Alex Atamanenko

[Petitions, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from over 125 people in my riding who are against the proposed Security and Prosperity Partnership.

They call upon the Government of Canada to stop further implementation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America with the United States and Mexico until there is a democratic mandate from the people of Canada, parliamentary oversight and consideration of its profound consequences on Canada's existence as a sovereign nation and its ability to adopt autonomous and sustainable economic, social and environmental policies.

This is only a small part of all of those people who are contacting my office hoping that our Parliament will do something.

[Petitions, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from friends in Nelson, Castlegar, Grand Forks and the Slocan Valley.

It calls upon the Canadian government to establish a department of peace that will reinvigorate Canada's role as a global peacebuilder and will have as a top priority the abolition of nuclear weapons. The reasons given are that 50 of today's modern nuclear weapons could kill 200 million people, that there is no medical response to the effects of a nuclear war and that prevention is the only answer.

[Petitions, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions today.

The first petition has over 125 signatures and comes from Stanley Humphries Secondary School in Castlegar, a school in which I taught before retiring from teaching.

These dynamic young people are calling upon the government to support the NDP's three step plan in Darfur; namely, to support UN Security Council Resolution 1769 by committing troops and resources; by investing in the long term development of a civil society and the peace process in Darfur; and the divestment of all Canadian corporations that trade with Sudan.

This is an interesting and dynamic group of young people who have taken it upon themselves to circulate this petition in their school.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to appear again in front of this full House of all my colleagues who have come to listen to this speech. I realize it is standing room only. I will try not to be it too long because the time is getting late. I will leave the eloquence to those who spoke before me.

Before I talk a bit about my reaction to this bill, I would like to underline what my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska said about our committee.

The motion he had today was very logical. It was something to the effect that we ask the chairman and the committee to respect all of the recommendations that were voted upon.

We underline once again for the government and the minister that these are important recommendations and it would seem kind of bizarre that the government side, the Conservatives, voted against this motion. I did not quite understand that but being new in politics there are a lot of things I do not understand.

I kind of looked at this as an insurance. We have this bill today but we have this insurance to see that all those recommendations are followed. Actually, had we acted and followed all those recommendations in due time, we probably would not be here speaking tonight. Nevertheless, I thank the minister for his action.

I had a conference call on Friday with him, the deputy minister and Mr. Clare Schlegel, the president of the Canadian Pork Council, who was also on the line. As we talked, the minister outlined what he was proposing. My basic question was for Mr. Schlegel and I asked him what he thought. He said that it was a good bill and that it was a good move. I told him that was fine with me because we were there for the producers. The minister had been in contact with someone from the livestock and cattle sectors and they said that it was a good move.

In a sense, I am glad that we are finally moving quickly, that we do have the political will to move and that we have the support of all members in the House. This is a cooperative effort.

Since I got into this business, I have always maintained that I do not care who gets the credit as long as we do something and the fact is that something is getting done. Election or no election, so be it, but at least we are getting out there to help the producers.

However, it is important, as we talk and as we listen to this debate, to put this into perspective. The crisis did not start yesterday. The crisis did not start two weeks ago and we have a reaction today.

We heard from the cattle producers and the pork producers late last November and there was indeed a crisis. We knew all along but we were wondering what steps were being taken and finally we had an emergency meeting. As a result of that meeting, the committee made recommendations, which all parties supported. It would have been logical for those recommendations to have been followed as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, as often is the case, nothing really happened. A lot of words were said and we got the spin that a lot of help was getting out to folks but when they came back to our meeting in January, we heard that this was not the case and that they were still hurting.

There were press conferences and press releases. I wrote a couple of letters to the minister. I must say that when I write these letters I do them in a cooperative tone. It was just a letter telling the minister about the meeting we had and that I would like to once again emphasize that there is a problem and I would like to see what action we are taking.

Many of us asked questions. I asked a question in the House on February 1, which reads:

Mr. Speaker, pork and cattle producers told the agriculture committee that the government has basically abandoned them. Some have called today, February 1, black Friday and others are calling the government's funding promises a cruel joke.

Farms are foreclosing, rural communities are dying and yet no immediate assistance has been committed.

Then my final statement was this. When is this going to end? When is the government going to stop leading Canada down the road to agricultural suicide, which is the term I used?

As we can see, there was a cooperative approach. There was pressure, press releases, questions and the debate that my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska was able to get in the House. Then we laid out what was happening in consultation with our friends in the pork and cattle industry.

It is important perhaps to underline and note some of the correspondence that had gone back and forth over these last few months. I will quote from a letter from the president of the Canadian Pork Council, Mr. Clare Schlegel, to the minister on January 23. He stated:

Over the last four months we have been working with you and your officials to find solutions to the “perfect storm” facing hog producers across Canada. After much debate within our industry, we put forward a series of reasonable requests to respond to the financial dilemma. We do appreciate the speeding up of payments within CAIS or (AgriStability). But, as you are aware, that alone does not come close to responding adequately to this crisis. This has been pointed out to you in the cash flow statement when we met in December.

He went on to say this:

We had asked for unsecured loans to help producers facing serious liquidity problems. We recognize that a loan must be secured, and we have changed our request accordingly. We need your department to immediately provide loans that come after those of secured creditors.

In its current form, the advance payments program is not very useful, because it only serves to put off current loan contracts. The program should be significantly changed and most of the changes would be legislative or regulatory. Could that be done quickly?

He asked, “Could that be done quickly?” He continued:

In addition, none of the suggested improvements to the AgriStability program have been introduced, except for faster payments. This is threatening the survival of some of our best businesses.

I want to emphasize that he said, “This is threatening the survival of some of our best businesses”. The letter went on:

As you know, the Canadian pork industry is a modern, world-class industry. But our future is problematic because of the strength of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. Pork producers are prepared to adapt to the new reality, but they cannot react fast enough.

Mr. Schlegel finished his letter by saying:

Difficult decisions are being made now on the farm. False hope does not help, as your announcement before Christmas created. While many of the provinces have stepped in with individual programs, they await your leadership. It is time for the Canadian government to step up to the plate.

We see this happening little by little. As I go through the file and I see what has happened over the last few months, I wonder why it has taken this time.

I have a very high regard for the officials that work in the Department of Agriculture. They are professionals. They can get the job done. The minister himself told me, “We are not going to go political with this. We are not going to tie it to the budget. Let us do it quickly so that just in case there is an election my officials in March can get some money out to farmers”. We know that the minister can act quickly. The reason this has not been happening is not because of them. It is that somewhere along the line these quick and important decisions were not being made.

There are a couple of points in the provisions of this new bill which I think are really important. For example, the bill expands the circumstances for which an emergency advance can be issued to include severe economic hardship if the Ministers of Agriculture and Finance jointly agree that the hardship exists.

This is a tremendous point. It gives a little flexibility to the minister to say that there are economic hardships. In this case it is the Canadian dollar, but whether it is a rise in the biofuel industry or the world situation, at least the decision can be made to start getting some help flowing to our farmers.

The interesting thing is that the farmers are not asking for aid and handouts. All they are asking for is a little help to give them some security and stability so that they can get loans and weather this perfect storm. They do not want their farms foreclosed. They want to continue to farm until the world situation improves and there is a better situation at all levels.

On November 15 a communiqué came out from the Canadian Pork Council and I will quote a couple of paragraphs. I said that I did not want to speak too long. I want my colleagues to have a chance to go home early and get up bright and early tomorrow so we can get on with another day. The communiqué says:

Canadian hog producers are facing a financial crisis that is unprecedented in terms of cause and unparalleled in terms of negative outlook. Simply put, prices are collapsing, input costs have increased dramatically and cash losses are mounting at such astonishing rates that entire communities including producers and input suppliers face financial ruin. Most disturbing is the observation that no positive market correction in the foreseeable future seems apparent.

That is an interesting point. We should emphasize that for those who think that the market can regulate everything, that the market will make sure that everything works out well for producers. At times we see that is not the case. I firmly believe that we need an intervention from government, not necessarily in the form of handouts, but in this case we need to assist our primary producers.

The second paragraph says:

The situation is critical. The rapid increase in the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. is having an effect that is akin to a major system shock. For 25 years, Canadian pork producers faced a steadily declining dollar. They responded by building an industry that became a world leader in terms of exports and overall competitiveness. That advantage has vanished in a few short months driven by forces completely outside their control.

We talked about the pork industry, but the conditions are relatively the same for the cattle industry. We have probably the best producers in the world. They are faced with hardships because of the rise in the dollar, because of what is happening in the world and also because of the biofuel industry. We have to come to grips with those problems.

If prices are increasing and helping one segment of the agricultural community, which is good from the point of view of agriculture, then what about the effect it is having on another sector? Somehow we have to mitigate that. By working together we will probably be able to do that.

I and my party support Bill C-44. It is a positive step. I am a little disappointed that we have not acted on all those recommendations. I hope that as a result of our support for the bill and as a result of the motion that we had in committee today, we will see quick action by government to implement all the recommendations so we can help producers across the country who are hurting. They deserve no less.

[Canada Grain Act, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that sometimes the member is criticized because he is from Prince Edward Island, but I would like to assure the House that the member as a past president of the National Farmers Union and also as an MP has criss-crossed the country probably hundreds of times and he understands the agriculture situation in this country.

I agree with what he is saying. This is a flawed bill. It is a flawed process that will gradually take power away from farmers. We have to look at it very carefully.

With regard to missing in action, the government could get back into action by consulting with all groups in this country, not just with its friends, not just with the ones who support its particular ideological point of view.

As parliamentarians sometimes we have to rise above our ideological differences. We all have them; that is why we belong to different political parties. We have to look at the interests of farmers. Maybe the minister and the government could have another consultation with all groups, not just the government's friends, but groups such as the National Farmers Union and others, just to see what farmers are saying.

The letters that we get are not form letters. They are from people who are concerned. Sometimes I get the feeling that the minister and the government just are not paying attention. We certainly get that feeling in regard to the pork and cattle industry where, to this very day, there are people who are not getting the assistance that they need.

[Canada Grain Act, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as for this debate on the Wheat Board and the position we are getting from the government, we have heard it over and over again. The fact remains that there are many hundreds and thousands of farmers who do support the system, the Canadian Wheat Board, the way it functions today, and they have a democratically elected board of directors. Any changes made to that organization have to be made by farmers, not by the kind of heavy-handed approach that the government is taking.

[Canada Grain Act, February 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to have this debate. The Canadian Grain Commission is the result of an act of 1912, which established three grain commissioners to oversee the regulation of the movement of grain from the country elevator to the point where it was loaded for export or processed in Canada. It has functioned in the interest of farmers. One of the main reasons it exists is to retain quality, so the wheat we send overseas has a stamp of quality from Canada.

Today, approximately 700 dedicated employees arbitrate disagreements over grain and weight, inspect grain passing in and out of terminal elevators, license and regulate elevators and grain companies and, most important, administer the Canadian grading system. Canadian grains are trusted and respected throughout the world due to the honesty and thoroughness of the Canadian Grain Commission.

I point out that we have specialists, people who have studied and learned what they are doing, working on behalf of farmers in Canada. Unfortunately, the way the bill stands now approximately 200 people stand to lose their jobs in the name of deregulation and privatization. That is one thing of which we have to be aware.

Grades like number 1 or number 2 Canadian western red spring wheat correspond to established specifications based on measures such as a percentage in the shipment of damaged or broken kernels or other kinds of seeds and of foreign matter such as dirt, as well as moisture content and the weight of grain. The grades assigned by the Grain Commission are under the control of the western and eastern grain standards committees, which meet and make decisions about any changes or additions to the grades that may be necessary because of changing market and crop conditions. Each year they also establish standards samples for each grade.

I mention that to underline the fact that the Grain Commission has a useful function. Any time we want to change or modify the way it works, we have to tread very carefully.

Bill C-39, as it stands, has a potential threat to Canadian grain producers. We know the Grain Commission has served as an independent referee to settle disputes between Canadian grain producers and the powerful companies that buy and export. It is no secret that our system of doing things in Canada is under attack. When I posed the question to our chief negotiator at the WTO last week during committee, he admitted, for example, that there was pressure internationally for us to do away with our state trading institutions, namely the Wheat Board. That same pressure exists to modify or to eventually make the Grain Commission not as serving as it is today. We have to be careful.

The commission has also served as the body that determines the amounts farmers are paid based on the Grain Commission determination of the weight and quality of grain before it goes to market. These roles would dramatically diminish if Bill C-39 becomes law, leaving producers newly disadvantaged in their dealings with grain companies when it comes to determining grain quantity and quality.

The producer can hire a private company to grade and weigh the grain even though no such companies exist today. The bill would also expose grain producers to financial harm in the event of a grain buyer bankruptcy or refusal to pay.

The feeling among many people who are in the business is that this will also undermine Canada's international reputation as an exporter of top quality grain. For example, the proposed elimination of inward inspection will likely result in diminished quality of Canadian grain exports. Currently, inward inspection by the Canadian Grain Commission ensures grains of different quality can be segregated to protect higher grades from being diluted by lower quality grain.

It took me a while to wrap my head around this, but I understand that when the grain goes to the elevator, for example, in Vancouver, which I have visited a number of times before with my farmer uncle from Saskatchewan, that the grain is put in bins and that quality is retained. The quality is there because of outward inspection when the grain is loaded on to ships.

Therefore, the way I understand it, there is the possibility, if there is no inward and outward inspection, there could be a mixture decreasing the quality of the grain, tarnishing Canada's reputation as an exporter of quality grain.

There is something called kernel visual distinguishability, or KVD, which is performed by the Grain Commission with this inward inspection. The bill proposes to do away with this.

I refer to an article by Mr. Wade Sobkowich, who is the executive director of the Western Grain Elevators Association. In general, the feeling is that we have to be very careful before doing away with KVD. Technologies are in the process of being worked on and finalized that can replace this famous black box, which we were told about at committee. However, to date nothing really exists to replace KVD.

Right now only certain varieties are eligible for a particular class and KVD means that a trained person can differentiate between the classes through visual inspection. Any grain that contains an excess of varieties outside of the intended class is downgraded to the Canada feed grain. In other words, if I understand this correctly, by having KVD, we are able to retain, with qualified people who understand it, a quality in the grain we export.

KVD is a consideration used by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency when deciding what varieties should be registered.

The biggest problem, according to Mr. Sobkowich, with removing KVD is the obvious one. It exists to protect the farmer because it allows settlement at the time of delivery.

Just as an aside, one of the problems with the bill, which goes contrary to one of the recommendations we made in committee, is it does not put the farmer first and foremost. The farmer is lumped into all the other segments of the agriculture industry.

Therefore, KVD protects the grain handler because the certificate final is based on a visual grading system. It protects the marketer by giving assurances that the customer is receiving what he or she has ordered. It protects the end use customers by providing confidence that they are receiving grain that meets the processing requirements.

The Western Grain Elevators Association is not saying that we have to keep KVD forever, that this is ingrained in stone. What it is saying is let us be very careful. Let us tread lightly. Let us ensure we do not replace something until we have something better to act in the interest of farmers.

What has been happening with the government is it appears to be willing to act very quickly and often recklessly with regard to the Wheat Board and the Grain Commission. Yet it seems to drag its feet when it comes to immediate aid that is needed for pork and cattle producers, which we saw during the debate. Somehow the government can act quickly if it wants, but if it does not want to, then we have the spin that it cannot get aid to people right away. Therefore, we have to tread very carefully.

So why is Bill C-39 flawed? Instead of having a study done by a parliamentary committee, the government used a report prepared by a polling firm whose very existence depends on contracts from government and large corporations.

COMPAS, which conducted the study that led to Bill C-39, had a favourable—I repeat, favourable—bias for deregulation and privatization right from the start.

So I ask the following question: how can a firm conduct a study if it has a favourable bias for deregulation from the get go. When a study is done, it is expected to be based on an examination of both sides of the issue.

Moreover, due to lack of funding, the Canadian Grain Commission has not been able to fulfill its mandate, and these failures are being used as an excuse to deregulate or privatize services to farmers.

What we have here is a ploy that involves cutting funding. We have seen the same thing in the health system. Then the government claims that the system is not working, but the reason for that is the lack of funding. If one looks at the commission's recommendations, one will see that one of these recommendations is to allocate sufficient funding to the commission so it can do its job properly.

Again, I want to stress the fact that this bill benefits large corporations rather than farm families. If we pass it in its current form, farmers will no longer have their say.

I will continue reading from a press release by the National Farmers Union, which states:

Many of those recommendations [in the report] would accelerate the economic leverage of large grain companies and railways at the expense of farmers, according to the NFU. “The mandate of the [Canadian Grain Commission], since the Act was first implemented in 1912, has recognized that farmers have less power in the marketplace and need certain protections,” said Boehm. He noted the Compas report specifically recommends “narrowing the mandate to protect producers' rights from a broad over-arching principle, down to some very specific limits.”

Boehm refuted the claim by the authors of the Compas report that they had heard no positive feedback about the CGC during their consultation process. “Such a claim is categorically not accurate,” said Boehm. “Particularly given our direct experiences at the public meetings in Saskatoon and Regina. Grain producers at both those meetings unequivocally expressed support for the CGC, particularly the role of the Assistant Commissioners.”

I would like to take an aside here and tie this in with what we have been experiencing with the whole debate on the Canadian Wheat Board. We have been told time and time again by the government that we have to move ahead for marketing choice, that we have to dismantle single desk, and that farmers are wanting this choice at this time. Yet in my office I have over 700 individual letters from people, some handwritten, some typed, which say that we have to be careful. These people say they do not want to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board and the single desk.

Then there is the spin we get from the government, which is that all these letters came from the same fax. Certainly. They are from members of the National Farmers Union. The National Farmers Union provides a service to its members. A member sends a letter and the NFU faxes it to me and other MPs. These are not form letters. These are individual letters. There are many gut-wrenching letters asking what the government is doing and why it is moving so quickly to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. I would say that this is the same sentiment that there is out there among many farmers in regard to the Canadian Grain Commission.

I will move on to an article from the Winnipeg Free Press, in which we see that the minister has decided not to work with the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board and is actually threatening to introduce legislation, I think he said within 10 days, if he does not get his way.

Since I became a member of the agriculture committee and have taken up this file, I have always thought how nice it would be if the current minister--or the previous minister--would sit down with those elected officials who are there on behalf of farmers. It would be nice if he would sit down with all farmers' organizations, especially an organization such as the National Farmers Union, which represents thousands and thousands of farmers.

The minister could sit down, hammer out a solution and try to work with the system as it is. As we can see, the Wheat Board is trying to introduce new programs. The majority of the board's directors want the federal government and the malt and barley industry “to give their new CashPlus barley marketing initiative a chance”. As well, states the Winnipeg Free Press article, “The program seeks to put more money into farmers' hands sooner than with the current pooling system”.

So it is not as if the Wheat Board directors are stuck in a time zone. They understand what is happening, but at the same time they want to ensure that the market power stays with the farmers and they are not at the mercy of the big multinationals.

It is disturbing when we hear a minister give ultimatums. I will quote him from the article in the Winnipeg Free Press:

“They can lead, follow or get the hell out of the way,” he said.

What is that? What kind of a statement is that from the Minister of Agriculture of our country?

Now we will move on. Yesterday I received a letter from the president of the National Farmers Union, who was extremely upset over the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture in debate the other night.

It is incredible. I will quote what he is saying:

One of your other defamatory allegations in the same emergency debate is that acting as the President of the National Farmers Union, I have “disappeared on this issue [the CWB] this year”. Again, although you know this to be opposite to the truth (I have attached my recent press releases on the CWB issue as you are pretending that you haven't seen them), you seem to think you can mislead your fellow members of the House of Commons, and this is a further disgrace to yourself and your party.

In the last paragraph, he poses a question to the parliamentary secretary:

Do you have the integrity required to stand in the House of Commons and apologize to your colleagues and then make a further apology to me for your unsubstantiated, defamatory, and incorrect remarks?

I will pose the question to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Canadian Wheat Board: does he have the integrity to do this?

I hope that when we come back to the House he in fact will stand up and apologize, because it is time to work in a spirit of cooperation. Farmers want to work in a spirit of cooperation with the government. The government is doing some good things. It is not a time for confrontation.

It is not a time for shenanigans, as we saw yesterday in committee when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture tried to stop debate on Bill C-33 and rush it through, back to the House, even though he knew witnesses were lined up to be heard on this important issue. The issue of biofuels is not something that we just move through. It has to be looked at and we must at least put on the record that there are concerns.

Thankfully we have a committee chairman with integrity who stood up and made the right decision. I would like to applaud him for that.

In the minutes I have remaining, I would like to quote from a letter dated January 18 from the organization called Save My Canadian Wheat Board:

[Bill] C-39 includes some of the amendments proposed in the review and is sure to cause further controversy. For one, it proposes to remove the phrase from the act that requires the [Canadian Grain Commission] to regulate the entire grain industry “in the interests of grain producers”. Instead of the focus of the act being the protection and promotion of the interests of grain producers, the interests of producers that would be protected by the act are spelled out specifically and narrowly.

That is just one example from friends of the group, Save My Canadian Wheat Board. Further on, the letter states:

Likely to be highly controversial, and certainly not recommended by the 2006 review, [Bill] C-39 removes the requirement that companies wishing to be licensed by the [Canadian Grain Commission] as primary elevators must post adequate security to cover potential losses farmers may incur if the company goes bankrupt. The security posted by companies in the past has not always been adequate, but it has certainly protected farmers from huge losses in some cases.

I would like to once again emphasize that we have to take the precautionary approach before we move quickly. Often the government has not done that in dealing with health and with the environment and now in dealing with the lives of farmers and our grain industry.

The precautionary approach means that we tread very carefully before we move in to throw something out and bring in something new when we are not quite certain what the future will bring. This is especially so in light of the fact that today in the world there is this thrust, this feeling, in regard to Canada that other countries and the WTO want us to do away with any protection we have for our farmers. That is a threat not only to the Canadian Wheat Board, but also to supply management. We can see it.

I would like to conclude by saying that the bill as it currently stands certainly does not receive my support or the support of my party. I hope we have a chance to look at it and turn it into a bill that reflects the interests of all farmers in Canada.

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for what he had to say.

That is certainly the theme of tonight's debate. There have been promises that things would get better. Producers have been told just to wait and things would get better. But the situation is not improving. That is a fact. Farmers want help now and not just cash. They want to be entitled to loans, first of all, so that they can survive this crisis.

I think therefore that the email my colleague received reflects the mood all across Canada. I know that my colleague from Timmins—James Bay had similar discussions with his farmers and producers. I know we heard the same thing in our committee meetings and I know it is the same thing we are hearing and seeing in British Columbia, where I am from.

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his compliments and also for his question.

Where I come from there is quite a movement for food security. People are coming together to work with farmers to produce food locally.

Unfortunately, for many of the small farmers in my area, beef producers, sheep producers and poultry producers, the current British Columbia cut meat regulations are impeding the farmer from slaughtering and selling to the public, so we are trying to work around that.

This is a regulation imposed by the province as a result of national standards and pressure from the WTO, so people who are working in the community are trying to work around that by building local abattoirs.

The point is that I have never heard that in my riding. There is a move even to grow wheat in the Creston Valley so that we can become more self-sufficient with this 100-mile diet, so we do not have to bring in wheat and spend all that money on transportation from the Prairies, and we can become more sufficient in the Kootenay area where I come from.

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a question, so I will get to it. First of all, we have heard this argument before from the government side. “Well, you are from Prince Edward Island, what do you know about the Wheat Board?” “You are from Quebec, what do you know about the Wheat Board?” “Or, you are from British Columbia.”

Well, I will tell the member something. We hear from farmers. If the hon. member would like to come to my office, I will show him letters, individual letters that people have written. If he wants a record of the phone calls that we have had, the people we have talked to, and the trips that we have made, we will certainly share that with him.

As far as me personally, in farming, I can tell the member this. When I was this high, I was in Saskatchewan and I was driving a tractor with my uncle. I know what it is like to combine, and I know what it is like to swath. I have been on the farm, so I have an idea of what is going on.

Members of the opposition, we do represent farmers in this country. Let us not forget that.

The other thing in regard to the first ministers meeting, I appreciate those comments that Mr. Friesen made. I think that is good. I think it is a great idea that they were satisfied at the first ministers meeting, but if everything was so good then why did those people come before our committee last month and why were some of these people who are farmers, who have farms, and who are in charge of associations almost in tears? That would be how I would answer that question. Why were they there?