House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

An hon. member

Missing in action.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Harper Conservative Calgary Southwest, AB

Absolutely missing in action. Now he has found his voice for agriculture and nobody in the areas of the country he talks about is going to buy it for a minute.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Chair, if the Prime Minister thinks I was quiet, he was absolutely wrong because I had consultations with farmers last year. I presented the report to the minister of agriculture. I would ask the present Minister of Agriculture to pass that report on to the Prime Minister. In fact in the last election many of the members on that side of the House quoted from that report. They said that it made a lot of sense to go forward with those recommendations. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that the Prime Minister sees that report and acts on it as rapidly as he can.

First and foremost, I want to thank all parties for their support in having this debate because there is indeed a farm crisis. Thousands of farmers were on the Hill yesterday, not because they wanted to be but because they had to be to try to push the government into taking some action. As we heard from the Prime Minister's remarks, there is really very little action. The throne speech was much like the Prime Minister's remarks, no action, just words.

The Conservatives say we have to wait for the budget. That is not true. The Minister of Agriculture could have asked the Minister of Finance to use some of that surplus before it went back to the treasury on March 31. That is what happened last year with the previous minister of agriculture when it was coming up to March 31. There was a problem in the farm community. The minister prepared some documentation and he received $1 billion from the minister of finance. Members opposite could have done the same and could have put cash in producers' pockets immediately.

Those members are talking now about $755 million that the previous government booked in November. They are bragging about getting it out. The fact of the matter is the government has put out only about $400 million to producers. What is the holdup? Get those cheques out. Those cheques would have been in farmers' pockets by now had there not been an election. Members on that side of the House talk about a lot of things, but the minister and the government must make an immediate cash infusion to the farmers prior to spring planting.

There is no question that some will wonder why farmers require dollars. Some will wonder why they are in a crisis. What is the real reason? I agree with the Prime Minister's point that a lot of the crisis is due to international trade situations, to subsidies in the United States and Europe, to policies pushing prices down and making our farmers uncompetitive. I had the opportunity to look into that issue a year ago and the real reason farmers are in crisis is a lack of power for primary producers in the marketplace.

I refer the Prime Minister to that document. There are some 46 recommendations in that report. They are not partisan recommendations and members opposite know that. They are recommendations that came from the farm community itself. I would refer that document to the Prime Minister and to the government. I urge him to implement many of those recommendations.

I would ask for unanimous consent in the House to table the report.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Bill Blaikie

The member has asked for unanimous consent to table a document. Is there unanimous consent?

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Chair, there are recommendations in it. I would recommend that the minister take them to heart.

Without government payments, last year farmers would have been in the negative. As the leader of the official opposition indicated, we did put a lot of money out. Last year, over and above normal programming, we put out approximately $2 billion, totalling close to $6 billion of all programs, yet farmers still find themselves in difficulty.

I want to make the point that the problem is not the farmers. Some in the public would ask why we continue to put money out to farmers. Canadian farmers are among the most productive in the world. They contribute to our balance of trade. They are responsible for one in eight jobs in Canada. Canada is the fourth largest exporter of agriculture and agrifood products in the world. We have increased our food exports to $25 billion. Farmers are doing their part. The problem is that other players in the system are gaining the profits.

When we look at our farms and examine the facts closely, every economic indicator is positive: production, revenue, exports, output per acre, output per farmer, cost per unit, et cetera, every indicator that is, except net farm income. As farmers produce more, export more and produce more efficiently, farmers are rewarded with less. That is unacceptable.

The Prime Minister has said that he wants to move to a cost of production program. We have no disagreement with that. In fact, we favour cost of production, but members opposite and the Prime Minister have to understand that we have to get from here to there. In the meantime, the 10,000 farmers who were here on the Hill yesterday need ad hoc funding. They need a program in place to carry them over until we can get to those kinds of policies. We will be supportive in terms of cost of production, but in the interim, farmers need cash and they need it now. We need a commitment from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to get that ad hoc funding money out there prior to spring planting.

The Prime Minister talked about scrapping CAIS. There is no question that program has to be fixed, but keep in mind if the program was not in place, the $5 billion that went out to farmers over the last two years would not have gone out. It is not enough to say scrap it; we have to replace it with a program that assists farmers with cash.

In the election campaign the Prime Minister and the Conservatives talked about $500 million more. The impression was left with the farm community by those members opposite that the $500 million more was actually more, but as compared to what the previous government did, it is actually $1.2 billion less. I would like to see somebody stand and deny it. The $500 million is over and above regular safety net programming. It is not over and above what the previous government paid out. It is $1.2 billion less. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture and others on the other side to commit to pay that $500 million per year over and above what the previous government actually paid out. That is what farmers require.

The last point I will make before I close is that in an interview the other day, the Minister of Agriculture basically said, “Don't blame me. Blame the provinces”. If we are going to develop agriculture policy in this country--

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Blame the Liberals.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Chair, they certainly try to blame us, but they cannot get away with that all the time. That will wear thin after a while because farmers know the difference. The Conservatives are in government. They have to be responsible. The government has to do the right thing. It has to put money in farmers' pockets. When will it do it?

The Conservatives cannot just blame us. They cannot just ignore their responsibility and say that it is the provinces' fault. They are the Government of Canada and we expect them, as the government, to come up with an agriculture policy that will make a difference in terms of farmers' livelihoods and the livelihood of their communities so they can get on with being prosperous, with farming in the farm community and with contributing to the Canadian economy. That is what we expect of the government. We need programs that actually mean something and not just the words it is currently using.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS

Mr. Chair, I listened to the member and not even once did he reference his 13 years in government and working to make a difference for farmers in Canada. Suddenly, with a new government in place, he expects the whole situation to be changed overnight. I do not think that is acceptable nor is it rational.

What did the previous government ever do about the ramp up of subsidies by the United States to its agriculture community? What did the previous government ever do with the subsidization in the European community? Why is it that we are being snookered internationally after the Liberal government's record of utter failure to deal with the Americans and the European Union?

The member talks about supply management but under his government's record what happened to supply management? What happened on the international scene? Why is it that we now have foreign products coming into our country under a regime that was set up by the Liberal government not us?

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Chair, the member started off by talking about the last 13 years. I am very proud of what the Liberal government accomplished over the last 13 years. The Conservatives have a surplus but they will not use any of the surplus to give farmers the necessary cash. We did that a year ago. We put record payments out over the last two years because we turned a country that was virtually bankrupt into a country that had surpluses.

Why was the country near bankruptcy? It was near bankruptcy because of the Mulroney regime. The present Prime Minister has taken some of those very people who drove the country to near bankruptcy and has put them in his office and is using them for advisers. My goodness, that is not the way to go. We want to keep surpluses.

As a result of that Liberal record where we put the country and the economy into a surplus position, the present government now has some money to do things with. I would ask the government to consider the farm community in terms of utilizing those surpluses that we left it.

On supply management our record is strong. This party, the NDP and the Bloc have always supported supply management. As for that party over there, do members remember its Alliance policy platform? Do members remember its Reform policy platform? Some of those members sit in that caucus and their policy was not very supportive of supply management. In fact, their policy was to keep it and have a transition program in place while they moved to the market economy. That is not what supply management producers want to hear. They want to have strong support and strong action. When our party was in government we were in support of the supply management industry.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Chair, I am proud to ask a question of my hon. colleague from P.E.I.

We, in the NDP, remember all too well the drastic cuts to the farm community from 1993 to 1997, which the then Reform Party supported without reservation.

We also know that the problems in the agricultural industry just did not happen overnight. These are long term problems that have been happening to our farm families. The Liberals had 13 years to correct some of those problems but, unfortunately, they failed on most counts.

I have a question for the member who is a farmer himself. A few years ago our caucus had farmers and their families from Saskatchewan visit us. I asked a young 12 year old boy if he planned to go into the agricultural industry or into farming in the future and he said no. I asked him how many kids in his school planned to go into the farming industry and he said that nobody he knew.

Because of the lack of attention paid by previous governments and the current government, we are asking who the farmers of the future will be. What does the hon. member think will be the future of our farm families in this country?

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Chair, that is one of the reasons that we did the kinds of consultations we did with the farm community last year. We came down with a report that identified the real problem in the farm community as the lack of market power.

If we look at this year we will find that while farm incomes are the lowest they have been, even with record government payments that took them out of the red and put them into the black, they are still having financial difficulty. While that is happening, the agri-food sector is having record profits in terms of the chemical industry, the pesticide industry, the fertilizer industry and the grain marketing industry. I might say that in terms of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture advocating doing away with the Canadian Wheat Board, there is a benchmark study that shows that single desk selling actually adds $160 million per year to farmers' pockets. The parliamentary secretary's position in trying to advocate away that single desk selling will take $160 million out of those farmers' pockets who are going broke and put it in the pockets of the agri-business sector which is receiving record profits. That is not the answer.

I will quote William Heffernan, a sociologist, who had it right when he said that “economic power, not efficiency predicts survival in the system”. That is what we need to do. We need to empower farmers in the farm community through marketing agencies, such as the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management and deal at the WTO, and ensure that a government has safety net programs to assist farmers when world prices are low.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Mr. Chair, a famous report that has been referred to today is the Easter report which contains a number of recommendations. Why did the former government not act on those recommendations?

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Chair, the member's question would probably be better asked of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food because the report came down in June and it went to a federal-provincial meeting of ministers and deputy ministers who at that time set up a committee to study it and look at ways of implementing some of those recommendations.

I know for a fact that those were federal and provincial Ministers of Agriculture who were looking for ways to implement those recommendations. As it happened, however, an election intervened. I know the Department of Agriculture over at the Sir John Carling building were not too enamoured with the report but I sometimes wonder if they know there is a farm crisis.

I would have to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether or not that committee of ministers and deputy ministers reported back to the next meeting of ministers and deputies and indicated the road map that they would follow to implement that report. I would expect the government opposite is now putting in process that plan of how it will implement some of those 40 recommendations?

AgricultureGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Chair, it is good to add my voice to those who are expressing concern for the crisis in agriculture tonight. The one thing the people watching us on television cannot see is that virtually the entire Conservative caucus and virtually no Liberals are here to show their interest in the debate on agriculture. I wish the cameras would show the support for the agriculture community from the Conservative caucus.

The member pointed out that he had received a letter from someone in my riding. I would like to point out to him that in my riding virtually 100% of the farmers will tell me that CAIS is not working. It is a Liberal-designed program that is not working for farmers. That particular example that was used is a disaster. The way the program is designed it cannot help those farmers.

Why was it not designed to help farmers and why are they so displeased with that Liberal designed CAIS program that we probably will have around for a couple more years? The Liberal government tied the hands of farmers. They virtually have no way to access help.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Bill Blaikie

Before I recognize the member for Malpeque, I should tell him that he has about five seconds to answer that question.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Chair, let me put the five seconds this way. We admitted that CAIS was not doing all it should do and we put in place ad hoc funding of nearly $2 billion last year and nearly $2 billion the year before. The government can do the same with the surpluses we left and put cash in farmers' pockets now before spring planting.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Chair, first, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of this House.

Second, I find the behaviour of some of my friends here this evening somewhat deplorable. Just because we are talking about agriculture does not mean that this House should sound like a barnyard.

The farmers who came to the Hill this week came because they are desperate. Some of them do not know what to do anymore. They are not getting by. There is even a higher than average suicide rate among farm people. That is how far we have sunk. Incomes are lower than in previous decades. We ask a lot of farmers. We ask them to feed the people, to live on the land and to be an important economic sector, and we are demanding that they meet a lot of new environmental rules. This is what the farming community is up against.

The election generated a lot of hope among farmers. That is understandable, after 13 years of Liberal neglect. This week, however, they were disappointed. They expected that the Prime Minister would put forward a few proposals and not be satisfied with simply criticizing what happened in the past, or rather what did not happen in the past under the Liberal reign. Criticizing is one thing—we had the election campaign for doing that. This government has been in office for two months. The time has come for action.

Promises were made during that election, to deal with a crisis. Substantial amounts of money were promised. What is called for now is $500 million, and the government has that money. We have to act immediately, which does not mean that we are going to solve all of the problems. We cannot wait until we have solved all of the problems before helping farmers. Some of them will no longer be here by then. It is urgent that action be taken.

The problems are familiar ones. Most importantly, there is unfair competition, particularly from the United States and the European Union, which provide subsidies at levels that far exceed what we offer here. We in Canada have actually slashed subsidies. I would like to see us have a policy that reduces and eliminates subsidies, but the balance of power is against us. If we do that while subsidies are being maintained or increased in the United States or Europe, we will find ourselves in a position that is absolutely not competitive.

I am talking about direct, recognized subsidies. Yet we know that in the United States, since the National Security Act, the lands of American farmers are irrigated free of charge by the U.S. army, in case, I imagine, the United States is invaded by Cuba, so the tanks can cross the property of American farmers. Wheat is transported free of charge on the Mississippi, in case the Americans are invaded by North Korea and there is famine in the United States. We have to add that.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

That is the case, Mr. Minister of Transport. I am indulging my imagination a little and exaggerating the situation, but I am not exaggerating when I say that wheat is transported free of charge and lands are irrigated free of charge. All of that is happening under the National Security Act. I am of course exaggerating when I speak of the United States being invaded, as it makes no sense that it should be. However the situation exists, and we are not raising these practices with the Americans. Canada remains silent and accepting of these unfair policies.

So this is a matter of international trade. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tells us that he has to wait on the provinces. I remind him that international trade is a federal matter, a federal responsibility. We sovereignists do not question that fact. So it is with federal money—especially since the government has surpluses—that we have to assist the farmers.

Last June, the Bloc Québécois proposed a motion that the Canadian government and its negotiators in Geneva give unconditional support to the supply management policies. Yet after signing in 1997 a letter challenging supply management, and after the adoption of the motion by the House of Commons last June, one negotiator in Geneva said that he did not feel himself bound by the motion of the House of Commons. That is a position of weakness, and unacceptable. If certain persons negotiating on behalf of the Canadian government refuse the mandates they are imposed by the House of Commons, they should be removed. I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to please put this negotiator in his place.

Let us proceed immediately with the surpluses. Let us take the $500 million that they need. There are certainly other problems that must be tackled. We need to have coherent policies.

Remember mad cow. The problem occurred in Alberta, and every region of Canada, including Quebec, was affected. When the outbreak of Newcastle disease in poultry occurred in the United States, the Americans regionalized that matter. They realized that New York chickens had not been infected by Los Angeles chickens. As a result, not all of the U.S. regions were affected.

However, here, on account of one cow in Alberta, all regions were affected. This jeopardized the whole cattle and milk production sector. If we had allocated all the available money to Alberta instead of sprinkling it over all the regions, we would have helped the farmers in Alberta more and we would not have caused a crisis in the other regions of Canada. Like us, the Liberal government in Quebec is asking that these crises be regionalized.

We also have to deal with the problems associated with young farmers. Young people can no longer afford to buy farms. On the one hand, if parents sell their farm for less, they lose their pension and their RRSP. On the other hand, if they want to live out their old age at the standard they deserve, they sell the farm for too much and the children cannot buy it. There has to be a tax solution for this problem.

We must also develop a customs policy with all the tools available to us, including Article XXVIII of the GATT, in the issue of milk protein. This has not been done, no more than it has in the case of butter oil. As for cheese sticks, the Bloc told the Liberals for two years that action was needed. They refused and denied that a problem existed. It was recognized only at the end of two years, after milk producers had suffered losses of some $500 million. We have to use the arms at our disposal. We can use XXVIII of the GATT. I do not understand why Canada is not doing so.

I would also like programs to be developed that take into account the diversity that exists throughout Canada and Quebec. We have to end programs that apply to the entire country. There are different realities. Some programs in Quebec have been running for several years, such as La Financière agricole du Québec. It has remained in place, whereas the federal government has the habit of every two years implementing a new policy that never lasts more than two years. When a policy has been working well for 20 years, can we respect it? Could we acknowledge the existence of such diversity?

I spoke earlier about the mad cow crisis. When we suggested regionalizing the issue, the Liberals told us that we were all part of Canada and that the same rules would be applied across Canada. When we get to the point where we are making mad cow a symbol of national unity, we have a serious problem.

To conclude, it is time to sit down with the farmers and develop some practical and realistic policies that can be applied according to the diversity and types of production that exist. We should not try to apply policies to the whole country. Right now, we absolutely need emergency assistance. If we wait until we have perfect programs, once we have them, a lot of farmers will not have survived.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Chair, as always I appreciate the members of the Bloc Québécois and not just their interest, but their devotion to issues involving agriculture.

Clearly the Bloc Québécois is passionate about agriculture.

The Bloc shares its passion with this side of the House. It is always an interesting debate when we get into the House to talk about the best way forward.

To be clear with the leader of the Bloc, I have suggested that our party's position, and I will deal with this more in my presentation later, has been that we want to change the CAIS program, and we campaigned on that. We want to change it so there is a separate stand-alone program for income support for farmers and a separate disaster relief program.

There has been an awful evolution of the CAIS program. Trying to make this work for farmers has been a terrible problem. As I have travelled across the country, what is clear to me is farmers want a separate disaster relief program from that. What I am faced with, and I am not picking on the provinces, is that this is a federal-provincial shared jurisdiction. I need the cooperation of the provinces if we are to move quickly on that.

Right now all 10 provinces and the territories are in favour of retaining the CAIS program. I respect that. It is my hope that by June, when we meet at our next federal-provincial meeting, I will be putting forward proposals to separate disaster relief from income support, and that is what farmers need. I think it will address many of the needs about which farmers are concerned.

On another note, the leader talked about many issues in his presentation. I would like to assure him that I agree with his idea that, when possible, we need to regionalize problems such as disease outbreaks in Canada. We need to take advantage of our big geographic country that makes it possible to regionalize disease and protect Canadian agriculture generally by doing this.

A good example of how that works was the concern raised when some poultry products were imported from France to Quebec recently. We were able to work with the government of France to regionalize the problem in France. We made sure that trade of other products coming into Quebec on an ongoing basis resumed very quickly. It seems to me that the leader is right. Whenever possible, we need to move to regionalize things within Canada so it does not disrupt trade or harm our farmers from coast to coast. When there is a problem, let us deal with it quickly, get help to clean up whatever that problem might be and ensure that farmers across the country continue to do their business.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Chair, I do not have any questions, but I have a few suggestions following the minister's comments.

When the minister says he will meet with the provinces in June, that is great, but there is a problem with that. The farmers told us yesterday that many of them do not have enough money to buy seed. If they wait until the meeting in June there is a problem. Ottawa is in the habit of starting processes. They talk about processes. At the end of the day they often forget the purpose of the process and take things at their own pace. People want us to resolve things immediately. They cannot wait for a meeting in June, which will be handed off to officials at every level of government, with a response expected in November. Harvest time will be over and seeding time is right now. This money is urgently needed, especially since this is an international trade issue. Since this government recognizes the fiscal imbalance, it can understand that the provinces do not have much money.

I am asking the minister two things. One: act immediately. Since he told us he is prepared to opt for quick, immediate solutions, if he allocates $500 million right now we will applaud him, the sovereignists that we are.

I am also asking him to do something else about the mad cow problem. The issue of cows under 30 months has been resolved, but that does nothing to resolve the problem for dairy farmers, especially those in Quebec. There is the issue of cull cattle. We saw, and I am not kidding, cheques for 8¢ for the sale of a cull cow. Eight cents! Farmers brought these cheques here to Parliament.

There are people starving. Cull cattle is a good example of regionalized politics. As a government, you can take immediate action. We are asking you to do so.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Chair, over the last 10 years, we have had more emergency night debates on agriculture than on any other subject. I have said before it is like the scene from the movie Groundhog Day. We always end up playing the same scenario. There are a few new actors in this, but we always end up with there will be a meeting three months from now and something will happen, or we are waiting to get CAIS fixed. Meanwhile our farmers are going under.

Patience is not good enough at this point. We have gone beyond the point of patience.

I would like to ask the member this, particularly in light of the recent meeting with the President of the United States where our government announced that he was our best friend. This is great, but best friends do not put their best friends out of business. That is what is happening now with the dumping, particularly in corn and other products. What concrete steps does the member expect the government to take this year, not next year, to stop the dumping which is putting our farmers our of business?

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Chair, when I spoke before I said that money has to be invested immediately. If discussions are to be held with George W. Bush, policies have to be adopted for dealing with the United States. I will return to this later. It is important to have those discussions and bring the necessary pressure to bear. However, money must be invested immediately. As well, there are policies that can be applied, such as cull cow policies and using Article XXVIII of the GATT on milk proteins and butter oil. A few years ago, we ran into the same problem with cheese sticks.

I would add that we have to establish a balance of power, not that we should face off against the Americans and the Europeans. Still, practically eliminating subsidies here, while they are maintaining them or even increasing them, amounted to skewing the balance of power. Of course in some sectors that encourages imports.

Here is another example that can easily be applied: there are crops it is impossible to sell here because of the use of certain insecticides. We are right about that. Some insecticides cannot be used on tomatoes, since they could not be sold on the Canadian market. However, if those same tomatoes come from Mexico or the United States, and the same insecticide has been used, they may be sold in Canada. That is completely ridiculous! An insecticide that goes through customs does not cease to be an insecticide. There is a problem somewhere, and it is not at customs; it is in the government’s decisions. Those products should be banned, and we should demand that other countries meet the same environmental standards as the ones we impose on ourselves. That is a concrete step to take. These are things that we can say to the Americans.

The same principle applies to lumber. It is fine to tell the Americans that we will keep going, but the loan guarantees that we were seeking and that were promised by the Liberals, up to $800 million—which is inadequate—were never given. The Conservatives, who were in opposition, wanted more. They now have the perfect opportunity to enjoy being right. We therefore ask that they give more loan guarantees.

AgricultureGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta

Conservative

Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Chair, it is obvious that our Prime Minister and this government are very committed to farmers. The first act the government did was to release three-quarters of a billion dollars to farmers immediately.

The member and his caucus have supported other initiatives that the Conservatives have put forward, particularly the trade compensation act that was supposed to help farmers and softwood lumber producers in the late fall. Will the member and his party support the government's initiative in relation to the CAIS program, to divide it into two programs, the emergency relief and the income stabilization?