House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, the minister had better talk to some of those producers on P.E.I. The fact of the matter is that AgriRecovery money, which was supposed to be a disaster program, only covers the costs of getting rid of the product, whether they disc it down or get it out of the warehouse. That does not deal with the crop loss damage cost, which is loss of income to the tune of $2,800 per acre. Those are the facts.
The fact of the matter is, though, that in the 2007 estimates, it was indicated--
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, the Liberal government asked for a pilot project to be done, and the minister knows it. Could the minister table that pilot project with the committee?
I have a number of other questions.
We have determined thus far that the minister seems willing to leave hog producers to the ravages of an unbalanced marketplace; in other words, let them go broke. He has basically said here tonight that he is not going to consider ad hoc funding.
In answering the question with respect to the Prime Minister's commitment of $100 million per year for cost of production, the minister confirmed that there has been no money paid out under that program. Therefore, the Prime Minister obviously broke his word.
He has confirmed that the government broke its election promise on AgriFlexibility, which was $500 million over five years. It has now promised $400 million over five years, but it is really only $190 million in new money, and it is not allowing it to be used flexibly for the risk management program in Ontario, or ASRA in Quebec.
He confirmed that the $12.4 million announced for the P.E.I. crop loss damage was only partially paid out and that the $6 million committed to the Atlantic beef plant was not delivered. That is another broken promise.
With regard to the hogs and beef market, the minister is looking at new markets, and I have congratulated him for that. However, the most important market is the market we have. Do not lose it. What is the minister doing to try to keep the market we have in the United States? That is our most important market. When we lose it, it is gone. All the others will not make up for it.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Mr. Chair, I have another question on listeriosis. The rendition given by the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex leaves many open questions about environmental testing, but I will only ask one.
In a question from the parliamentary secretary at committee, and I quote:
In 2005...mandatory environmental testing was removed. Is that correct?
Dr. Evans replied:
At no time was there mandatory requirements for industry to do environmental testing.
The rendition from the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and the answer from Dr. Evans do not match. One is incorrect. Could the minister tell us which one it is?
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Was it coming from the trained seal from the back?
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Not true.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
How can you say that with a straight face, David? How can you tell that information with a straight face?
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Madam Chair, the fact of the matter is that program payments under the government are much less. They were $4.9 billion in 2005, and substantially less than that in the last budget.
Would the minister look at his figures, be honest with us and tell us what the total program payments for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada were in the current year and what is proposed for next year?
The government goes on with the line, all the time, that it is there for farmers. It is not there for farmers. It has been paying out less money, there are fewer program dollars, and all it has been successful at doing is putting farmers into debt.
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Madam Chair, with respect to the Prime Minister's attempt to cover up a ministerial responsibility during the listeriosis crisis, on April 30, 225 days after the “let's pretend” investigation started, the minister admitted that he had not been interviewed. It is now 14 days later and, as key minister responsible for food safety, has he been interviewed yet?
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Madam Chair, the fact is that the Prime Minister broke his promise. What was put out was zero and the program was cancelled. Another broken promise. More debt for farmers and less income for producers.
Under the government's watch, the hog industry today is fighting for its very survival. The minister said that he would be there for them but all he has managed to do with his program is increase, as is usual, more debt.
The Canada Pork Council made a request to him this week for an immediate payment of $1 billion. It is critical that these moneys be provided for the survival of the hog industry. Is the minister willing to commit tonight to that $1 billion or will it be another broken commitment?
Business of Supply May 14th, 2009
Madam Chair, I will answer the question for the minister. The debt load is $55 billion and it has increased $4.1 billion since the government came to power, four times the amount of debt as the U.S. farmers.
What about increasing farmers' financial well-being. On December 21, 2005, the Prime Minister promised a cost of production for farmers. He committed $100 million per year.
This is an easy question. How much money has been spent under the cost of production program by the government?