House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 47% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, another thing I know the minister has been working on is opening markets. I mentioned some of that in my remarks. I know that fight is ongoing.
Could the minister tell us what other markets he has in his scope? Maybe he cannot share everything with us for various reasons, but maybe he could talk a bit about that and some of the advantages to not only the livestock industry but to the grains, durum wheat and that kind of thing.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, that just cannot be relevant when he is all over the country and never in his own riding.
The minister has done a lot of work in trying to create some things that will help out young farmers. My youngest brother is farming and I know the obstacles he is up against. We did some things to help get some interest-free loans out to young farmers and also made some changes to the capital gains to help the generational transfers across.
Could the minister speak to the advantages of this?
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, if the members from across the way had spent this much time raising their voices and their concerns for agriculture in their 13 years in government, we would not be sitting where we are today.
The member for Malpeque—
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be here tonight and to speak about agriculture and the main estimates. Being a farmer myself, it gives me I think maybe a different meaning than for some. Not all of us can be in agriculture but I am very proud of my background.
I will concentrate my comments tonight mainly on the subject of country of origin labelling.
Farming is the backbone of the Canadian economy and it is by far the most important industry in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. Knowing this, I am very pleased that the government, our Minister of Agriculture and all us have worked hard to try to put farmers first when developing agriculture policy.
Agriculture is a very progressive, innovative and, in most recent years, a very competitive industry. This industry has billions of dollars in sales.
As hon. members know, country of origin labelling, or COOL as it is commonly known, is impacting a number of sectors across the agriculture industry. We have already seen that it caused a plummet in weanling prices for our hog producers last year due to the uncertainty and fear among U.S. buyers. The impact is particularly hard on the livestock industry as it adds new costs into the system in segregation, handling and other requirements.
I know from talking to the cattle, hog and lamb producers in my riding, and some from across the country as well, that they have gone through a great deal of hardship in the past seven years. Producers are still feeling the effects of BSE, global red meat prices have slumped continually and they have experienced droughts and flooding in many regions of the country.
On top of what producers have called the perfect storm for the beef industry, the advent of COOL has been like the U.S. throwing salt in the already open wounds in our red meat sector.
In a number of sectors, including red meat, we are witnessing what has been called a thickening of the Canada-U.S. border. We have been working very hard with the industry to try to reduce the impact of this and we have had some good progress on a number of fronts.
In November 2007 the U.S. border opened to our older cattle and beef from older animals, with the introduction of the BSE second rule. This has given our producers a bigger share of the market. Since then, we have taken action to ensure that the border remains open by participating in U.S. litigation to support the rule.
We have also worked with the Mexican secretary of agriculture to get the Mexican border reopened to Canadian cattle, plus access for breeding animals and dairy replacement heifers.
We worked with the CFIA and industry to head off the enhanced testing that was put in place south of the border following the U.S. E. coli recalls.
On COOL more specifically, the United States implementation of country of origin labelling has been a huge concern to this government and our producers since it was first proposed. That is why we did not hesitate to let our southern neighbours know that we would vigorously oppose these measures. We will continue to assess the impact of COOL as it moves along. We hold it in abeyance.
The Prime Minister raised the issue with President George Bush and Canadian ministers have raised it with their U.S. counterparts. We have now raised it with the current President Obama and Secretary Vilsack. We have advanced the pace of the WTO challenge. We have been very clear with the Americans that we will have to undertake this if they proceed down this road.
We have let the Americans know that we will use all the trade dispute mechanisms at our disposal to ensure Canada is treated fairly and retains access without unreasonable regulatory barriers for our producers.
Our Minister of International Trade also made it clear when he said in a statement that “We believe that the country of origin legislation is creating undue trade restrictions to the detriment of Canadian exporters”.
As I said earlier, the livestock sector is a highly integrated industry in North America. Last year almost $4 billion in livestock, beef and pork crossed our borders.
Producers and processors on both sides depend on the free flow of goods. That is why last December this government initiated formal consultations with the U.S., under the WTO dispute settlement process, regarding mandatory COOL.
Canada expects the U.S. to live up to its international trade obligations. COOL threatens to disrupt that flow by adding needless costs and red tape into the system on both sides of the border. COOL will hurt the competitiveness of the integrated North American packing industries. It will drive down prices for Canadian livestock producers, which will eventually hurt the prices American ranchers receive as well.
There really is not a Canadian, or American or Mexican market. It is a completely integrated North American market. In this integrated cattle herd, individual animals sometimes cross borders numerous times for feeding before going to slaughter.
Breeding bulls and heifers have been sold between the two countries for over a century. There is no legitimate rationale for COOL to be applied to live cattle slaughtered in the United States. Whether the cattle are born and raised in the U.S. or Canada, they have been subjected to similar regulatory regimes, farming practices and they share the same lineage.
It is clear that COOL is only about discriminatory trade protection for a select few producers in the U.S. COOL is damaging to U.S. feedlots, backgrounders and packing plants.
Free and fair trade is essential to the economic health of livestock industries on both sides of the borders. We have been standing up for Canadian producers since the spectre of COOL first surfaced.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been very engaged in this issue, both before and after the new U.S. administration took office. The Minister of International Trade, as I mentioned earlier, has constantly raised this issue in his conversations with his American counterparts.
Throughout this situation, we have maintained a respectful relationship with our American neighbours, but make no mistake, we mean what we say.
We have consistently made it clear that current COOL regulations unfairly disadvantage Canadian producers. Until we receive the result that is fair for Canada, we will continue, and we must continue, to stand up for Canadian producers against COOL.
The current COOL regulations add huge costs and red tape for Canadian cattle and hog exports heading south. We must continue to restate that point strongly and respectfully, as we work with our American counterparts dealing with the COOL issue.
I want to talk a little about R-CALF. As I said, we have been trying to stand up for producers, we are standing up producers and defending our sector against the court challenges from R-CALF. In July 2005 my good friend and my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, as opposition members at the time, and we were opposition members, were the only elected members of this Canadian Parliament to attend the U.S. 9th circuit court of appeals in Seattle, Washington to show our support for the fight against R-CALF, something of which the member for Selkirk—Interlake and myself are very proud.
The government must continue its work to restore access to markets and opening new ones. Over the past few months, we have re-opened beef access in Hong Kong, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. We are keeping up the pressure with trade missions to Morocco and other countries. These are all good signs of progress, but there is still a lot of work to be done.
The government plans to pursue commercially significant access to beef markets as a first step in achieving full access, mandating by the World Organization for Animal Health. We are also working hard to diversify our global business through an ambitious agenda for the negotiation of bilateral free trade agreements, and I will use Peru and Colombia as examples there. EFTA is one that has recently come through the House.
We are working hard to resume trade access in cattle and beef with China. Competitiveness is about trade and it is about innovation at home as well. That is why we support the efforts of the beef and pork value chain round tables. That is why we are working with industry to help it build a strong, positive Canada brand. Let buyers know that no matter what product they choose, if it is Canadian, it comes backed by a commitment to quality and a world-class regulatory system.
That is why we are investing in research into beef and pork quality at a research station in Lacombe. That is why we invested $130 million in federal-provincial dollars to help the sector adjust to the enhanced feed ban.
There are still challenges and we are trying to work through them. There is a great opportunity for this sector. The global demand for protein is growing.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Madam Chair, a couple of months back the agriculture minister was in my riding at a round table held at the Keady United Church. Afterward we went over to the local sales barn right next door. All the commodity groups were covered. Each and every one in the supply management sector made a special point of thanking the minister for not just being in my riding but for this government's support of supply management.
What we heard that day from other non-supply management groups was how important it was for us not to put all our eggs in one basket and be dependent on the U.S. for all our trade. I would like the minister to tell us how important it is to look for other markets around the world for my producers and producers right across the country.
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act May 14th, 2009
Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we seldom ever have unanimous consent in this House and we certainly seldom get it from across the country, if at all, but that should not discourage us. We voted on some bills last night in this House and one or two of them did not have unanimous consent, but that did not stop them from passing second reading and going to committee. I believe that is the wise thing to do.
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act May 14th, 2009
Madam Speaker, even though the hon. member is on the other side of the House, I do have a lot of respect for him. I know he is very proud of his native background.
As we all know, governments consult across the country and, as I said in my opening remarks, that has been done to no end and it is time to act. As individual members, we also have the obligation to consult. As I indicated, I have two reserves in my riding and I have talked to a number of women there who wholeheartedly, 100%, support this bill. What I hear most is that it is long overdue.
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act May 14th, 2009
Madam Speaker, I am going to use the opportunity to state how proud I am to have a colleague like the member for Saint Boniface in her role here as a parliamentarian. She is a proud member of her Métis community. I know that she fully supports women's rights.
Domestic violence has no boundaries. It occurs in every race and group across this country. It is an unfortunate thing, but it is a reality. This bill will give an aboriginal woman who is caught in a bad domestic situation rights equal to the member or any other woman in this country. That is something we should all be very proud to stand up for.
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act May 14th, 2009
Madam Speaker, as is quite traditional in the House, members who were in the House for years and years failed to get something done, but all of a sudden they are starting to recognize that was a bad mistake. I know my colleague across the way and his wife. I know he supports women's rights.
This bill will do something for aboriginal women that has never been done before. It is long overdue. It is time to quit talking about it. This government is going to do something about it.
Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act May 14th, 2009
Madam Speaker, my colleague is interested in women's rights no matter what their racial background, and I am sure he supports them very much.
Any bill that comes up for debate in a territory, province or country seldom receives unanimous support. As I mentioned in my comments, there has been wide consultation. Some of the native women I have talked to in my riding support the bill.
I would point out to the hon. member across the way that just because a bill does not receive unanimous support does not mean it is not a good bill. He should consider that when he stands up to vote, I hope in favour of Bill C-8.