|
| |
Ottawa on Agriculture
|
|
|
|

|
| February 27, 2004
Mr.
Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
farm families are facing unnecessary hardship. They are struggling because
the Liberal government's programs actually made matters worse down on the
farm.
The
minister is musing he is almost ready to make some sort of announcement.
Here are a couple of things he could actually do today that would help. He
could get out some real cash advances that are not mired down in
bureaucratic red tape. He could do some loan guarantees to producers and
of course he could remove, not delay, the cash deposit requirement for the
CAIS program.
What
is stopping him?
Hon.
Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had an opportunity to read the hon. member's release that he
put out yesterday, obviously after hearing that the Government of Canada
was working hard in terms of bringing forward a program to bridge Canadian
farmers and farm families from today until the fall, when the CAIS program
really kicks in.
I
want to tell the hon. member that I have had an opportunity to talk to
Canadian farmers and farm families. The Government of Canada is working
very hard with these groups to work through what is really necessary so
that the Government of Canada can help them.
Mr.
Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is great
that the minister is listening, but time is of the essence here.
Agriculture,
the primary production of food in the country, is going down for the
count. Our safe, secure food supply is being put in jeopardy due to the
Liberal government's inaction and bureaucratic programs that totally miss
the mark.
We
released our farm friendly program yesterday, and the minister finally got
around to reading it. That is great. I would like to see him put it in
play. We would be happy. That is the sincerest form of flattery to see
one's project put into play.
Would
he at least release the outline of his program so farmers could finally
start making some plans?
Hon.
Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, I had an opportunity to review with my officials the
plan put forward by the opposition.
I
might note that after the opposition heard that the Government of Canada
was in the process of bringing forward a program itself, I looked at it,
and in a lot of ways it mimics what is already being done by the
Government of Canada.
If
we look at the numbers within it, I think they are quite off in a number
of the different areas. However, I would be pleased to have officials at
committee, at some time, go through it with the hon. member as to what the
real numbers are.
Back to top |
|

|
| February 26, 2004
Hon.
Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. We are now in a farm income
crisis in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that realized net
farm income in our country last year was a negative, at minus $13.4
million, the lowest since statistics started being kept in the 1920s. On
top of that, the livestock industry, because of BSE, is in turmoil.
Farmers need help immediately.
I
ask the minister whether or not he will consider introducing legislation
that would have a program of interest free loans for livestock and grain
farmers in this country so they can pay some bills and stay on the farm.
Hon.
Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that in fact this is a crisis out
there in agriculture across this country today. That is why the Prime
Minister and I and many members of the cabinet have been out talking with
farmers and farm groups across the country to see what more we, plus the
provinces, can do to help. I am presently meeting with a number of
different groups, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which I met
today, and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, to see where we as
governments can move further.
Mr.
Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what is
really scandalous is the 10 months that have sneaked by when we were
waiting for the Liberal government to recognize the evidence of the
increasing hurt faced by our livestock producers. Like any business,
farmers need market certainty and cash flow to survive. Any farm group
would have told the minister that yesterday.
Why
does it continue to be so impossible for the government to design a plan
that works for our producers? Get it done.
Hon.
Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact we have responded. We responded with a $520 million
program on BSE. We responded with a $200 million program on cull cow. We
also responded with a $600 million transition program to help transition
from the old programs to the new program.
We
are working very closely with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture and our provincial colleagues to
address some of these concerns.
I
invite the hon. member to sit down with the cattlemen. Maybe they would
tell him about the approach--
The
Speaker: The hon. member for Battlefords--Lloydminster.
Mr.
Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all those
farm groups are telling the minister to get off his duff and get it done.
We need cash flow today.
All
these big programs that the government talked about, the dollars never
went to where they were intended. They did not get there.
CFIP
paid out 70%. That is the government's answer to the solution.
Why
are families who produce our safe quality food never a priority for the
Liberal government?
Hon.
Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they are a priority for the government. The Government of Canada,
my cabinet colleagues and indeed the Prime Minister recognize the
situation of farmers and farm families across the country. That is why the
Prime Minister has taken such a large lead in terms of dealing with the
BSE situation.
I
can assure all hon. members and indeed farmers and farm families across
the country that the Government of Canada does take this issue very
seriously. We are working very hard in terms of opening up the border. We
are working very hard with our provincial colleagues, along with the farm
groups in order to make sure that the money that is--
The
Speaker: The hon. member for Thornhill.
Mr.
Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the statements by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about supply
management are confusing. On the one hand, the minister is reaffirming
that he will defend supply management, but he recognizes at the same time
that there will be opposition around the table and even added, “We do
not have much support”. The minister's hesitations weaken his position.
Does
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food intend to eliminate all
ambiguity and clearly reaffirm his commitment to defending the supply
management system, as it currently exists in Quebec and Canada?
Hon.
Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from back in the days of the hon. Eugene Whalen through many
ministers of agriculture within the Liberal Party of Canada, we have stood
firmly behind supply management. I would question if there is that stand
in other parties in the House.
Back to top |
|

|
| February 25, 2004
The
Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House, pursuant to Standing Order
81(14), that the motion to be considered tomorrow during consideration of
the business of supply is as follows:
|
| That the government
reallocate its resources from wasteful and unnecessary programs
such as the gun registry and the sponsorship program to address
the agricultural crisis at the farm gate across Canada. |
This
motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Macleod is votable.
Copies
of the motion are available at the table.
Back to top |
|

|
| February 23, 2004
Mr.
Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are
reports today in the press that the Minister of Agriculture is delaying
additional help to cattle producers until all the provinces agree to the
details of his program. The provinces have repeatedly stepped up to the
plate without the participation of the federal government.
Will
the minister stop fighting with his provincial colleagues and announce,
unconditionally, the program today?
Hon.
Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a good relationship
with the provincial ministers. Many of the programs that we unfolded over
the last eight months were in agreement with the provinces. We will not
stop there. We will work on new programs, and we do have a good
relationship.
Mr.
Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the
provinces have taken the initiative and left the federal government and
that minister behind in helping their farmers cope with the BSE crisis.
Almost every province has initiated individual programs, so the minister
cannot use the provinces as a reason to hold up his new program that he is
planning to announce.
Will
the minister stop using the provinces as his excuse and actually do
something for our cattle producers rather than just talking about it?
Hon.
Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last year we have
put out $5 billion with the provinces. We are unrolling CAISP as we speak
and the cull cow program. Hon. members should look at the figures and
check the facts.
Back to top |
|

|
| February 20, 2004
Mr.
Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): There you go, Mr.
Speaker, if you have nothing to say, say it loudly.
The
Minister of Agriculture must realize by now that the agriculture sector in
this country cannot heal itself.
Two
weeks ago he said that he would go back to cabinet and ask for more money
for our cash-strapped farmers.
I
would like to know when he pled his case with cabinet and when farmers
across the country can expect a bankable program.
Hon.
Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for asking me my first question in the House. I will try to do
my best to answer it.
Over
the last eight months beef farmers have faced a crisis. We have many
programs in place, such as the NISA program and the BSE program. We also
had the CAISP rolling out last month in which we put $15 million. We also
have the cull program that will be coming out. We are just waiting for
inventories from the provinces.
I
can assure the hon. member that we will be there for the farmers with more
programs in the upcoming months.
Mr.
Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
parliamentary secretary for staying true to Liberal form and not really
giving us an answer.
For
the first time in history Statistics Canada shows a negative $13 million
balance for all agricultural sectors across the country. That is
everybody. The primary producers of our safe quality food supply are in
peril. They are going down hard.
Since
the government is powerless to re-open borders, will it at least redesign
its programs to get money to the farm gate? That is the trick.
Hon.
Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with this
from all angles. We are dealing with it on an international level in
Washington and we are also dealing with it at the local level.
In
2002, $3.5 billion went to farmers. Last year we paid over $5 billion to
farmers. We will be paying more.
Mrs.
Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry
is the third largest employer of Canadians. It is one of our top five
industries. Agriculture is in a crisis. The industry is sinking and the
farmers are going down. Their loans are being called in. The industry is
on the verge of collapse. This is an emergency and needs to be treated
like an emergency.
I
would like the Deputy Prime Minister to tell me if she will ask the Prime
Minister to take emergency measures to address this crisis and to do it
now.
Hon.
Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are taking measures on
all angles to deal with this agriculture issue. It is not the third but
the second most important industry in this country. We are dealing with it
in Washington. We are dealing with it on an international basis. We are
dealing with the farmers and we are working with the stakeholders and the
beef industry to deal with this issue down in the United States.
Mrs.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make
a correction to what the parliamentary secretary said when he quoted me as
saying that agriculture was not the third but the second most important
industry in Canada. My words were “It was the third largest employer and
one of the top five industries of the nation”. I did not say as he
indicated. I would like that corrected.
The
Deputy Speaker: The House will recognize that is not respectfully a
point of order. The matter of clarification has been put on the record in
the House.
Back to top |
|

|
| February 18, 2004
Mrs.
Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the BSE crisis has put
our agriculture industry on the brink of disaster.
In
Saskatchewan net farm income is down 177%. Imagine the Liberal action we
would see if that party fell that fast and hard in the polls.
While
the Prime Minister busies himself with scandal, the agriculture industry
is sinking. Where do the farmers turn? Why does the Prime Minister have
time and money for his Liberal friends but nothing for our struggling
farmers?
Hon.
Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate a question on agriculture in the House today. It
highlights the importance of the desperate situation being faced by many
farmers and farm families across this country.
The
Government of Canada has responded. We responded in terms of BSE. We have
also brought in a new program, CAISP, that will help farmers in the future
deal with their farm income situation.
The
Government of Canada clearly recognizes the trouble in agriculture today
and we are working to resolve it.
The
Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister on a point of order.
Back to top |
|

|
| February 6, 2004
Mr.
Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we heard this week
in a debate in this very House that the cattle industry is suffering its
worst crisis ever.
We
all agree farmers and ranchers need cash and they need it now. Rather than
waste money on gun registries and sponsorship programs, can the Minister
of Agriculture not find a way to get cash into producers' pockets now?
Hon.
R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
we are talking here in this hon. House today, the Minister of Agriculture
is out in Calgary meeting with the farmers.
In
2003, $5 billion flowed through the agriculture industry and the farming
industry in Canada. As we are talking here today, the minister is out
there ensuring that money will be flowing to the farmers as soon as they
make the request and all the farmers who will be impacted will receive
sufficient moneys.
Mr.
Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, all of that
rhetoric does not help the producers and the farmers right now.
It
is obvious that the infusion of a new minister does not equate to an
infusion of cash into the producers' pockets. The fact is that there has
been no money flowing to the agriculture producers. We cannot wait for two
years to get a flawed program kicked in so producers can get cash. When we
need it is now, immediately now, tomorrow. Will the minister admit to an
immediate cash infusion into the agricultural industry?
Hon.
R. John Efford (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member calls $5 billion in 2003 and $4 billion now as rhetoric,
then I do not understand the question he is asking.
Money
is flowing through. As we are talking now, the Minister of Agriculture is
in Calgary today. The money will go directly to the farmers now, not next
year.
Back
to top |
|

|
| February 5, 2004
Hon.
Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given that Canadian
farmers' groups, including the National Farmers Union and the Canadian
Wheat Board, oppose the release of Monsanto's genetically modified wheat
variety because of a potential loss of premium markets, does the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-food intend to turn down Monsanto's application?
Hon.
Bob Speller (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his interest in Canadian
farmers and farm families. As the hon. member should know, the Government
of Canada has a science based regulatory system which assures Canadian
consumers and world markets that in fact the food they eat is not only
some of the highest quality but some of the safest food in the world.
An
environmental assessment is a key component of this. The hon. member can
be assured that nothing will go on the market until it is first studied in
terms of its environmental impact, its impact on animal feed and also its
impact on--
The
Speaker: The hon. member for Champlain.
Back to top |
|

|
|
October
9, 2003
Mr.
Gilbert Barrette (Témiscamingue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from what I
understand, Quebec is signing its Agriculture Policy Framework
implementation agreement today.
Will
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
tell us what this means for Quebec's farmers?
Mr.
Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
This is good news for farmers in his riding and the entire province of
Quebec. Today the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in Trois-Rivières
to sign the APF implementation agreement with Quebec. I think we need to
thank and congratulate Quebec. This is very good news.
Some
hon. members: Bravo.
Mr. Claude Duplain:
Quebec will receive nearly $88 million from the federal
government over the next five years for the four components of the
framework. Quebec and Canada will commit to paying $304 million over
three years to ease the transition. Moreover, with the Agricultural Policy
Framework and its risk management program, farmers will be able to receive
money immediately.
Back to top |
|

|
| October 2, 2003
Mrs.
Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Saskatchewan bison, sheep and cervid farmers desperately need to
sell their meat to international markets. The problem is that there is no
federally licensed slaughter facility in Saskatchewan.
What
is the agriculture minister going to do to help these Saskatchewan farmers
market and export their products?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will certainly continue to emphasize and demonstrate to the
purchasers of ruminant products around the world that we and our industry
have been providing for the safety of ruminant products including those
that the hon. member is referring to.
The
provinces have provincially inspected plants. Those are privately owned.
There are federally inspected plants. I do know that some of the owners of
those plants are looking at changing the status of their plants to
federally inspected plants. In so doing we will work with them to assist
them in any way we can.
Mrs.
Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, border restrictions are a major problem, not just for selling
their products but also for qualifying for compensation.
The
compensation program demands that bison, sheep and cervid butchering
happens at an approved facility, the meat is sold and that it is
documented. With the glut of meat on the market right now producers cannot
do this.
What
is the agriculture minister going to do to ensure that these Saskatchewan
producers are compensated?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly do not think that the hon. member is suggesting that
slaughtered meat that is sold is not inspected and not slaughtered whether
it be in provincially or federally inspected plants. I know she is not
saying that.
However
the business risk management programs are there. She could encourage those
provinces that have not signed it to sign the agreement so that the money
can be moved.
I
will repeat it again. We have hundreds of millions of dollars to assist
farmers as their incomes change because of circumstances like this. We
would sincerely like to move that money to farmers.
Back to top |
|

|
| September
26, 2003
Mrs.
Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have been asking the government for months about a marketing
strategy for Canadian beef.
Public
trust must be restored. Where is the public ad campaign to promote the
beef industry and what is the government's plan?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that through the work of the
government and the industry it is being demonstrated very clearly that the
Canadian beef product is completely safe. It has been recognized by other
countries in the world by opening their borders in ways that have never
happened before as far as receiving product from a BSE country goes.
That
has also been recognized in the numbers. Canadian consumers purchased 62%
more beef in July of this year than last year and 72% more in August than
they did last year. The beef is moving and we just need to continue to
work--
The
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
Mrs.
Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is an excellent answer from the member whose government
gives millions to millionaires and pennies to seniors.
Other
livestock industries are being affected by the BSE scare: sheep, bison and
cervids. Borders and markets must be opened and kept open for these
Canadian products as well. Where is the government's plan for marketing
alternative livestock?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the markets in the United States opened and when the markets
in Mexico were opened those markets were opened in the very same way for
the other ruminants, for all the other ruminants, as they have been for
beef. The hon. member knows that. I am sure she read the press release. I
am sure she read the information that is out there.
It
is the science, it is the record of the Canadian beef industry and it is
the work of our processing plants and the work of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency that have had recognition given to Canada that has not
been given to any other country in the world. We will keep building on
that.
Mrs.
Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian livestock industry is going to change its name to
Bombardier.
Canadian
producers know that until our borders open to year round access to
American feeder cattle the American border will remain closed to ours.
This has been an issue for 10 years. Will the government agree to reverse
its position and get all the borders open?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member fails to realize, so I will remind her and others
again, that no other countries have had the borders opened such as we
have. Unfortunately, we had a cow back in May with BSE, which puts us in
the category that we are now a BSE country. Other countries in the world
usually do not import products from countries that had a case of BSE, but
our track record, our science and the work that has been done, that has
been the strategy, and it is working.
Mr.
Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the federal
government refused to take its responsibilities, the Government of Quebec
was forced to launch the second phase of its own plan to help farm
producers who are victims of the mad cow crisis.
The
minister should stop talking about the agricultural policy framework
because farmers simply do not want it. Does the minister intend to
implement a specific program for dealing with the mad cow crisis, as
requested by farmers?
[English]
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am certainly ready to help farmers more than we have to date
and we are already for those provinces that have signed the implementation
agreement. That implementation agreement is there with the province of
Quebec.
I
have had signing authority since last spring and would be more than
pleased to sign that document. That will move even more money into the
province of Quebec to help beef farmers and other farmers.
Back to top |
|

|
|
September
25, 2003
Mr.
Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister for Agriculture hid behind the beef value
roundtable he claims he instigated last June. That very roundtable
designed a comprehensive plan to deal with the escalating problem of cull
cows. The minister rejected its plan as out of hand and replaced it with
what? Silence, and lots of it.
Is
the minister stalling so his new boss will get the credit for resolving
this or does he just not really have a plan?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the beef roundtable and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association made
a presentation to myself and all the provincial ministers Monday morning
of this week. The hon. member knows full well that after that meeting we
all said that it was the desire of everyone to use the over $500 million
that was left first to help address this situation and then we would go
from there.
It
was very clear and it was a decision made by the federal government and
the provincial governments at a federal-provincial meeting, and the
ministers from all the provinces agreed to it.
Mr.
Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, if that line were actually true and if he really were telling us
the truth here, he would have no problem getting the last signatures on
his APF.
The
livestock industry is only the latest victim of the Liberal government's
inability to deal with international trade issues. Nobody can wait another
six months to see if they can trigger any--
Some
hon. members: Oh, oh.
The
Deputy Speaker: I encourage the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster
to be judicious in his words.
Mr.
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that no producers can wait
another six months to see if they can trigger any payout from the
minister's Russian roulette support programs.
When
will the minister table a national plan that will actually address the
health of our livestock industry? When is he will he do that?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I announced on September 19 $600 million to flow to Canadian
farmers. A number of provinces have already signed bilateral agreements
which will allow producers to apply for interim agreements.
By
the way, Mr. Speaker, I told the truth earlier as well.
Back to top |
|

|
| September
24, 2003
Mr.
Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the debate
yesterday on the extensive efforts that the government has undertaken to
open the American border to Canadian cattle, I heard the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food mention that he had recently announced details
of $600 million for agriculture producers.
Can
the minister inform the House whether cattle ranchers will be receiving a
share of this $600 million? While they are grateful that the border is
open to Canadian beef, they will continue to experience financial pain
until live cattle can be exported to the United States.
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly they will receive a portion of the $600 million in
transition funds as they did last year and as they will this year.
The
hon. member knows it is through the work of the government, the Prime
Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, cabinet colleagues, MPs and the
industry, that every effort is being made and has been made, and will
continue to be made. We will not rest until we have the border completely
open into the United States.
With
reference to the $600 million, yes, that will flow to all farmers in all
provinces, as it did last year, within a very few weeks. For example, last
year, it meant $110 million to Ontario farmers and over $180 million to
Saskatchewan farmers.
Ms.
Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, even if the U.S. embargo
on beef has been partially lifted, producers are continuing to lose money
and are desperately calling for help. The assistance plan ended on August
31, and the Fédération des producteurs de bovins finds it totally
unacceptable that the government is refusing to announce phase two.
What
is keeping the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food from answering the
appeal of the government and the cattle producers of Quebec, and from
immediately implementing a second phase of the assistance plan for the
cattle industry, which has been so hard hit by the mad cow crisis?
[English]
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House and as I have said a number of
times, we did. The federal government put $312 million into the BSE
recovery program. The provincial governments added more money. I announced
last week $600 million moving to farmers. There is still over $500 million
available.
Let
us sign up and use up that money first and then we will go from there.
[Translation]
Ms.
Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps on
telling us about his famous agricultural strategic framework, but what is
needed is not that, but an assistance plan.
The
Fédération des producteurs de bovins has made it clear: the strategic
framework the minister is so anxious to sign does not meet the needs of
producers. They want a specific assistance plan.
Why
is the minister so insensitive to the drama that is going on in the
various regions of Quebec?
[English]
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is still over $500 million left in money to move to
Canadian farmers. Many of those who will trigger that will be beef
farmers.
We
will move that money to beef farmers and to other farmers out there that
need that support. Then we will talk about where we go from there if that
is not sufficient.
Back to top |
|

|
|
September
23, 2003
Mr.
Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture's deadlock with the provinces is holding farmers
hostage. His refusal to compensate farm families on the brink of
bankruptcy until the remaining provinces sign on to the agriculture policy
framework is callous and mean-spirited.
In
the meantime, the Canadian agriculture sector is facing its biggest crisis
since the Depression.
When
can farm families expect the minister to live up to his own government's
commitments and start the flow of compensation? It is a liquidity issue.
They need the money now.
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that last Friday I announced $600
million in transition funding to farmers across the country. That is on
top of the $312 million from the federal government, plus the provincial
money, as far as the BSE recovery program is concerned.
The
hon. member also knows from his experience, legal and otherwise, that
there has to be agreements and signatures before money can be moved. Three
or four provinces have refused to sign federal-provincial agreements which
would allow us to move hundreds of millions of dollars to those provinces.
Mr.
Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
that is blackmail. That is blaming the provinces again. His government's
inability to strike compromise with provinces and other nations is
legendary. When will the minister give up on this stubborn refusal to work
with the agriculture sector on this critical file?
I
ask the minister, I ask the Prime Minister and I ask his understudy, when
will they get fully engaged on this file? What discussions does the
Minister of Agriculture currently have under way with his counterpart in
the United States? When will he come forward with a comprehensive plan to
get the US border open to Canadian cattle? When will he do that?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last number of months, we have had directly and
indirectly, because I have kept track of them, close to 100 interventions
with the United States. We have had face to face meetings, phone calls of
diplomats, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, my colleague the
trade minister, the industry, the food inspection agency and I can go on.
As
far as working with the provinces, I have had signing authority since May.
The provinces just need to sign the papers so we can flow the money to the
farmers. We know they need money. Those provinces are not even committing
their 40%--
The
Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
Back to top |
|

|
|
September
22, 2003
Mrs.
Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today the agriculture minister is holding meetings with his
provincial counterparts. There is little expectation that the government
and the minister will bring anything new and useful to the table.
What
will the agriculture minister offer to the provinces other than
blackmailing them into signing the agriculture policy framework?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat again, there are hundreds of millions of dollars
that the federal government has available for the provinces. Some
provinces have not even agreed to put their 40% with that, so their
industry should be asking those provinces why they are not there to
support them.
As
well, last Friday I announced the payment to the farmers of the second
$600 million transitional fund. That will be there to help producers and
that will go to all farmers across Canada whether they sign the
implementation agreement or not.
Mrs.
Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the agriculture minister can do a lot of extra talking but the
borders are still closed to all livestock in this country.
For
years Canadian cattlemen have called for year round access to American
feeder cattle. Uncertainty is the last thing that the cattle industry
needs right now.
The
minister needs to answer the important question for our farmers. When will
his government allow year round access to American feeder cattle so that
for once and for all we can get this border open?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know that is an issue with the beef cattlemen. It is also an
issue with the dairy industry which has concerns about that as well, and
they are different from what they are for the beef industry. It is an also
an issue as far as health is concerned.
I
have asked the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to do another review of the
level of risk. That will be done as quickly as we possibly can to ensure
that whatever action is taken we have the level of risk in reference to
those specific diseases, bluetongue and anaplasmosis, as low as possibly
can be.
Mr.
Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one mad cow equals 90,000
angry farmers, and today we can add several provincial agricultural
ministers to the list, because the federal agriculture minister told his
provincial counterparts earlier today that the BSE recovery program cannot
be extended without running the risk of countervail.
How
is it that the United States and the European Union can add additional
programs to assist their farmers but every time it happens in this country
the government cries countervail?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think the hon. member understands very clearly many of
the rules as far as the WTO is concerned. It depends on how one does it.
Clearly
the beef industry has indicated to us that it does not want any action
taken which might subject it to scrutiny by the United States under
countervail or anti-dumping. The experience of that in the pork industry
and the grains industry and some other industries has been very expensive
in the past, and the provincial ministers, when we put the BSE recovery
program in place, agreed at that time that when the borders started to
open the program would end. They have known it since the beginning of the
program.
Mr.
Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, farmers and agriculture
ministers at the provincial level are frankly tired of national
agricultural programs that never seem to work.
The
BSE crisis is a case in point. Three Prairie provinces have all kicked in
additional money over and above the 60-40 that this government always says
has to be done, and incidentally, the federal government has not paid its
share. The United States, more importantly, is aware of these provincial
add-ons but is not taking any action because it understands the length and
depth of the crisis that we have.
Again,
my question is, how can the Minister of Agriculture justify the
countervail bogeyman as an excuse once more?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government will pay its full share of the 60-40 BSE
recovery program. I might suggest that if the hon. member really wanted
the farmers in his province to benefit from the money that is there to
help farmers across this country, he would go back home and convince the
provincial minister in his own province that they sign on to the
agricultural policy framework, because by not doing so they have not even
committed their 40% to the programs and the money that is there for the
farmers into the future.
Back to top |
|

|
|
September
16, 2003
Hon.
Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Agriculture and it concerns the United Nations biosafety
protocol.
Given
that 57 nations have ratified the biosafety protocol, given the fact that
it has entered into force and given that Canada is host to the UN
Secretariat on Biodiversity, when will the minister be in a position to
give the green light so that the government can ratify this important
protocol?
[Translation]
Mr.
Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has a strong
interest in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and
supports the environmental objectives of the protocol on biosafety.
Canada
signed this protocol in 2001 and is committed to addressing the concerns
of stakeholders in the agri-food and biotechnology industries.
The
agri-food sectors support the protocol's goals and have agreed to work
with us in accordance with the protocol and to minimize the uncertainties
related to trade.
Back to top |
|

|
|
September
15, 2003
Hon.
Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is addressed to the minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board.
According
to Ken Ritter, the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board, 82% of the board's
customers say they do not want to use genetically engineered wheat.
Does
the minister agree with the position taken by the Wheat Board's customers
and the board's opposition to Monsanto's application to cultivate and
market genetically engineered wheat in Canada?
Hon.
Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis
and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members will
know, given our painful experience this summer with BSE, it is important
to take a science based approach to cross-border trade issues. That having
been said, I have a great deal of concern about the same things the
Canadian Wheat Board is concerned about. We do not want to lose either
markets or market share. A great deal of work therefore remains to be done
to ensure intelligent and responsible behaviour in respect of genetically
modified products.
The
government is working very closely with the Canadian grains industry and
other stakeholders, including the Canadian Wheat Board, to determine how
best to proceed in a responsible manner.
Mr.
Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with the
collapse of the trade talks in Cancun, Canadian agriculture producers have
been dealt yet another blow. Producers in Canada have been placing their
future hopes on these negotiations.
The
Minister for International Trade stated that WTO members must redouble
their efforts to build bridges and find consensus. The minister needs to
redouble his efforts to build bridges in his own backyard. Canadian
producers are hurting. When will the Liberal government rebuild damaged
relationships with our farmers and our international trading partners?
Mr.
Murray Calder (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International
Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that there was nothing in
the draft agreement that was agreed to in Cancun, but additional insights
have been gained and that will lead to further discussions which will be
taking place on December 15 in Geneva when the WTO group meets again.
Mr.
Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Liberal
policies continue to destroy international relationships and alienate and
harm our Canadian farmers.
When
will the government deal with opening the Canada-U.S. border to live
cattle? When will it deal with high tariffs placed on grain farmers? When
will it deal with restricted market access to agriculture producers?
Why
is the Liberal government continuing to harm our Canadian agriculture
producers?
[Translation]
Mr.
Claude Duplain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada went to Cancun to agree on a
framework document on agriculture that would allow us to continue to
pursue our negotiation objectives, in other words, the elimination of
export subsidies, maximum reduction of internal support that distorts
trade, and true improvements to market access for all agri-food products,
which is very important to us.
Back to top |
|

|
|
June
13, 2003
Mr.
Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think bringing in the Rolling Stones is going to solve that problem.
It
is estimated that by next week, losses to the livestock industry will be
over $1 billion due to the BSE scare. The beef industry has rejected the
government's latest proposal, saying loans simply are not the answer. As
they say, “You cannot borrow yourself out of trouble”.
Now
it appears the government is using this disaster to blackmail the
provinces into signing its agricultural policy framework. I ask the
minister, will the government introduce a comprehensive compensation
package outside of the APF?
Hon.
David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once
again the opposition does not have the facts. There has been no proposal
put on the table because the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is
meeting with his counterparts in Vancouver today to discuss this very
issue and what can be done.
Certainly
ministers on this side of the House have been working on this particular
matter under the leadership of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
for the last number of days. I am certain that the discussions in
Vancouver will help the situation and help deal with the very terrible
crisis that is faced by producers and others in the country.
Mr.
Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is
part of the problem. No proposal will be put on the table. It has been
almost a month since this scare started to affect beef producers and it is
an economic loss to the livestock industry.
The
president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association says the minister's BSE
compensation plan for loan guarantees is like throwing a rock to a
drowning man. The industry needs cash, not more debt.
I
ask again, will the government commit to an immediate cash injection for
the feedlot industry that is losing millions of dollars a day?
Hon.
David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have
said, all of these issues are under discussion today in Vancouver.
The
hon. member should recognize that the preoccupation of the Government of
Canada and the provincial governments and especially my colleague the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is to deal with the science in this
case to ensure that people are well aware that there is no hazard from
other animals being infected. The science is now conclusive and is now
being analyzed by our friends in the United States. This leads us to some
optimism that the border will be opened in the near future.
Back to top |
|

|
|
June
11, 2003
Mr.
Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the end of April
the UPA of Grand-Pré and the Envir-Eau-Sol group, which consists of 72
businesses in the regional municipality of Maskinongé, asked the Prime
Minister and member for Saint-Maurice personally to guarantee, in their
words, “farm income protection systems by increasing the amount provided
within the agricultural policy framework so that the Financière du Québec
can cover the production costs of our farmers”.
Can
the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to reply in the affirmative to
the legitimate demands of these agricultural producers from his riding?
[English]
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are working with the ministries and the representatives of the
agriculture producers across Canada to put in place the announcement that
the Prime Minister and I made last June of $5.2 billion in additional new
money to help in areas of food safety, business risk management,
environment and to help build upon the work that is being done in the
provinces already, not to detract from that, but to built upon that.
Mr.
Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, concern has been expressed in the agricultural community that new
products being introduced into the market could actually harm the market
unless that introduction is done responsibly.
Could
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what is being
done to ensure the agricultural community does not suffer unnecessary
market harm from such new products?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, we can all be very proud of the rigorous and science based
regulatory system that we have that is world renowned and highly respected
around the world. However, even taking that into consideration, we are
aware of the implications that could happen, not necessarily that may
happen, with the introduction of new products such as the member has
referred to.
I
have instructed my department to work with the industry and consult with
the industry so we can come up with a process to address that. I believe
officials from my department will be at the agriculture standing committee
tomorrow and will be able to begin initial discussions on that if the
issue is raised there.
Back to top |
|

|
| June 5, 2003
Mr.
Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, earlier today at the
agriculture committee, there were groups from Saskatchewan concerned about
Canada's current export customers. Eighty per cent of them say they will
not buy genetically modified wheat.
Agriculture
Canada continues to listen to Monsanto instead of Canadians and the world
to have GM wheat licensed here. That would be a disaster because Canadian
farmers will lose their markets. Saskatchewan's major farm and local
government organizations are in Ottawa today. They are calling on the
government to add a market impact analysis.
Will
the government and the minister listen to this advice and commit to a
market--
The
Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is not involved in reviewing an
application for something such as genetically modified wheat. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency and the ministry of health are involved in it. That
will be based on science.
I
have said before in the House that we need to take a look at the other
concerns that are in the marketplace and with the application and that
type of thing. That work is being done by the government.
Mrs.
Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, cattle producers have had their farms quarantined. Their herds
have been slaughtered, yet they cannot begin to rebuild their herds or
their lives until the government drafts restocking guidelines.
When
will the minister release the guidelines that will allow cattle producers
to restock their cattle and rebuild their lives?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is already a program in place and I know the hon. member is
aware of this. When animals have to be put down because of a reportable
disease, there is compensation to the owner of each of those animals. As
soon as that process is finished, if the individuals wish to take that
money and restock their herds, they can do that immediately.
In
regard to the criteria of the United States, I will say again, we need the
science and we will complete that science as quickly as possible.
Mrs.
Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there is a lot of science fiction coming from that side of the
House.
Cattle
producers are already looking ahead to restocking their farms for the
future. These producers are waiting for the CFIA to give them written
guidelines for that restocking.
Can
the minister tell us when the CFIA will publish those guidelines to allow
for the restocking of farms and to allow the people to get on with their
lives?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think I am correct in saying that as soon as the quarantine is
lifted farms can then start restocking.
The
Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis.
Some
hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs.
Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
aware that the responsibility for dead stock removal is under the
jurisdiction of the provincial governments. In Ontario, the legislation
that deals specifically with this issue is the Dead Animal Disposal Act.
Although
it is clearly stated in provincial legislation that dead stock removal is
the responsibility of the provincial government, there have been
increasing discussions in the Province of Ontario that the federal
government does have a role to play in regard to this matter.
Could
the Minister of Agriculture please tell the House and the residents in the
Province of Ontario whether the federal government has a role in the
removal of dead stock in Ontario?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member has said, dead stock removal comes under the
jurisdiction of the provinces. The provinces are responsible, as well, for
groundwater and waste management within their jurisdiction. They have
guidelines and standards for that.
Canadian
farmers are well-known and have a good reputation for obeying those
standards and guidelines, as are waste and landfill sites. I expect and I
know they will live up to both the guidelines and the standards.
Back to
top |
|

|
| May 29, 2003
Mr.
Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is
trying to force genetically modified food on farmers and consumers both
here and abroad. Yesterday, Canada's eccentric uncle, the Prime Minister,
was in Europe aiding and abetting the American multinationals while here
at home his government has been assisting Monsanto in test plots for
adapting genetically modified wheat to the Prairies.
The
list of groups wanting nothing to do with GM includes farmers, the Wheat
Board, the milling industry, international customers and most important,
our own consumers. When will the government stop jamming genetically
modified food down our throats and accept that what is good for GM is not
good for Canada?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we have a process here in
Canada that is the envy of the rest of the world. The assessment is made
based on science and the safety of any genetically modified product to
humans, animals and to the environment. Even with that, it does not mean
that the product goes to market. If it passes, the opportunity is there.
There have been a number of cases. For example, a number of years ago
there was a genetically modified flax product that did pass and the
industry decided not to take it to market.
Mr.
Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister witnessed Canadian GMOs being denied access to the
European market. Yet for five years we have been warning the government
about the risk of not regulating GMOs.
How
many markets must we be banned from before the government takes its
responsibilities and regulates all GMOs?
[English]
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we do regulate GMOs. We regulate GMOs better than any other
country in the world. I just gave an answer on how we go about doing it.
We
recognize that there have to be concerns about the marketing of that
product. I gave an example of how that has been handled in the past. We
will continue basing those decisions on science.
[Translation]
Mr.
Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week
the Canadian Wheat Board asked Monsanto to withdraw its request to have
genetically modified wheat certified.
Will
the Minister of Agriculture admit that if approved, Monsanto's request
would make the Canadian situation even worse and close even more doors on
international markets? Does the minister intend to say no to Monsanto, as
requested by the Canadian Wheat Board?
[English]
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I gave an example of a product that passed the tests of the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Ministry of Health a few years
ago. The developer of that product recognized a concern that had been
raised by the Canadian Wheat Board and it was not put on the market. The
system can work. That is a good example of the situation and how it can
work.
Back to
top |
|

|
| May 15, 2003
Mr. David Anderson
(Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 2002
was--
Some
hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The
Speaker: Order, please. The minister is, of course, very popular, but
we need to be able to hear the next question.
[English]
The
hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands now has the floor.
Mr.
David Anderson: 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?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the hon. member was in the standing committee on
agriculture a few weeks ago when I went over the proposed program for the
producers. That program is out there with the provinces. I have authority
from our government to sign the agreements with the provinces, and we will
put that in place. One province has already signed so their producers can
have that protection for this year, and I await the signatures of all the
others.
Mr.
David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): 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?
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over a week ago I sent a personal letter to every holder of a
NISA account in this country to explain the program. That is 160,000
letters that we sent out to explain it to the farmers. At the request of
the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the farm organizations we
completed a third party review. The results of that have been published.
They said very clearly that the proposed program was better than the
programs that we had in the past.
I
repeat that I am awaiting the signatures of the provinces. As soon as the
provincial governments sign it, that program will be there for the
producers. I urge the hon. member to get--
The
Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
Back to top |
|

|
| May 14, 2003
Mr. Bill Blaikie
(Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, no one likes to be a prop
for the Prime Minister, but I was talking about star wars not SARS wars,
and I want to ask a question.
After
that brief shining moment of independence we have seen nothing but supine
acquiescence on the part of the Prime Minister when it comes to star wars,
vetting our marijuana laws in Washington, and now we have the Canadian
government joining with the American government in opposing the ban on
GMOs in Europe.
I
wonder if this is a sign that someday GM wheat will be imposed on western
Canadians whether--
The
Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Hon.
Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that we have one of the best
systems in the world to analyze whether a genetically modified crop is
either registered or grown. It is examined by Health Canada and the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency for a number of reasons. That process is
taking place at the present time. We do not know what the results of that
will be.
As
a government we also know that there are a number of factors that must be
taken into consideration in addition to that and we are looking at ways in
which that can be considered as well.
Back to top |
|

|
| May 13, 2003
Mr. David Anderson
(Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): 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?
Hon.
Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis
and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did in fact refer the
matter, which was raised by one of the directors of the Canadian Wheat
Board, to the board of directors of the board as well as its legal
counsel. I asked them to inquire into the matter to see if there was
anything to the allegations. I have certainly not been advised to this
date that there was anything to substantiate the allegations.
It
is after all a matter of the management of the Canadian Wheat Board, which
by law is vested in the hands of the directors.
Mr.
David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): 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?
Hon.
Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis
and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing at all on
the public record to support the allegation that the hon. gentleman has
just made. The fact of the matter is that this House created a new
governance system for the Canadian Wheat Board. The old system of
appointed commissioners is gone. There is a modern | |