a private-public sector partnership to see those kinds of investments take place. That is why it is really important that we take into account that particular difference between our urban and rural areas and that we develop a policy that reflects those differences.

There is the whole issue of distance from markets. When we operate in a rural area very often there are larger distances to go to our marketplaces. I know members on the other side have talked about this, but when we want to encourage value adding to our natural resource industries we need to make sure that the distance to markets can be overcome so that these types of value added industries can be created in our rural communities.

So we often need to undertake policies in respect of, for instance, infrastructure to make sure we can overcome those distances. The initiative that the Minister of Industry announced not too long ago, the broadband initiative, will help ensure that there is broadband high speed Internet access to our rural communities.

[Northern Ontario, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the recent census indicated the importance of ensuring that northern Ontario provides to our young people the hope for an economic and social future. This is absolutely essential.

FedNor has worked hard over the past few years to create an environment within which the private sector can create wealth and create jobs.

To better refine our programming we are reaching out to the citizens of northern Ontario through an engagement process. This will culminate in a conference being held in Sault Ste. Marie from November 14 to 17 where we will hear the views of northern Ontarians. From there we will develop a federal action plan in terms of the types of initiatives we want to undertake in northern Ontario.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in debate on this emergency debate regarding agriculture. I should mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington who will be taking the second half of my time.

We have had an opportunity tonight to talk about the issues surrounding agriculture. I am a little bit concerned in hearing the debate as it has sort of unfolded over the last couple of hours. I suspect Canadians may be a little concerned over some of the things they have heard.

A large part of what the debate has been about is one member saying that another member did this, and another member saying, no, he did not do this. Another member says that so much has been spent and then another member says that nothing has been spent. The members then get off that particular type of debate and go into a philosophical debate.

Well, guess what? The Wheat Board is the worst thing that has ever happened to Canadian agriculture. This was said by the members over there. Then we have members over here and members over there saying that the Wheat Board is a necessary component of agriculture in western Canada. Then we have arguments about whether it should be in western Canada or in eastern Canada. And then we hear all the philosophical debates about money.

I hope the audience out there can hear the cackling that is going on in the House right now because that is the point I am trying to make. That is not the issue. That does not impress Canadians very much and I assure members that it does not impress producers at all.

The debate tonight has to be about some very basic and important things. Let me go over what I believe are some of the important issues.

First, let us be very clear, and I believe everybody in the House understands, that agricultural producers are critical to the future of this country. They are critical to the well-being of rural Canada. Rural Canada is critical to the well-being of this nation.

Rural Canada has 30% of our population. Twenty-five per cent of our gross domestic product, almost 25% of our employment and more than 40% of our trade surplus comes from rural Canada.

This is a nation that was founded upon and continues to depend upon our natural resource based industries, including agriculture. Our producers, as I said, are critical to this nation.

We understand as a government and we understand as members that if we are going to have a successful Canada then both component parts of this nation, both rural and urban Canada, need to be strong. We understand that and that is a basic tenet as to why we need to have a strong agricultural industry in this country. That is a basic understanding that we need to have and not the cackling that goes on from over there.

The second thing we understand to be important and critical is that although producers are critical to this nation, we also need to understand that our producers are indeed facing a range of significant challenges. Whether that has to do with issues surrounding climate, and the drought is an example of that; globalization, and the issues over trade are an example of that; the changing demographics that are occurring in our agricultural and rural communities; and the trend of urbanization.

However, beyond understanding those trends, what is important and what I believe Canadians want us to understand and what they want to hear from the House is that these are more than just theoretical problems and more than just ideas about what is causing the problem. These are challenges faced by real people and real families with real consequences.

Those individuals demand that we understand the impact they have not just on their businesses, although we need to understand that, but the impact they have on them as individuals and the impact on the communities that support them as individuals.

Third, I know that the opposition debates this, but the reality is there is action being taken. It is subject to debate as to whether it is the type of action everybody would agree to, but there is action being taken. There is money that is being put toward agriculture. I do not really think that Canadians care when or how it was announced so I will just recap what the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister announced in June in terms of what the agricultural budget is going to look like over the next five years.

The current base income budget, the money put toward income for the next five years, is $3 billion. The APF income measures announced is an additional $2.5 billion. The APF programs that go beyond simply the income measures is $900 million. Short term risk measures over the next two years announced is $1.2 billion. Other measures which the minister announced at that time is $590 million. Some $8.1 billion is being put toward agriculture because we understand the importance of that industry and we understand that producers are facing challenges today.

There is a fourth point that we understand very clearly which is, the work is not completed. This is a work in progress. I heard members on the other side talk about nothing being addressed in the Speech from the Throne, that there was no commitment, no understanding. The idea that this is a work in progress, that there are things being done for Canadian producers, that there need to be more things done for Canadian producers is clearly in the Speech from the Throne. I want to quote what it says in terms of agriculture:

The government will implement the recently announced agricultural policy framework and related measures to promote innovation in that key sector, which is vital to rural Canada and all Canadians.

In the Speech from the Throne there is a very clear commitment that we have begun a process with that announcement that was made in June with the dollars that we talked about that are being spent. There is no idea that we have completed the task and no pretending that all the problems are solved or that all the solutions have been developed. Rather, there is an understanding that we are making those investments that are critical to Canadian agriculture and that we are indeed developing and continue to develop responses to the issues that face Canadian producers.

I have heard the other side say on many occasions, in fact I was shocked when I heard an NDP member today actually say that we should not have a long term policy for agriculture. I could not believe that he said that. We heard for months and years from over there that we need a long term policy. Well, we have produced a long term policy, the agricultural policy framework.

Let me recap those four basic points. Agriculture is critical to this country. Producers do need help. Help is being provided but we do not intend to accept that the job is complete. There is work that continues to be done. I and my colleagues on this side, and I suspect colleagues on all sides, understand those basic tenets, understand those basic component parts of this debate.

Collectively, and this is what agriculture producers want to hear, we are committed to ensure that we continue to undertake measures that will address the issues that are facing our producers so that they continue to have a strong industry, that the rural communities that support them continue to be strong, and that this nation continues to benefit on what agricultural producers in this country have done since the founding of this nation.