Martha Hall Findlay

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, we must have been speaking with a very different group of hog producers, because at that function, I had many conversations with hog producer after hog producer about cost of production challenges and country of origin labelling challenges. Every single hog producer I spoke with that day said that the industry is in very difficult straits.

So I would ask the minister again if he can suggest in what specific ways the hog industry is being well served by the government.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

My colleague asked a question earlier, Madam Chair, about the hog producers, and the response from the minister was that the hog producers in this country are very well served by the government.

I would point out that the minister made a lovely show of serving pork at the barbecue in support of the producers a little while ago, but I would ask the minister to look me in the eye right now and tell me which one of those many producers actually told the minister that the industry is being well served by the current government.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, Canadian farmers are in debt four times as much as American farmers. The idea of advertising an investment as a grant and now saying that the repayment terms are generous is a little hard to swallow for the farmers in this country who are up to their eyeballs in debt.

I will ask the minister again, why was it advertised as an investment on the basis of it being a grant? Regardless of the repayment terms now, how can he justify that it is now a loan?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I did not actually get an answer to the question. This is a program that was announced two years ago and has not been implemented, another broken promise.

I would also like to ask about another broken promise. In the current budget, budget 2009, the government promised a $50 million so-called investment for additional livestock slaughter capacity. The minister convinced the farmers that this would be grant money to build capacity, but only two months later it shifted from a contribution to a loan. I will clarify that a loan does not qualify as an investment. This is another broken promise. Can the minister explain why?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, in 2007, the Prime Minister announced AgriInvest, a new savings program to help farmers manage business risks. The Prime Minister touted this initiative at the time as “programming that is more predictable, bankable and better enables farmers to better respond to rising costs”. However, two years later, it has still not been implemented. Why is this another broken promise?

[Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the House and the government that the particular minister, after saying yes, then refused. The reason the minister's office gave for his specific refusal was that to appear would be “damaging”.

I asked him yesterday to explain how is appearance could be “damaging” and to whom. He certainly cannot be afraid of me or of the other members of the committee. We are very thorough but we are also very nice. What exactly is he afraid of?

[Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, May 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities why he was still refusing to appear once more before the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates. Unfortunately, he would not give a serious answer.

He knows that we will ask some difficult questions, but I also know that he is very capable of answering them.

I would like to ask him once again if he will keep his promise to appear before the committee to discuss the stimulus measures.

[The Economy, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from an email sent by the minister's staff to the clerk of the government operations committee now declining the committees request to appear. It reads, “We think it would be more damaging to have him appear than not appear”.

I know I may have been a little firm with the minister the first time he appeared but he is not usually short of things to say. Could he explain what exactly would be damaging and to whom?

[The Economy, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates is examining the stimulus package in the 2009 budget. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities made a commitment to appear before the committee in order to discuss the stimulus measures. Ever since, however, the minister has done nothing but decline invitations to appear.

Could the minister explain why he has changed his mind?

[April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his brave attempt at an answer, but I am afraid he is following along with his minister and not, in fact, answering the question.

My riding is Willowdale. I am a huge supporter of public transit and use it all the time when I am in my riding. My constituency is in the area which is the northernmost subway station of the Toronto subway line, Finch subway station. My constituents of Willowdale are proud to be centre in terms of public transit in Toronto and strong supporters of public transit.

My colleague talked about methodology. I will quote again from the report:

Environment Canada could not provide any analysis to support the assertion that the Tax Credit would result in measurable impacts.

That is a pretty damning condemnation of the methodology.

I will give my hon. colleague one more opportunity to answer my questions. How much will this program cost this year? What specific greenhouse gas reductions will we see?