Pierre Lemieux

[Medical Isotopes, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in May 2008, the Government of Canada accepted the decision of the board of directors of AECL to discontinue the MAPLEs project and that remains the government's view.

In terms of action items, our government has told AECL that its highest priority must be to return to service the National Research Universal as quickly and as safely as possible.

In addition, the Minister of Health is working with the medical community to manage the supply of available isotopes and maximize its use of alternatives.

[Medical Isotopes, March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that no one is more frustrated than our government with the slow progress of this project and the continued delays that are completely unacceptable. The health and safety of Canadians remains our top priority.

The security of isotope supply is a global issue requiring a global response. That is why our government led the way in the creation of the high level group on medical isotopes to make the global supply more secure and more predictable.

[Seeds Regulations Act, March 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-474 raises a complex and important issue that affects farmers and the agricultural sector.

Let me start by saying that the Government of Canada considers issues of safety to be the highest priority for all agricultural production. Canada's regulatory system requires that new agricultural products undergo science-based safety assessments before they can be cultivated by a grower, used in livestock feed, or made available to consumers. Safety comes first with all foods, including those derived through biotechnology.

Canada's science-based approval process would not permit any genetically engineered seed to pose a threat to health or the environment to be grown in Canada. Canada has one of the most stringent and rigorous regulatory systems in the world.

This system applies to genetically modified crops and foods, all of which must undergo a rigorous scientific approval process administered by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Canada's regulatory system for agricultural biotech products ensures that all of the possible precautions are taken.

The safety of new products is carefully and cautiously assessed before these products can be cultivated by a grower, be used in livestock feed, or be made available to the consumer.

The subject matter of this bill certainly raises questions concerning how best to manage the market impacts of genetically engineered products. However, our government, along with the vast majority of farmers and industry leaders, supports a safety approval process based solely on sound science. For example, in an article in The Western Producer, dated January 21, 2010, Rick White, general manager of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, said he feared that this bill would make Canada's regularly approval system for genetically modified crops look more like Europe's. He said:

We strongly encourage Canada to stick to our guns on science based regulatory processes. Keep the politics out of it.

Mr. White added that growers could lose the agronomic and economic benefits GM crops have delivered to the canola industries if Canada moves from a science-based system to one based on an assessment of potential economic harm. He said that crop developers would be wary of spending money and time on developing new crops.

To remind hon. members, Bill C-474 states:

The Governor in Council shall, within 60 days after this Act comes into force, amend the Seeds Regulations to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

Contrary to what is stated in the bill, Parliament cannot instruct the governor-in-council to make a regulation.

Furthermore, a regulation to include the analysis of potential market harm cannot be made unless section 4.1 of the Seeds Act is revised to authorize the establishment of such a regulation.

In addition to the technical flaws of the bill, I believe the member for British Columbia Southern Interior has ignored a number of matters if Canada were to go to a market based system. For instance, there are implications for Canada's international trade position. We have to be wary that we do not undermine Canada's credibility internationally as we seek to keep markets open for our Canadian agricultural products.

Sound science is the foundation of Canada's position regarding trade disputes. Sound science must be the starting point of any discussion. Science-based arguments have been very effective for Canada in past cases that we have brought before the World Trade Organization, including cases won against the European Union.

In fact, science is the foundation of our argument in our current dispute with Korea at the WTO. Korea has been banning Canadian beef imports for six years because of mad cow disease.

We are putting pressure on our trading partners in order to gain full access to their markets in accordance with OIE standards.

We are making the same argument to other countries that have banned our beef or beef products.

If all of a sudden we start to apply different criteria from those that we are asking other countries to apply, we will most definitely weaken our case.

Science-based standards and policies put Canada on par with international trading partners.

It is highly probable that introducing socio-economic considerations into the discussion could give comfort to those who would block Canadian products with no valid scientific justification.

We also need to examine what kind of issues a market impact analysis would explore. For instance, the potential advantages to farmers of the new technology, such as yield increases and input cost reductions, would need to be weighed against potential market acceptance issues and their impact on sales. None of these can be predicted with certainty.

Bill C-474 would also add to the regulatory burden, discouraging innovation in the sector as well as crucial research and development investments.

If we introduce non-safety, non-science subjective elements into our system, we risk losing R and D investments to our competitors.

Furthermore, we would risk losing competitiveness to the United States, where decisions on GM plants are based on a scientific assessment of its risk to the environment.

From the beginning, this government has listened to and responded to farmers' needs. That is why we believe that industry is best positioned to understand and respond to market risks and opportunities of genetically engineered products.

In the past, industry has taken the lead on assessing market risks and opportunities of GM products. Decisions have been made on a crop by crop basis, with producers and processors charting the best path forward, depending on market conditions. Let me give the House a few examples of this.

The Canadian canola industry dealt with the potential market impacts caused by exporting GM canola to key export markets by choosing to segregate GM canola. The segregation process was developed by the industry and involved all members of the value chain, product developers, seed suppliers, grain handlers, processors and end-users.

The Canola Council of Canada and grower organizations had a strong relationship with customers in Japan and the European Union, which increased their confidence in the segregation system. When Japan approved the GM varieties in 1997, the segregation system was discontinued.

Today, the canola industry has adopted a voluntary policy not to commercialize new GM varieties unless they are also accepted in major export markets.

Following the lead of the canola industry, the soy industry responded to market signals and put into place an advanced identity-preservation system for non-genetically modified food-quality soy.

Canada's potato industry was able to expertly manage the commercial implications of consumer disinterest in genetically modified potatoes.

The control of the supply chain allowed the industry to quickly and easily remove genetically modified potatoes from the market.

Members of this House need to realize that this bill would compromise Canada's export markets, place a chill on innovation and put our producers at a competitive disadvantage.

If Bill C-474 passes, it will threaten the flexibility and market access that benefit our farmers.

We on the government side have given serious consideration to this bill. Bill C-474 is not in the best interests of our farmers. I repeat that Canada has one of the most stringent and vigorous regulatory systems in the world and it is based on sound science. This bill would undermine all that we have accomplished.

We do not support this bill.

[Agriculture, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I would like to take a few moments today to voice the government's support for private member's Motion No. 460 advanced by my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

This motion seeks to assist Canadian farmers in gaining access to many of the production management tools that are currently available to producers in other countries. Agricultural inputs are regulated in our country to protect Canada's animal and plant resources, our environment and the health of Canadians.

While we all agree that this measure of protection is very important, we also need to be sensitive to the agricultural sector's need to compete in the international marketplace. If the approval process for these regulated items does not keep pace with innovation and leading-edge science, our producers will suffer an economic disadvantage.

Agricultural inputs are, quite simply, production management tools or tools that improve the yield, health and quality of an agricultural product. Such tools could include: fertilizers, seeds, feeds and veterinary biologics regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They also include pesticides governed by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is part of Health Canada. Veterinary drugs are also considered production management tools and they fall under the jurisdiction of the veterinary drugs directorate of Health Canada.

The Pest Management Centre of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada produces data and prepares submissions to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency on behalf of Canadian growers for review and approval of new and effective tools for protecting crops.

In consultations, focus groups and value chain round tables, people in the agricultural sector have said that Canada's regulatory system sometimes hampers their competitiveness. They believe that the registration process is slow and overly bureaucratic.

At the industry-government task force on livestock in 2007, representatives from both the beef and pork industry groups remarked that the approval rate of veterinary drugs was lagging in Canada. Furthermore, Agriculture Canada's Growing Forward consultations identified pre-market approval processes for agricultural inputs in Canada as being behind the rest of the world.

In its 2009 policy manual, the Grain Growers of Canada encouraged the development of a joint registration process for crop protection products in the U.S. and Canada. Also, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association website indicates that it also supports ongoing efforts to harmonize pesticide standards with the U.S. and beyond North America to ensure farmers continue to have access to the newest and safest pesticides.

It has been clearly stated by many in the agricultural sector that our regulatory framework can be an impediment to their ability to compete in international markets. One issue that is raised with some regularity is the perception that the Canadian government does not consider research and submissions conducted in foreign jurisdictions when it considers agricultural inputs for approval. The Canadian agricultural sector and the businesses that serve it wish that the regulatory approval process used in foreign countries could be leveraged to a much greater extent to expedite approvals for products here in Canada.

The motion before this House speaks to that very issue. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that the motion asks that equivalent foreign scientific research be considered. The motion does not ask, however, that a foreign approval allow any such product to be automatically used in Canada. This is an important distinction.

Canada is a sovereign nation. We have a unique environment, climate, flora and fauna. A product approved for use in South America, Europe or Asia may not be appropriate or safe to use in Canada. Our unique makeup of animal and plant resources, climate and geography must be protected. To simply allow a product to be used in Canada because a foreign regulatory authority had already approved it for use in its country would be hasty and irresponsible. However, a great deal of foreign research does have tremendous weight and relevance for our policy-makers and regulators when we evaluate products for use in Canada.

The motion moved by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex has great value for Canadians, as it should unite this House in supporting this as a formal guiding principle. It sends a clear message to the agricultural sector that we support its desire for a regulatory framework which considers foreign data and research.

This motion would lead to meaningful change. It would express the desire of the House that foreign science be equivalent to Canadian science. This would encourage regulatory agencies and departments to accept foreign science in support of regulatory submissions which would expedite approvals. It would also encourage agricultural suppliers in other countries to apply for Canadian approval through this expedited regulatory system.

Other countries' production management tools can be registered in Canada, but they must meet Canadian regulatory requirements. One of these requirements is that decisions must be based on reliable scientific data and conditions of use in Canada, as I mentioned previously.

Registration by other countries' regulatory agencies does not mean that a product will automatically be approved in Canada, but submissions or applications filed abroad are often taken into consideration in the Canadian registration process. For some tools, foreign data and scientific risk assessments can also support regulatory decisions.

Canadian regulatory agencies often encourage foreign manufacturers to submit their products to Canada for review. For example, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada look for innovative new pesticides and work with manufacturers to have their products registered in Canada. However, there needs to be more of this sort of activity.

The Veterinary Drugs Directorate, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada and the feed, seed and biologics areas of the CFIA are continually strengthening international collaboration to facilitate the introduction of foreign agricultural tools in Canada. This motion will encourage Health Canada to consider the work of other countries with equivalent standards and to use this work rather than duplicating efforts whenever possible. They can do this so long as they continue to adhere to Canadian legislative requirements.

There is also an effort to level the playing field for Canadian farmers with U.S. producers with regard to access to new or improved veterinary drugs. The Veterinary Drugs Directorate of Health Canada is working with manufacturers to promote same time filing of submissions in the U.S. and Canada. The directorate has agreed to align its review timelines with U.S. regulators for these types of submissions.

With respect to pesticides, where manufacturers once approached markets sequentially, they now routinely approach several markets at once, taking advantage of new, global joint review processes. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency at Health Canada has been a global leader in establishing the processes that enable these co-operative activities.

The CFIA is also very active in the establishment of international standards for those products that fall under its regulatory authority and mandates. A unified standard adopted by many nations is worthy of our investment and should be pursued aggressively.

The adoption of Motion No. 460 will demonstrate a commitment to supporting the agricultural sector in its desire for a more competitive landscape. The motion asks all members of the House to show their support for an important principle. We will support the motion.

[Petitions, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in the House today to present two petitions from over 100 people from communities such as Limoges, Casselman and North Glengarry in my riding.

The petitioners are opposed to euthanasia and to assisted suicide. They recognize the inherent value of human life and they ask all parliamentarians to vote against any bills that would seek to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I really must encourage my colleague to step outside of his ivory tower and to look at the reality. Our Conservative government has helped to create over 135,000 jobs since July 2009 and we have saved 225,000 jobs through our expanded work-sharing program.

Budget 2010 talks about a retraining and workers' support program worth over $4 billion. Within that $4 billion, we are talking about investing $100 million to extend the maximum length for work-sharing agreements and even more interesting, offering over $100 million in support to young workers.

What could the member have against financial support for young workers to help them find jobs in these difficult economic times?

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I really must encourage my colleague on the other side of the House to pay attention to the economy. Clearly, Canada is in difficult economic times. Extraordinary action is required and has been taken by our Conservative government through our Canadian economic action plan. We are spending and investing in communities all across this nation.

However, the strange thing is the Liberal who spoke just before me was lamenting all the things that were not in the budget. If the member is so concerned about deficit, where will the money come from for all the programs that the Liberals want to launch? They will drive us into further deficit.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

It is a great honour and privilege for me to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the budget. I would like to begin by noting the significant progress Canada's economy has made in terms of economic growth and job creation during these challenging times. Canada's economy has shown resilience in the face of a world recession, a resilience that can be directly attributed to the leadership of the Prime Minister and the foresight of the finance minister.

In my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell I attend hundreds of events every year, hold countless meetings in my riding offices, and engage the communities through town hall gatherings. During these dialogues I listen carefully to the concerns and priorities of my constituents.

At this time the items that are viewed as most important for my constituents are jobs, agriculture, and reducing the deficit. I am proud to state that the 2010 budget addresses all three of these items.

Canada was hit by the worldwide recession, but a strong economic and financial foundation helped us deal with the crisis better than the other industrialized nations.

The government carefully regulated our financial system to make it the most solid system in the world. Since taking power in 2006, the government has also managed to cut taxes and lower the debt. Today, even with the effects of the recession, Canada is proud to have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of all the G7 nations.

This sensible approach enabled us to take extraordinary short-term measures in the economic action plan. These measures were necessary to protect Canadians during the recession.

Our plan has produced results. More than 135,000 jobs have been created since July, and 16,000 infrastructure projects have stimulated long-term economic growth.

All around us, we see signs of recovery. Nevertheless, although the world's financial state has improved over the past year, it is not yet back to normal.

That is why our government gave Canadians a budget that protects and creates jobs, while still promoting strong, sustainable and balanced growth.

Budget 2010 focuses on three core goals. First, the government will follow-through on its commitments to Canadians and G7 and G20 partners to complete the implementation of Canada's economic action plan. Budget 2010 confirms $19 billion in new federal stimulus, under year two of the economic action plan, to create and protect jobs.

Second, budget 2010 invests in a limited number of new targeted initiatives to build growth and jobs for the economy of tomorrow, to strengthen and harness Canadian innovation, and to make Canada the choice for new business investment.

Third, the budget charts a course for returning to budget balance once the economy has recovered. This includes ending the temporary stimulus measures as promised, restraining growth in spending through targeted measures, and additional restraint through an indepth review of administrative functions and overhead costs.

Let me compare the Conservative government's action to protect Canada's economy with what the Liberal Party has planned. The Liberal Party leader has described himself as a “tax and spend Liberal”. If he were to become Prime Minister, he says he would have to “raise taxes”. In addition, senior members of the Liberal Party have suggested that the government needs to raise taxes. That is not the way to strengthen Canada's economy.

It is clear that whenever the next election happens to be, if one votes Liberal, one is voting for higher taxes. The Liberal Party has been clear on this point, and it continues to be clear. If elected, the Liberal Party will raise taxes: one can count on it.

It is not what Canadians want. It is definitely not what the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell want.

The government's approach is different. The province of Ontario will continue to receive increased federal support through budget 2010. Total transfers will hit $18.8 billion in 2010-11, an increase of $801 million from last year and $6.9 billion more than under the previous Liberal government. While the Liberals starved provinces and municipalities of much-needed support, the Conservative government increased key transfers such as $972 million through equalization payments; $9.9 billion through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $243 million from last year; and $4.3 billion in social transfers, an increase of over $1.2 billion since 2005-06, or an increase of 36.6%.

I would like to take some time to talk about our deficit reduction plan because I know that is one of the most important concerns for my constituents.

Like all other industrialized countries, Canada went into deficit to implement its economic recovery plan. Once that recovery is entrenched, the government will implement a plan to reduce the deficit and return to a balanced budget.

The three key elements of our deficit reduction plan are as follows: spend the money planned for recovery according to our schedule, limit the growth of government spending in specific sectors, and undertake a comprehensive review of government spending on overhead and administrative costs.

It is important to explain some features of our deficit reduction plan. First of all, we will not balance the budget on the backs of retired Canadians, by reducing transfer payments for health and education or by raising taxes paid by hard-working Canadians. Our bold plan will allow us to reduce the deficit by half in two years and by two-thirds in three years. Shortly after that, our budget will be completely balanced.

With respect to initiatives that would directly benefit my constituents, I would like to first mention the tax relief that they would receive through budget 2010.

Year two of Canada's economic action plan would provide over $1.3 billion in personal income tax relief in 2010-11 to help workers and families in Ontario manage through difficult economic conditions. This would include allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money, which they would in turn invest in our economy.

Budget 2010 would also assist Ontario by providing support to create and protect jobs, as well as assist those who are in need.

Some of these measures consist of providing over $4 billion to help unemployed Canadians find new and better jobs, including up to five extra weeks of regular employment insurance benefits and greater access to regular EI benefits for long-tenured workers. We have implemented a temporary extension of work-sharing agreements to a maximum of 78 weeks. We have frozen employment insurance premium rates at $1.73 per $100 of insurable earnings for 2010. We are providing $1.15 billion to make an extra five weeks of employment insurance benefits available. We are committing $1 billion to enhance employment insurance training programs.

The economic action plan helps businesses in Ontario to create jobs, to modernize and to become more competitive on world markets. It does so by eliminating tariffs on manufacturers' inputs and on their machinery and equipment.

Innovative small and medium-size businesses from Ontario will benefit from the new $40 million pilot innovation and marketing program. With that program, federal departments and agencies will be able to use innovative products and prototypes developed by small and medium-size businesses.

Ontario's 61 community development organizations will benefit from the $11 million per year commitment in resources provided for in the 2010 budget for the community futures program.

Finally, as parliamentary secretary for agriculture, I am very pleased to see in budget 2010 that our Conservative government plans on building on previous investments by announcing measures that extend support for the agricultural sector.

I know that cattle processing facilities in Canada would definitely benefit from the $75 million in funding allocated by budget 2010 to support investments that help improve their operations. This would contribute to ensuring Canadian cattle producers in all regions of our—

[Canadian Navy, March 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to add my voice to the many in the House who support the motion tabled by my friend and colleague, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, to reinstate the navy's executive curl.

The motion before us today is important in reminding us of the valuable work and proud traditions of our navy. I think it is important to mention that I served in the Canadian army for 20 years. While being an army soldier, I have the greatest respect for our navy personnel. In fact, I have served with naval personnel both at military college in training and on bases. We are men and women in uniform serving shoulder to shoulder to defend our great country.

Here in Ottawa, far removed from the coasts, it is easy to take for granted the importance of the oceans to the health and vitality of our country. Our country has an extensive, proud and glorious maritime history. It has a long coastline and important ties to the sea. It is important that we not overlook the vital work being done by our sailors. This motion and the navy's upcoming centennial in 2010 gives us ample opportunity to reflect on the contributions of the navy and its sailors.

The very birth of the Canadian navy was a watershed moment in our national history. At the turn of the last century, our young nation was maturing and seeking to become a strong and contributing member of the British Empire. We wanted to do our part and so in 1910, Canada's own navy was established. It was a daring move and it meant starting from scratch. Raising a navy, training men, and buying ships was a demanding task.

Despite inauspicious beginnings, we developed a modest coastal defence force. During the first world war, the Canadian fleet assumed the responsibility of patrolling our waters. However, even in these early days, valour and daring were evident in our burgeoning navy. For example, in 1914, HMCS Rainbow was the only Allied ship along the Pacific coast of North America. Still, it set out alone to find and engage with ships of the Imperial German navy.

The first world war also saw the Royal Canadian Navy playing an important role in fighting the threat posed by German submarines. This marked the beginning of a long tradition of anti-submarine expertise within the Canadian navy. When war broke out again in 1939, the RCN lived up to its motto of “Ready, aye, ready!”. Beginning the conflict with only a dozen ships, the navy worked diligently to ensure the safety of Canada's maritime approaches.

However, the navy grew and grew. Thousands of men and women from across the country flocked to recruiting stations. They learned the ways of the sea and the ways of the navy. They crewed ships, worked in ports and served as wrens in operations rooms and planning offices. They demonstrated their excellence in anti-submarine warfare and shouldered the responsibility of protecting the transatlantic convoys, which provided the lifeblood of the war effort in its darkest days.

Sailors of the RCN endured dark times of their own. Operating in Atlantic gales on long winter nights, cramped in small corvettes and tossed by the wind and waves, it was not uncommon for them to use axes to hack thick ice off the superstructure of their ships to prevent them from keeling over.

Despite tremendous challenges, they did their duty. Over the course of the Battle of the Atlantic, the second world war's longest battle, our sailors and naval aviators shepherded thousands of merchant ships to safe port and deterred or sank many German U-boats. They saved countless lives and showed fortitude and professionalism.

Under the most difficult of circumstances, the navy continued to grow. By the end of the war, the Royal Canadian Navy had over 400 commissioned ships, more than the number of officers it had at the beginning of the conflict. That number also earned it the distinction of being one of the world's largest navies. While the post-war period saw a reduction in the size of the navy, it did nothing to diminish its professionalism or detract from its proud tradition.

Indeed, the Korean War saw our navy putting its skill to good use. During this conflict, our sailors developed a reputation for destroying enemy trains as they moved down the peninsula's coastline. Later, in the Cold War, our sailors again demonstrated their skill in tracking Soviet submarines, a talent that saw them entrusted with responsibility for that task in the vital North Atlantic.

Throughout the tense years of standoff between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, our navy made proof of ingenuity as it pioneered the use of helicopters aboard small ships and developed the tools and procedures necessary to make that possible even in rough seas.

Our resourcefulness has been recognized by our allies and the Canadian system has been adopted by navies around the world including that of the United States. But we have gone further than that. All of our navy's main surface combat ships today have been designed and built right here in Canada. With these Canadian ships our navy has participated in operations around the world from the Persian Gulf, to the Caribbean, to the Far East. In every instance they have steadfastly carried out the task Canadians have asked of them.

Even today our sailors are engaged with NATO and our allies in counterterrorism, counterpiracy and counternarcotic missions. Our navy is busy because it knows what it is doing and does it well. It has served with diligence and decorum in war and peace. It has helped protect sea lanes vital to Canada and has furthered our country's interests abroad.

Indeed, Canadian warships and sailors act as ambassadors around the world and I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to salute the men and women serving on HMCS Halifax and HMCS Athabaskan for their outstanding work and quick response to the earthquake in Haiti. Canadians were proud to see our Canadian ships arriving so soon to help with medical aid, supplies and relief for the people of Haiti. Our sailors and ships fly our flag and display the best Canada has to offer. They have a long and storied history replete with tradition and honour.

We can also be proud of the role our navy plays in complex multinational operations. Last month HMCS Fredericton completed a three month engagement in NATO counterpiracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and off the Horn of Africa. She was following in the footsteps of her sister ship HMCS Winnipeg which distinguished herself in counterpiracy operations last year. HMCS Fredericton is now engaged in counteroperations as part of combined task force 150. Our sailors are detecting, deterring and defending against piracy and terrorism.

Our fleet remains flexible and ready to respond to humanitarian emergencies. When people are in need or suffering through pain we cannot even imagine, Canada's navy deploys to help. We only need to look at the extraordinary job performed by the men and women aboard HMCS Halifax and HMCS Athabaskan as I mentioned. I will end my comments here and say that I fully support the motion put forward by my colleague and I ask all colleagues in the House to support our Royal Canadian Navy and this motion.

[Agriculture, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we Conservatives are delivering real results for our farmers. Last week the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food re-opened China to Canadian pork, and this week Hong Kong is open to Canadian beef.

As we Conservatives work day in and day out to represent our country's hard-working farmers, the Liberal critic for agriculture has decided to go on strike, according to a recent article in The Western Producer. When asked why he had not been asking any agriculture questions during question period, the member for Malpeque answered, “Why bother?” He then went on to say of farm leaders, “I am not prepared to fight their fight for better policy and better treatment by the government if they are not prepared to support me”.

This is a shocking statement. The member for Malpeque thinks it is all about him, “If you don't support me, I won't support you”. I say to him that his job is to support farmers. It is not the job of farmers to support him and the Liberal Party.

As I continue to work diligently for the farmers of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and across Canada, I would like to extend my best wishes to them for a merry Christmas and a prosperous new year. For the Liberal ag critic, I say get back to work.