Larry Miller

[Petitions, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 33 people. The petitioners ask that the government remove the federal excise tax on diesel fuel and gasoline.

[Petitions, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to present four petitions on behalf of my constituents.

The first petition has been signed by 85 people in my riding. The petitioners ask that the government recognize traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman and being the lifelong union of such.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, this is my first opportunity to speak in the House and address you in your new term. I wish you very well. I know that as the dean of parliamentarians you will do a great job.

For the hon. member across the way, I have had the pleasure of meeting a number of Canadians who would be on their way to Afghanistan very shortly. For the information of the rest of the House, I have the training base of Meaford in my riding. A lot of young men and women from all over the country come there to train. It is a great facility.

I was at a dinner a week and a half ago at which there happened to be four people who were just in the process of going through their training and heading off to Afghanistan. One fellow has actually belonged to our reserves for over 30 years. He has shut down his own business for a year to take six months of training and a six month tour in Afghanistan.

If I may ask my colleague about it, there seems to be a perception out there that some members of the public possibly do not understand this, in light of the fact that they compare Iraq and Afghanistan. I would argue that there is a big difference between the two. Number one is that the Iraqi people do not want us there. The Iraqis do not want democracy, but the Afghani people do.

I would be interested in hearing the hon. member's comments on that.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would be glad to address the member's question.

This has been and is part of the big, overall problem. As for increasing the share from 6¢ or 7¢ to 21¢ or whatever, I do not disagree with the fact that this is where it should be, but again, how we end up getting there is part of the whole package. Hopefully, with some of the consultation and ideas coming out of tonight, there will be some ideas we can work toward. I am not going to stand here and tell members that I have all answers on it, but I do know that the minister is consulting and is trying to get answers.

Earlier tonight it was mentioned, and I am not sure who said it, that in the food business we have gone from six to two grocery companies. It is the same in Ontario. It is bad. A good friend of mine who is a farmer but also has a grocery store is suffering big time because he is bringing in beef from a local abattoir that is helping out on the kill in our riding and he is being chastised by the big company. He is bucking those people and I wish him all the luck, but I have a feeling that he is fighting a losing battle. I hope the government can actually step in and do something about that kind of stuff.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the member across the way mostly had comments. There really was not a question there. I know that his heart is in the right place. I think that even in the last government there may have been one, two or maybe three of his members who actually agreed that they should do something with agriculture, but in 13 years, what actually got done?

We have heard about some report. I think it must have been delivered on Easter Sunday by the Easter bunny, because that was the name on it. I presume that is what happened. We are hearing about that and other things, but where were the Liberals? They have all these ideas now that they are no longer in government. Where were they for 13 years? My sons would have loved to have seen some of it, I can tell members that.

I say, do not be hypocritical. All of a sudden they can say whatever they want when they are on that side, and that is not good enough. All kinds of policies could have been brought in over the last few years and not one of them was. Maybe that member wanted to see it, but there sure as heck were not enough members in his caucus to see that it actually went through.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it is very good to be standing here in the 39th Parliament addressing the subject of agriculture. I congratulate you, Mr. Chair, on your new appointment. I wish you well.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the fine people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for sending me back to represent them in this great place of tradition. Many of the people in my riding are farmers as am I. Many others were raised on farms. There is a connection that is very dear to them.

I heard some members from the other parties talk about traditions on the farm. I have three sons at home. They are sixth generation. I do not have such a pleasant story. They have chosen to go in directions other than agriculture. I certainly do not hold that against them. I remember the day that my youngest son said to me, “Dad, I do not want to work like you, 18 or 20 hours a day and not really know if I am going to get paid for it”.

In reality it is a sad state of affairs when it gets to that. That is a decision that generation is making. My sons are not the only ones; many people all over this country have made that decision. We have to end the tide that is taking our young people off the farm.

There are many problems facing agriculture and farmers. Most of the problems are not their fault. Over the last year and a half I have heard from many of my constituents about the problems in agriculture. They all keep coming back to CAIS and the fact that it did not work in any way, shape or form.

During the last session of Parliament I joined with our then agriculture critic in demanding that the government drop the CAIS program cash deposit requirement for farmers wishing to trigger CAIS payments. Last week this government announced that we are getting rid of that deposit requirement and replacing it with a fee process. This means that producers will no longer have to tie up working capital. We are able to look at the savings this change is going to provide for the farmers.

In the past, farmers have had to set aside 22% of the value of their reference margins in a CAIS account in order to have full protection under the program. With that process a producer with a $60,000 reference margin had to put $13,200 up front in an account. Someone who had $13,000 would not need this program. That is gone. With the fee system a producer will pay $4.50 for every $1,000 of reference margin protected. The fee amounts to $270, but again, that has been waived for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister pledged to scrap the CAIS program and replace it with separate farm income stabilization and disaster relief programs. We have heard that again tonight. However, he has run into a roadblock. There is a 24 month notification period or opting out clause that the previous government put in, in conjunction with the provinces. Because the provinces do not want the possibility of being hit with more payouts, they are saying all of a sudden that they have not heard from any farmers that there is any problem with CAIS. The provinces want to stick with the program.

Until that happens we are stuck with CAIS for a while. Our minister, who has been here all night, is working to find ways to make this program work, streamline it a little bit, at least in the interim while we are stuck with it, and make it a little easier for farmers.

The minister has had meetings with his provincial counterparts. I know that in June, as the minister stated earlier, they will be coming back with some suggestions. I sincerely hope that the 10 provincial agriculture ministers will come back with something constructive that our agriculture minister can work with.

Our national CAIS committee, which includes 22 producer members, is looking at all options to improve this program in order to ensure stability. Hopefully when the members report, the program will be improved. The members on the committee are agriculture producers. They have their feet on the ground. They are active in agriculture. They should be able to have some input.

I have not finished my remarks, but I see that I am out of time. I would be glad to answer any questions.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his role as finance minister took over $25 billion out of health care. Last May the Chippewas of Nawash were told that there was no money available to grant their application for $250,000 to provide health care for their community.

In its recent mad dog spending spree, the government has announced billions in bogus promises for every group in the country. Why are the Chippewas of Nawash being left out?

[Liberal Government Policies, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, although the Liberal Party of Canada has officially been named in a judicial inquiry into corruption, the culture of entitlement continues with untendered contracts to friends, exorbitant severance to insiders and the Liberal Party's stubborn refusal to pay back stolen ad scam dollars. They have continuously dropped the ball on the softwood lumber dispute and the Auditor General says they are not providing adequate training to RCMP officers.

Canadians know the time for change has come. They will soon have that choice between a clean, honest Conservative government and a tired, arrogant and scandal-ridden gang of Liberals.

The Prime Minister, the finance minister and the revenue minister were flying on an executive Airbus together. The Prime Minister said to the finance minister, “I could throw a $1,000 bill out the window and make someone very happy”. The finance minister responded by saying, “ I could throw 10 $100 bills out the window and make 10 people happy”. Then the revenue minister said, “I could throw 100 $10 bills out the window and make 100 people happy”.

I say let us throw the whole Liberal government out and make 30 million people happy.

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the member from the Bloc on the agriculture committee. His support for supply management and this amendment go to support all sectors of agriculture. We have to ensure we do that in all parts of Canada.

We have all been led to believe that the government is standing up to protect supply management in all sectors of agriculture when it comes to the WTO. Yet, leaks seem to be taking place very recently that indicate contrary to that.

Is the hon. member's confidence level, in what the government is actually doing to protect supply management and other sectors of agriculture, starting to wane a little bit, as is mine?

[Supply, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the hon. member for Central Nova certainly showed his knowledge of this issue.

I would like to acknowledge the work that the Conservative Party agriculture critic has done. The Conservative Party's support for supply management is common knowledge in the farming community. It is second to none.

Although it was reaffirmed as little as eight days ago by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and also the Minister for International Trade that everything is being protected and that the government is standing strong for everything that is in supply management, I have been getting vibes in recent days that that is not the case.

Does the hon. member for Central Nova think that supply management is being protected in the strongest form possible in looking after Canada's farmers?