House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 69% of the vote.
Agriculture June 5th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the government is not prepared to deal with this issue. Now the minister is trying to blackmail the provinces into signing the APF and is using this issue to do that.
We have been patient. Producers have been patient. The beef industry has been patient, but that patience is running thin and frustration is rising. We want some specifics. Since there is no compensation plan, what conditions must be met to clear our Canadian beef for export?
Agriculture June 4th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that there is not a spokesman in the House who can deal with this issue. The CFIA has stated that these individuals will be asked to validate the Canadian actions and to determine whether policy adjustments are warranted.
Could the minister tell the House if the reopening of the border is contingent on the findings of the team from the United States, New Zealand and Switzerland?
Agriculture June 4th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the BSE saga continues. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has commissioned three international experts from the United States, Switzerland and New Zealand to issue a report on our response to BSE and to address the issue of the safety of Canada's beef supply.
Could the minister tell us what are the terms of reference for those experts and their future report?
Agriculture May 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, last week the cattle industry was losing $11 million per day. This week it is losing $30 million per day. After next week, losses will be catastrophic, feedlots will be completely plugged and cow-calf operators will be running out of operating money.
Has the government established a target date for having the border reopened and if not, what contingency plan does the minister have in place to deal with such a catastrophe?
Agriculture May 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I think the word is farce, not force.
The Minister of Agriculture announced today that he anticipates the American border will remain closed to beef exports for at least another week. The original cow has been slaughtered, the renderings have been trapped and removed from the system, the original birthplace herd has been depopulated and is being tested, cows from the trace out have been destroyed and feed mills have been cleared.
What else must occur before the U.S. will be satisfied that the disease has been contained and eradicated?
Agriculture May 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, farmers are frustrated beyond belief. They did not have much of a program last year and they do not have any program this year. Farm organizations are frustrated. The requests for a one year delay have been totally ignored. Provinces are frustrated. Only one province has signed the implementation agreement for the APF.
The entire agricultural support system is changing without the average farmer having a clue what the government is doing. When will the minister let farmers know the details of the proposed new risk management program?
Agriculture May 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, 2002 was a challenging year for farmers. They faced drought, grasshoppers, frost and floods. However their greatest challenge has been the Liberal government. Farmers are already out seeding and they still do not have a risk management program. They have no program, no details, no way of knowing what their 2003 coverage is.
When will the minister release the details of the agricultural policy framework so farmers can make good business decisions for 2003?
Canadian Wheat Board May 13th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is the board of directors that is breaking the law. The minister in charge of whitewash just cannot get away from that.
In Australia, licensing fees cost $20 million annually. We cannot even guess how much Canadian farmers have been illegally charged because of the lack of transparency at the Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat Board directors.
Does the minister know how much farmers have been charged? Why is he allowing the Canadian Wheat Board and the board of directors to operate illegally outside of the Canadian Wheat Board Act?
Canadian Wheat Board May 13th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, last October the minister for the Canadian Wheat Board was informed that the board was illegally taking money from farmers' pooling accounts. It is taking this money to manage and administer national licensing fees which the Wheat Board Act says the government has to pay.
The minister said he was going to refer the matter to “officials and law officers”. It has been six months since the Canadian Alliance raised this issue. What are the results of the minister's investigation and why is this illegal practice continuing?
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act May 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to hear a couple of the Progressive Conservative members speak on the issue. Conservatives have never been known for their good sense on financial issues. It is somewhat hypocritical of them to talk about cost overruns, considering how the last P.C. government in Canada handled the finances of the country.
What is really irritating about Bill C-68, which was introduced by the Liberals, is that it was only introduced because the Progressive Conservatives had first committed to a firearms legislation, and on which the Liberals had to up the ante. Therefore, they brought in this onerous Bill C-68, which would never have passed if it were not for Progressive Conservative senators supporting the bill and passing it.
Then we were faced with Bill C-15, which has now mutated into Bill C-10A. Once again we are faced with having to deal with the bill. I guess the only thing more irritating than listening to the Conservatives opposing the bill, after they had supported the bill through the Senate, was to hear one of the government members a few minutes ago talk about how $600 million was a justifiable expense in this program.
To the member at the other end, what epiphany did members of his party experience that caused them to change their position on this legislation? Was it when the Conservatives realized that their constituents actually opposed the bill or was it when the cost of the bill became too high even for Progressive Conservatives?