Bev Shipley

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that when we got in, the money was not necessarily designated. We were the ones who delivered it.

However, the member talks about money. He says that the eight proposals are not countervailable. I suspect we would have to look at that. It may be a personal opinion, but I am not sure.

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse. I will not take up much time because we are running against the clock.

Tonight everyone acknowledges that we have a crisis on our hands in terms of agriculture. When we look at the futures in the hog industry, as one individual said, in beef we can see a light coming, but I am not so sure it is not a train, but in terms of the markets in the pork industry, we can see a light coming and that is an improved market. We have to work toward that.

I farm. I come from Middlesex County in Ontario. It is one of the most productive areas in agriculture. Having the same background as my colleagues across the way, it is important to recognize that the significance of agriculture in this country is second to none in terms of the security of it. With that, we need to work together.

As my colleague from Huron—Bruce indicated earlier, we had a program that was working well in agriculture. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to dissolve that program. The NISA program and the market revenue within the provinces were working well. Then we got stuck with the CAIS program, which works well for some. The problem is that is a program that is not fair. Some people get it and other farmers cannot seem to counter it.

When we indicated we would get out of it, that was a strong move and an indication by the farmers that they did not want it. What we found out, though, is that we needed the support of the provinces to get out of it. Support from the provinces to lead Canada away from that type of a program was not there. We have been able to bring in agri-invest, which is a contributory program with a $600 million kickstart that began this year. There are good programs on the way.

I want to emphasize that we cannot look at just what we have on our plate today. This is an emergency debate tonight, but it is also about sustaining an industry. When I talk to farmers, one of the things they tell me is not to bring in a program to assist them that will countervail them. As we go back to look at ad hoc financing and programs for agriculture, that is one of the issues: money is just thrown at it. My colleague from Malpeque is always on about where is the cash. Well, cash is not always the answer if it is going to countervail farmers. I know there is the theatrics of it all, but I also know he is very sincere about the agriculture industry.

We have to put our heads together and work with the minister to make sure we have a program that is going to sustain our industry for a long time. It is always easy to criticize, but we have to look back and see that it is always cyclical in agriculture. I have always said it is hard to get agriculture running on all eight cylinders.

Earlier tonight it was mentioned that during the last 13 or 14 years, 75,000 farmers have left. It is not just an issue right now. It has been an issue in the past and we need to figure out how we are going to sustain it for a long period of time. The people on my side, along with the people involved with agriculture, are about getting solutions, which is why we had this debate tonight.

I am going to cut off my speech here because I want my colleague to have a few minutes. If there is time at the end, I would be glad to take a question.

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for West Nova for his comments, because many of them are true in terms of the significance of agriculture. I believe, as I think he does, that the sovereignty of agriculture is as important to this country as any other factor in it, whether it is our military, defence or anything else.

A nation has to be able to feed itself. Because of that, I believe we have to work, all parties, with our minister to get through a very complex issue. If it were not complex, it would have been fixed many times in the past. It would have been fixed back in the BSE crisis. It would have been fixed in some of the other crises that we have had.

Not only has our government done a lot, but we also need some help to know where to go with the next step, not only from our producers but through what my colleague might suggest. I would ask him if he has some other creative ideas or solutions, something we can look at that can take us forward for the long term also. This is not just about the short term. My producers are saying to me that they are expecting not $50 a hog but something that will make them sustainable over a period of time.

[Afghanistan, February 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this government will not waver in its support for our brave men and women in Afghanistan. The Bloc and the NDP want the government to withdraw the troops. They seem to have no idea what this would mean.

As part of the Afghan compact, Canada is committed to helping with the development until 2011. The Manley report clearly states, “fostering development and improving governance cannot proceed without security”.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence tell the House what the disastrous consequences of a complete withdrawal would mean to the development in Afghanistan?

[International Aid, February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize International Development Week.

Canada's government is making a difference in the lives of people around the world.

Because of Canada, 83% of Afghans have access to basic health care.

Because of Canada, more than seven million Afghan children will receive polio vaccinations.

Because of Canada, there are an estimated 9,000 teachers in Afghanistan, 4,000 of whom are women.

Canada is also making a difference in Africa. Last November the Prime Minister announced $105 million for the initiative to “Save a Million Lives”.

Along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we will train 40,000 health care workers. That means treatment for malaria, tuberculosis and HIV-AIDS.

Canadians truly are improving the lives of people around the globe.

[Canada Marine Act, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to have the opportunity to elaborate on certain aspects and provisions of Bill C-23. Specifically, I would like to focus on the impact of the proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act on Canadian port authorities.

We have entered a new era obviously in global trade. The patterns of our trade partnerships and relationships continue to change with the growth of our overseas markets, and that has been illustrated in earlier comments.

Canada must work to position itself strategically with east-west trade routes, routes that by their very nature require the transport of goods by marine mode.

New realities are upon us including the reality that marine based trade is becoming more and more important to our economy in terms of volume and the value of goods.

Our ability to accommodate this trade is integral to tapping the opportunities being generated by the ever-expanding markets. Ensuring that appropriate port infrastructure and the intermodal connections exist are crucial to allow for the increase in the volume of goods to flow unimpeded.

Not only does Canada have the opportunity to directly grow its Asian trade relationships but the prospects of developing Canadian gateways and corridors as the pre-eminent transportation routes into the heart of North America will result in numerous value added initiatives translating into long term high paying jobs.

In short, if Canada does not have the necessary infrastructure in place to accept the North American bound trade, it will go elsewhere and the spin-off opportunities will obviously be lost.

Since their inception, the 19 Canadian port authorities that form the backbone of the national port system have been self-sufficient entities that have effectively used their own revenues and borrowings to finance investments in port infrastructure; in other words, building the port capacity that is necessary for security trade growth with overseas markets.

On the whole our port authorities have been successful in pursuing new investments and have been very creative in the partnerships and financial arrangements that have made a large number of infrastructure projects possible.

Our ports have been able to maintain growth due to good management practices and without access to the federal treasury which aligns with the original objectives of the Canada Marine Act. However, the global economic realities of today are not the same as when the Canada Marine Act came into existence in 1998.

During the period that the Canada Marine Act was being developed national economic priorities reflected deficient deficit reduction. Our principal trade focus was with the United States, global logistics changes were in their infancy, and the federal government had minimal involvement in strategic infrastructure investments.

In the last decade, however, various federal funding programs related to infrastructure have been created. The recently announced building Canada fund includes $2.1 billion for gateways and border crossings as well as $1 billion for the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. Within all of these strategies and initiatives it is clear that Canadian port authorities have a critical role to play.

Today there is significant pressure, especially on our west coast, to do more to accommodate growing maritime traffic. Canada's bilateral trade with China has increased 500% in the last 10 years. From 2001 to 2006 Canada's exports and imports with China recorded an average annual growth of 12% and 22% respectively.

Some experts are forecasting that container movement at west coast ports will quadruple by 2020. In terms of the time required to ensure that appropriate port related infrastructure is in place to handle this traffic 13 years is an extremely short period of time when we are dealing with port authorities.

Most of this container traffic represents inbound consumer goods, although Canada's booming energy sector and expanding Asian economies are increasing the demand for Canada's energy products and other commodities. Between 1996 and 2006, marine exports to China almost tripled to reach $7 billion.

Canada's west coast ports are planning to invest over $1 billion themselves in the next 10 to 15 years in order to address issues of capacity, including capacity for bulk and liquid bulk exports. However, given the forecast of trade growth within the Asian economies, it is unclear whether these investments by the ports alone will be sufficient to maintain Canada's market share of the anticipated traffic.

While the Canada Marine Act governs several components of our national port system, the proposed changes outlined in Bill C-23 will most profoundly affect Canada Port Authorities. There are several important amendments proposed to the Canada Marine Act; however, the cornerstone of Bill C-23 is a change contemplated in section 25 that would give port authorities the same ability to access federal funding as other transportation infrastructure providers.

The federal government recognizes the need to provide our ports with additional flexibility so that investments in important infrastructure may be made to meet new opportunities. The proposed amendment to section 25 of the Canada Marine Act would remove the existing legislative barrier that prohibits Canada Port Authorities from accessing contribution programs for infrastructure projects.

Access to contribution programs would place Canada Port Authorities on an equal footing with other major infrastructure providers and better reflect the government's current approach to financial investments, an approach which recognizes that from time to time a case may be made for federal investment that is in the public interest and that positions Canada within international trade dynamics, but in such a way that the commercial spirit and independence of the port authorities are not compromised.

The proposed access to contribution programs reflects the priorities of the government and will be focused on capital costs of infrastructure projects, environmental sustainability and security initiatives. Certainly in terms of security funding, these amendments are required to allow a continuation of contributions to ports, which as of the end of this month will no longer be provided under the Marine Transportation Security Act.

Bill C-23 also recognizes the diversity of port operations across the country, including the inherent role of some port authorities within gateway and corridor frameworks and the need to move these ports with significant revenue generating power closer to a self-governing borrowing regime.

In this regard, ports that achieve $25 million in operating revenues for three consecutive years will have the choice of moving to a new tiered structure under which there will be no aggregate borrowing limit. Rather, these ports would be subject to a code of borrowing established in their letters patent and a board-approved borrowing policy to reflect the requirements of the code.

This structure will result in more comprehensive reporting requirements to ensure borrowings are compatible with the policy and the code, but will also allow much greater flexibility to borrow according to the market conditions in order to address time-sensitive opportunities.

For those ports that are not subject to the new borrowing regime, it is important to note that, as a parallel policy initiative, guidelines have been developed that are designed to significantly shorten and clarify the borrowing limit increase approval process. That is important.

Other elements of Bill C-23 relate to strengthening the governance provisions of the Canada Marine Act. In addition to a number of general housekeeping amendments, the introductory provisions of the Canada Marine Act will be changed to recognize the historical, contemporary and future significance of marine transportation and its contribution to the Canadian economy.

The proposed amendments to the Canada Marine Act are integral to the long term objectives of our national gateway and trade corridor strategies. Simply put, the marine system is a major component of our national transportation structure and the Canada Port Authorities truly are the marine gateways for domestic and international markets. Without these important legislative amendments, it would be extremely difficult for our gateways and trade corridors to meet their full potential.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss Bill C-28, and as we go down through the number of things that have come forward in this bill let me remind members that in regard to the GST, we have taken it from 7% down to 5%. We have raised the basic personal exemption from $9,600 to $10,100 by 2009. We have lowered the personal income tax to 15%. We have introduced the real, true child care program of $1,200 per year. There is some indication that the Liberal Party would remove that and take it away.

We also want to make sure that we always talk about businesses because those are family businesses mainly where we reduced the tax. In our government, one of our key issues was the reduction of the GST. Earlier we listened to members from the Liberal Party talk about the GST and it was interesting as the Liberal leader said that his party would raise it back up to 7%. The Liberal leader said in June that he would raise the GST back to 7%, that he would scrap the 1% cut in the GST and use that $5 billion a year to expand the national child benefit program which is a bit of a bureaucratic institution. That is what he would take that money to do.

The member for Markham—Unionville said that “It's an option. All I can say is that it is consistent with our approach”. I wonder if the member has some comments on that.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think I will change the topic.

The TD economics report yesterday provided a glowing vision for the future for agriculture in Canada. It said:

--through ongoing efforts to adapt and adjust, many agricultural producers have emerged from this period in a position of strength, with the sector as a whole retaining its status as an important driver of productivity and prosperity in this country.

Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain to the House how this government will continue to ensure a bright future for Canada's agriculture producers?

[Bill C-303, November 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night we sat in this place ready to hear the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development speak to Bill C-303, a bill that the NDP had identified as a priority. However, when private members' hour came, imagine this. The NDP manipulated the system to delay the debate on its own child care bill on National Child Day.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has any insight into why the NDP might have done this and whether our government supports this private member's bill.

[Agriculture, November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on November 3 I hosted an informal round table gathering in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The minister spoke with a group of individual farmers about the agriculture industry as a whole. The minister listened intently and heard firsthand what the constituents of my riding had to say on issues facing the farmers of Ontario.

I am proud to represent a government that truly cares about our farmers. In the past 21 months our government has delivered more than $600 million in federal assistance to the farmers in Ontario alone. This is good for the agriculture industry and it is good for the consumers to know that they have a government that works with farmers to provide safe, secure food.

The constituents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and the rest of Canada can be confident that their government fully supports them and will always put farmers first.