Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1998

Supply

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this motion. I will be splitting my time.

The Government of Canada recognizes that Canadian primary producers face unique challenges in operating their businesses. Not only must they deal with the pests, the diseases and the unpredictable Canadian weather, they must also do business in a highly volatile, competitive and often heavily subsidized international marketplace.

To help Canadian producers meet those challenges the federal government is investing $600 million each year in farmer safety nets. The provinces are spending an additional $400 million. This envelope of $1 billion in addition to the funds contributed by producers funds a system that helps farmers deal with the production, the material risks and the market risks they must manage in their farming operations.

The cornerstone of this system is the net income stabilization account, NISA, a voluntary program that can provide a source of money for farmers during market downturns. This money can be used for whatever purpose they choose, to pay input suppliers, to meet operating and term loan payments or to supplement their personal incomes. As the minister mentioned earlier, NISA has been a tremendous success with participants accounting for 85% of the net sales of commodities eligible for the program.

I will briefly describe how the NISA system works and how it helps Canadian farmers deal with market downturns. Each year a producer participating in the program can place up to 3% of his or her eligible net sales into his or her individual NISA account with a maximum of $7,500. The federal and provincial governments match that money and pay a 3% interest bonus on the farmer's share. That is fair.

When a downturn comes, producers can withdraw funds from their account up to the level of their average income over the last five years. Since 1991 Canadian producers have saved almost $2.5 billion in their NISA accounts. Most of that money has been contributed over the last three or four high income years. In general, producers of all primary commodities except for supply management products like dairy, eggs and poultry are now eligible to participate in this program.

Farmers who are not already enrolled in NISA are permitted to make a late application up until the end of December. Benefits for the 1997 year that would be reduced by a late filing penalty could still add up to a significant amount.

Most farmers choose to participate in this excellent risk management program. That means they have a tool to help them manage through a price slump or a market downturn like the one currently being experienced. On a national level, an Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada preliminary analysis suggests that the majority of active NISA participants have enough money in their accounts to see them through the winter.

By contrast, American farmers did not have this. They had to wait and see what kind of bailout package Congress and the White House would devise but in Canada farmers and governments have been putting money into the bank every year. Thanks to NISA, most Canadian farmers have money in the bank to fill in their income gaps.

Canadian farmers have helped federal and provincial governments to build the farm income system we now have in place. It is a system that puts farmers in charge, that encourages farmers to save money during the good years and helps them to manage their way through the lean years.

This year we implemented a new interim withdrawal mechanism for NISA so farmers can have access to their money when they need it the most. So far producers have withdrawn only 3% of the $2.5 billion that has been accumulated in NISA. If the need for additional funds increases in the coming months, they will be able to decide based on their own individual circumstances when and how much to withdraw from their accounts.

In conclusion, I am very pleased that Canadian farmers have worked with Government of Canada and the provinces to put in place the kind of tools they need to help them through tough times. They continue to work with the government and with the provinces through the long term review process of the farm income production system currently underway and scheduled to wrap up this coming spring.

More immediately, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is meeting with farm group leaders and provincial ministers tomorrow to discuss this serious farm income situation. As well as the tools we have in place now for these farmers, they will discuss how these tools can be used to maximum effectiveness and if there are other adjustments that we should be making to our safety system for farmers.

Once more farmers themselves are at the table deciding how to deal with the ups and downs in the markets and what the weather and world conditions can bring. I am glad to see so many commodity groups, along with all the provinces, joining our minister tomorrow.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the hon. member. What we have, in those famous words, is a failure to communicate.

The hon. member is once again deluding himself and his government colleagues that there is not a problem out there. He went on at great length extolling the virtues of the NISA program. Yet the member has to know that NISA as it is presently constituted helps those who really in many cases do not need the help. In the past it has been the people with the highest net incomes who were in the enviable position of being able to contribute to the NISA. The people who had no net income and were struggling and did not have the money could not invest in that program. We have always said it was a good program. We have said we would expand it to be an all-farm NISA. It is not the be all and end all. I do not want the hon. member to leave that impression with the farmers who are viewing this debate today.

I ask him if that is his intention. He said it was great that the Liberals were able to deliver tools they need to help them through tough times. The reality is these farmers do not have the tools they need because the Liberal government has failed miserably to act when it had the opportunity.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member's colleagues on his side will tell him that we had four hours of meetings on the agriculture standing committee today with farm leaders such as Jack Wilkinson and the western pools.

NISA is a good program but it is not the answer to all our problems. That is why we spent four hours in committee listening to these people and asking questions. This is a serious situation. No one has all the answers. That is one of the reasons my hon. colleague from Prince Edward Island on this side of the House today asked what he proposes. The supply management sector is healthy at this time. Does he support that? What would he like us to do?

He does not want us to help anybody out. He wants to cut money from all these programs. Yet he wants us to help the western producers. I want to do that too. We have to look at how bad the circumstances are and see what we can do. This is not a short term problem. World prices are at the very lowest in commodities. We want to work together with our colleagues.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clear up a misconception that was given by the member for Selkirk—Interlake when he implied that it was the government that stated this was a regional issue with western Canada.

It was a member from his party, the member for Dauphin—Swan River, who brought the topic up that this was a western concern and that eastern Canadians were fine because they had marketing boards.

I go from there to the chair of the rural caucus about that particular topic. The downturn of commodity prices is a national catastrophe. It is a national issue. Would he describe the effect of this downturn on his home province of Ontario?

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning in rural caucus as we met at 7.40 individual members from Ontario were discussing how serious this situation is and how it is affecting our producers. Individuals talked about hog producers. We wonder what their future will be. There is an overproduction and commodity prices are at an all time low, and following the Asian flu there is less demand.

I have many neighbours who are involved in supply management and are thankful that the government is supporting that. There are also many people who grow cereals and grains who are concerned about the future.

I am glad to see the motion on the floor. At committee we supported bringing the motion forward, although we may have wanted to change a few words in it. This is a serious crisis.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset, which may come as no surprise to members, that I am not a farmer. I have spent some time on a farm like many Canadians. In fact, my wife's uncle has a 600 acre farm in a little community called Iron Bridge just about 80 kilometres this side of Sault Ste. Marie, which is my home town. It is a farm that grows mostly rocks and a bit of water. He also raises some cattle. Over the years he raised hogs and therefore has had to deal with commodity difficulties.

My family and I have actually spent a lot of time there over the years, mostly in the summer months, some of it bringing in the hay and working on the farm. My boys spent many of their years as youngsters working for their Uncle Ted.

That does not necessarily give me credentials as a farmer. I do not pretend to have them. However, I think is important that all Canadians understand what the position being put forward today represents.

Let us be clear. An opposition day is an opportunity for the opposition party in question to put forward a motion that somehow in some way might embarrass the government. It is not about serious policy. It is not about putting forward arguments and debate to the farmers of western Canada or southwestern Ontario. It is not about putting forward policies that make sense. It is about ranting, raving and railing on about how awful it is that this dastardly government is ignoring farmers.

The Reform Party has principles. If we do not like them it has others, which is exactly what we are seeing here. One part of the motion states:

—to provide tax relief, lower input costs, reduce user fees and address the inadequacies of the farm safety net program.

Yet we can see it is the Reform Party's position. It is quite interesting. Members of the Reform Party, in their own document referred to as the blue book, call for a self-reliant and economically viable agricultural industry which will use market mechanisms, including the free operation of comparative advantage between regions and commodities, free entry into all sectors of production, and marketing and global free trade to meet the needs of consumers. If their policies were adopted they would create a trade war which they know full well would not benefit farmers or consumers.

All of us in this place, whether we represent farm communities or urban communities, represent people who need a successful farming industry.

On the one hand they would do all these miraculous things. They consider themselves to be primarily free traders and on the other hand they would create a trade war that would see farmers across the country penalized.

Let us talk about some contradictions because hypocrisy sometimes is amazing. It is amazing to see some of the differences. They also support “the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies, support programs, trade restrictions and non-tariff barriers in conjunction with other countries and domestic sectors”.

They go on to say that they will vigorously use federal safety net programs to support Canadian food producers that are struggling. Which is it? Are we to use programs like NISA to support farmers who are struggling food producers, or are we to phase out and eliminate all subsidy support programs? What is NISA? Is that not a support program? On one hand they want to eliminate it. On the other hand they want to use it to support farmers.

This takes me back to the election campaign when the leader of the Reform Party would say one thing when talking in eastern Canada, perhaps about Quebec or whatever, and another thing when talking in western Canada. There seemed to be two messages or more. I cannot explain it.

I am reading from their document. This is not Liberal propaganda. They will support the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies and support programs. However they will vigorously use federal safety net programs to support Canadian food producers. It is pretty clear to me. They cannot have it both ways.

Here are some other interesting statistics out of the blue book. In their supposed taxpayers' budget of 1995 they called for $640 million to be saved by downsizing guess what department?

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

What department?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

The department of agriculture. There were others: industry, fisheries and oceans and natural resources. Their knives knew no boundaries. They were prepared to slash and burn and put up figures regardless of sustainability or of the impact it would have on those ministries in regions of the country. We can imagine what would happen in fisheries and oceans.

No wonder they do not have a seat in eastern Canada. They should go into eastern Canada and tell them that they want to cut money out of those ministries that support Canadians working in those industries. They would cut $640 million by downsizing agriculture, industry, fisheries and oceans and natural resources. They did not say the environment.

The other day the debate in the House was about how all environmental issues should be turned over to provincial interests. Someone even suggested that the municipalities could do a better job, that the federal government had no position to play as custodians of the national environment, and that it should abdicate its responsibility.

It would not surprise me in the least if the day arrives in the not too distant future when members of the Reform caucus will call for the Minister of the Environment to invoke tough federal regulations to protect a particular interest that they may have that day or that they have read about in the Globe and Mail or the National Post that morning, which seem to be the fundamental research documents used by the Reform Party.

In addition, a further $690 million would be cut from other regional and sector specific funding through the department of agriculture. They talk about environment, industry and natural resources. It is truly astounding.

The motion calls for emergency measures including tax relief and yet their own documents do not support it. One thing I find most interesting is how this seems to be a johnny-come-lately for Reformers. Where have they been in question period? Where has the critic for agriculture been? Where has the leader of the Reform Party been to stand and ask amazingly tough questions of the government and hold its feet to the fire?

They do not ask questions during question period. Rather they sit in the back room and concoct some kind of emotion to throw on the floor and try to pretend they are the saviours of Canadian farmers and Canadian businesses, that they are the only ones who can foster tax relief. It is hypocrisy in its purest form, and the Canadian people know it full well.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, may I straighten the member out as I usually have to do. At the time he was talking about with regard to the 1995 budget there was a $40 billion problem. The finance minister increased taxes and slashed the guts out of health care by slashing $7 billion. We do not have to take any lessons from him.

Everywhere I go I have people coming up to me and talking about the issue of taxation, taxation and taxation. When I was talking to farmers in the maritimes that was the number one issue. I do not understand why the member, in spite of the fact that he comes from an urban constituency, cannot understand that everyone including farmers needs a tax break.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that there was $7 billion in tax relief in the last budget. The member will know that when we took over government in 1993 the inherited deficit left by Mulroney's Conservative Party was $42 billion.

The member will know that our finance minister recently announced a debt reduction of $3.5 billion in addition to the fact that debt instruments totalling $9 billion were not renewed by the government. The member will know in his heart but he will not admit it that the government has started the country on the road to tax relief from which farmers will benefit far more than the nonsense being proliferated by the Reform Party.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really odd that the member attacks us for what he calls nonsense and yet the people by and large on this side who are speaking are farmers, people who have lived their lives on the farm.

The hon. member figures he can speak about the issue because he once picked rocks on Uncle Ted's farm. If he wants to talk about hypocrisy, I will tell the member about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is making the deep cuts as was done by the government and then holding itself up as the great defender of not only agriculture but health care and every other social program.

I draw the member's attention to the fact that the Reform Party said it would repriorize programs in agriculture and develop a program called the trade distortion adjustment program. Has the hon. member ever heard of that? That is what we said we would have done five years ago. Had the Liberals done it, our farmers would not be in this mess today.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I give the member a point. Picking rocks on Uncle Ted's farm certainly does not qualify me to be a farmer, and I do not pretend to be.

Being elected to a national parliament requires dealing with all kinds of different issues. I have never worked in a mine and yet I am very concerned about the mining industry in the province of Ontario. I have never worked in a steel plant, although my father, my uncle and cousins did, but I am very concerned about the impact of downloading and the pricing problem in the steel industry. I have never worked in the fisheries. Does that mean as a nationally elected politician I should have no concern for Canadians in Atlantic Canada?

I have never worked on an active farm. I admit that but it has nothing to do with it. The point is the hypocrisy I am pointing out in that party.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government went into the 1993 election and into the 1997 election and never told the Canadian public what it would do.

It ended up gutting health care. It gutted education funding. It hit the Canadian Coast Guard in Manitoba. Icebreaker fees are rising. The other day the government gave $500,000 to professional hockey in Canada.

This is all on record. The government's record of slashing, burning and cutting into Canadians' economic well-being is well documented. Every Canadian knows what it is. I ask the member to list for us the dollar figure of the total cuts that have happened since the 1995 budget. How much was cut out of these departments by the hon. member's government?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member one list. There was a $42 billion deficit which was eliminated by this government. That is clear. I will give him another point.

The Reform Party is looking for quick fixes with this motion. In fact in the short term NISA holds about $2.5 billion that Canadian farmers can access. This represents an annual contribution of $600 million by the federal government, $400 million by the provinces and $600 million by farmers.

The record is clear. This government stands ready to support small business, fishermen, miners, steelworkers. Absolutely we will support farmers.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion. Actually I did not think I would get the opportunity to speak because there are so many people who want to address this very important debate.

It is an important debate for Canadians all across the land. Farmers from coast to coast have been experiencing ongoing difficulties in meeting the bottom line and putting food on the table.

A number of my colleagues have spoken very, very eloquently today. Despite the absolute rubbish that has come from a few of the members, and I add that it is only a few, there are some hon. members across the way who actually tried to sincerely address the debate today. I appreciate that and I am sure farmers watching the debate today appreciate that. But members such as the one who just spoke do a great disservice to this place and certainly to farmers out in the real world who are watching the debate today.

I will speak briefly because, with the unanimous consent of the House, I would like to give one of my colleagues the opportunity to speak in this very brief time slot. My hon. colleague from Blackstrap would like to address the House. I would like to take perhaps five minutes of the 10 that is remaining.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for Prince George—Peace River has requested that his 10-minute slot be split into two fives with corresponding questions and comments. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River has three and a half minutes.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I certainly appreciate the consent of all members who are in the Chamber at this time, I will say it is very, very difficult to address this issue in 30 minutes let alone three and a half minutes.

I want to make one brief point on behalf of the producers of Prince George—Peace River, the riding which I am always pleased and honoured to represent in this Chamber. Most members present today have heard me speak over the past two years about the difficulties faced by the farmers of the Peace River country, not just the B.C. Peace River region, but also that part of the extended prairies known as the Alberta Peace River region.

We had two years of disastrous weather leading up to this. Farmers struggled very hard and valiantly to try to bring in a reduced crop in the past two years. The vast majority of the crop for those two years was left out in the fields. It was an absolute—I cannot say a disaster any more than I have already said it. Farmers were faced with this crisis. A lot of farmers could not meet commitments and pay their bills. Governments both at the provincial level in British Columbia as well as the federal level were very slow to react to the disaster.

This year should have been a great year for the Peace River country. We had good growing conditions for the first time in three years. Farmers produced an abundance, a great crop, particularly in its quality, although the quantity was not what they had hoped for. The majority of the wheat was number one high protein, which is not often seen that far north. It is a credit to the farmers themselves that they produced such a great crop. But it was a disastrous year for prices. Members have addressed that quite well today.

I want to speak on behalf of those farmers. We should try and put ourselves in their place. They finally had a year where they hoped they could put a little bit of money into NISA and into these other accounts and pay down some of their bills that had been accumulating over the past two years when despite their most valiant efforts they could not bring the crop in. They finally had a year where they produced a crop and the price has gone into the tank.

As I said a few moments ago, this government should have shown a little bit of foresight and should have reacted when it became government some five years ago. It should have done what we had suggested. One of the suggestions was to reduce programs down to a few and prioritize them in order to help farmers.

One of the programs we said should be put in place was a trade distortion adjustment program to protect farmers from exactly what is occurring today, against unfair subsidization in Europe and the United States, our biggest trading competitors. Then our farmers would have been protected and there would not have been the need for this debate today.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very simple question of the hon. member who just spoke about his concern for the farmers in the Peace River district. Does he know how many of the farmers in his riding opened NISA accounts? We are saying NISA should at least be a help in times as he is describing. If so, how many of those farmers did access their NISA accounts?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question that was put forward. The reality is that a great many of those producers are enrolled in NISA. I myself have farmed in the neighbourhood of 20 years in the Peace River country. My brother and I were enrolled in NISA and he continues that.

When farmers do not have any crop, when they cannot harvest their crop, when their land is a quagmire and there is nothing there to harvest, they do not have any money to contribute to their accounts. That is the sad part about NISA, especially for a region like the Peace River country that has experienced natural disasters for two years back to back. There was no money to go into the accounts to build up for a rainy day.

Despite the farmers' best efforts, we have a situation where because of what foreign countries are doing in subsidizing their farmers, the price has plummeted. Farmers are looking at breaking even at the very best and probably a loss for the third year in a row. This year the loss is caused by price rather than by yield.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Peace River for allowing me to have these few minutes to speak.

Today some members have said that they take great pleasure in standing to address this issue. I take no pleasure in addressing this issue. This debate should not have had to take place in this House.

I want to pick up on a point that my colleague from Peace River made a few minutes ago and which others made before him. They talked about what happened in 1993 when the Liberal government was first elected. Had the government at that time taken some of the advice that we had laid before the House on a program called TDAP, we would not necessarily have been in great shape and the crisis before us today may still have been there but not to the degree that it is. But time and time again over the last five years I have looked across the way and I have seen lawyers from downtown Toronto and downtown Winnipeg telling farmers from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and northern British Columbia how to farm. That is indeed the problem.

This is a serious problem. I want to recount very quickly about what two people whom I have talked to in the last few days are doing.

One is a person about my age, a good friend of mine, who is a good farmer and has been a good farmer for many years. As we speak he is working on a potato farm in Outlook, Saskatchewan digging potatoes with a spade to make an extra buck to help pay his bills. That is how serious the problem is. It is not fun. It is not nice. The man is in his forties and should not have to resort to that.

I talked to another good friend of mine who is a good farmer. In fact he is a Liberal supporter quite clearly and openly and he still happens to be a good friend of mine. He said that he is going to quit the business because he is no longer prepared to take money out of his equity to keep farming. He is a good farmer. He is a great manager. He is one of the most optimistic people I know yet he is going to walk away from farming because of this problem. That is how serious the problem is.

This government has done nothing in the last five years for a long term approach, to make long term changes, so that these problems do not happen again.

My point in standing was to illustrate how serious the issue is. I want to illustrate that nothing has been done. We look at what the long term solution should be or could be. Yes, we should still continue to work on a long term solution to the income crisis of farmers because this happens from time to time over and over again. This will not be the last time. There will be more down the road.

I encourage the government to look at a long term solution. I encourage the government to finally listen, to pay heed to not only our party but to other parties in this House and other groups that may have possible solutions. I would also have to ask this government to look at possible short term solutions. After all, the crunch will come between now and next April when farmers will not be able to put in their crops.

I talked about two farmers whom I know personally who are on the edge of quitting a business and an industry that they love because they cannot make a dollar at it. They have done their share over the last few years. They have diversified. They have changed their way of farming in order to be economically feasible. These farmers have done their share. The government has not done its share.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I have said a number of times today that yes, I agree this is a serious issue. I will try again to get some specifics.

It is clear that when the farm community was called upon to increase exports and hit the targeted exports, it did that. Farmers hit the targeted exports. When the farmers did that they assisted Canada in terms of meeting its balance of trade issues. They drew foreign dollars into the country and did a lot for Canada.

I think there comes a time when Canada has to stand by its farm community in terms of this crisis. That is true. But I thought the purpose of the debate and the motion today was for the Reform Party to put forward some specifics that the minister could deal with at his meeting tomorrow and that the government in general could deal with.

I ask again. I have heard no specifics from the Reform Party—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Blackstrap.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked. That was the point of my whole speech. We put forward specifics for five years. When was the last time the government paid any attention or listened to what we had to say? I would be happy to sit down with the government but there has never been one solid concrete suggestion.

The Liberals must remember that they are the government. They are the ones who make the decisions. They are the ones who are failing the farmers, not our party. I would remind the party across the way that if they truly want the farm industry not only in western Canada but right across the country to continue, they must do something. It is on their shoulders. It is their responsibility.