House of Commons Hansard #148 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that the member can read another platform. It is too bad that they cannot put into place their own platforms right now to support agriculture.

What we did say emphatically is that there would be an amalgamation of a number of departments. The money saved from the administrative function of those departments, however, would go back to the people who really deserved it, the producers. That was the premise of that policy.

With respect to the hon. member's position as to whether subsidization should be stopped, times change. It is unfortunate that the government cannot deal with the change in what is going on around us right now in the global economy. Those negotiations were in place and subsidies were to be reduced from the EU and the U.S. It is not subsidies—

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is based on the emergency we face today.

Net farm income in Saskatchewan fell by 84% in 1997. It has gone down again in 1998. What we want in our party is an emergency aid project or program now for the farmers, some emergency aid to the farmers who really need it.

I want to know whether we can count on the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to support an emergency aid program now. I know it is in the midst of a leadership race. I think Joe Clark is very understanding of that. If I were a Tory, by the way, I would support Joe Clark, but I am not a Tory.

My concern is that I hear that David Orchard is coming on like gangbusters in the Conservative Party. With David Orchard coming on like gangbusters, can the hon. member assure us that if David Orchard is the new leader of that party he would take a stand on supporting emergency aid? I know Joe Clark would but I am worried about David Orchard.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised actually because David Orchard espouses the policies of the NDP. It is nice to see that the hon. member would support Joe Clark, as I have done right from the beginning.

I do not like to refer to it as emergency aid. As the minister has rightfully said, we do not want ad hoc programs. We have always said in this party that what we need is a crisis program, a natural disaster program to deal with crises, the ice storm, the Red River flooding, the commodity crisis in the marketplace right now. Yes, we need a program in place to provide the necessary financial resources for farmers to put in the spring crop. I cannot say that any more emphatically. That is what we would support and I would be more than happy to put our vote on the table.

David Orchard, fortunately for our purposes, will not be in our party much longer. I am sure he will be embraced by his previous party, the NDP.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Brandon—Souris would like to see this motion votable. He must know that it is a longstanding policy of the Reform Party that we want to see all motions votable. I hope his party would support us in that initiative.

He said he has farmer members in his constituency who do not pay any taxes because their income is not high enough to get them into income tax level. These people must not buy anything because everything they buy contains an enormous tax component. The taxes paid by everybody else get passed down to them through their purchases.

I did some calculations a few years ago and worked it out that 50% of a farmer's input costs were taxes paid by other people. Would the hon. member please explain?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is very laudable to suggest that every motion should be votable, and we agree. Had the Reform Party felt that this was a very serious issue, I am sure it could have made it one of its votable supply days.

As for taxation, I agree with the member that producers pay taxes as do every other sector of society in Canadian life. What I said was that the tax relief program put forward by the official opposition will not resolve the problem we have today. A five or ten year tax regime ultimately is the best thing for Canadians. It will not resolve the problem of those producers who cannot put a crop in this spring. That means there has to be support programs put into place.

If the Reform Party wants to hang its hat on a five year program of tax relief, then unfortunately the people now finding themselves in difficulty will not be around in five years to support its tax relief program.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Brandon—Souris was interested in more time. We got unanimous consent in questions and comments earlier to extend that. I wonder if we could extend it for a few more moments. Many people would like to address some of the concerns he raised.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is there unanimous consent?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

An hon. member

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate as the debates usually are when we talk about agriculture. It is a very sad day when we get up in the House and talk about the problems on farms. Our producers put food on the tables of everybody in Canada and supply that same commodity to millions of people around the world. It is not just a tragedy but a crime that they cannot maintain a lifestyle where they can put food on their own tables.

I will tell the House of the kinds of subsidies we farmers have to put up with. The European farmer gets $175 an acre to sow his crop and grow it. That is right off the start. Then he is guaranteed that if there is a surplus they will at least pay $2 a bushel to the exporter to get rid of the product. That is what Canadian farmers are dealing with. It is disastrous out there in farmland today.

When the World Trade Organization was negotiating, our trade negotiators agreed to a 15% reduction in subsidies on farms. That is what everybody was supposed to follow. We reduced subsidies by 85%. We gave them an unlevel playing field that would break every single farmer in western Canada. This put the feed prices down to such a level that every farmer who had a buck went into a livestock operation. Governments encouraged that. Today the hog industry in Saskatchewan alone is losing $20 million every six months. How long do we think that industry can survive? It is impossible.

I was astounded when I picked up a paper with a backgrounder about what was going on. The Canadian Wheat Board suddenly realized that they are the lowest prices in the last four years. Where was this organization in 1995-96 when prices were the highest in the world? Instead of selling our grain the board allowed it to back up in our bins. It had a million bushels of wheat left over which was more wheat than it had the previous year.

Finally Mr. Beswick got fed up with this type of marketing and quit. He told western Canadian farmers that in the last year the board had lost western barley producers $180 million. That kind of marketing system does not work. The wheat board is there for a purpose. It is supposed to get us the best price, not the worst price. That is why farmers are in trouble. Did the Liberals know about this? I think they did. I think they had a policy in 1993.

No matter what happens with commodity prices, the Americans and the Europeans are going to look after their farmers. This is what the Americans have done so far. They just passed a bill that will give $3 billion in market losses to farmers in the U.S. They have agreed that law makers will give a tax break worth around $4 billion for farmers and small businesses.

The hon. gentleman from Brandon—Souris said farmers do not pay any taxes. I paid my property taxes last week. Grain prices in wheat and barley markets have been dropping by 40% to 70% but my property taxes have gone up by 9%. That is what happened to my input costs. That is what we are dealing with. Not only that, but look at the parts prices. If we want to fix a combine, a tractor, a lawnmower, the prices have escalated to points where we just cannot afford to operate these things any more.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

An hon. member

We have to buy them from the U.S.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Portage—Lisgar, MB

That is another thing. My hon. colleague remarks that we have to buy them from the U.S. in Canadian dollars and we know what they are worth. There is a tragedy out there.

When the American government negotiated at the World Trade Organization meeting it maintained at that time 24% of its subsidies in a green box which is allowable. Our Canadian government only maintained 8%.

That is what is going on in western Canada today. That is what we are dealing with. I do not know what I can say to impress upon people how serious it is.

I came through the crisis in commodity prices in 1969-70 when farmers were forced to sell three bushels of barley for $1. Seventy cents would buy any amount of wheat to put into a feedlot.

When the Liberal government came to power in 1970 or 1971, western farmers asked the Prime Minister who had created a just society to please help them sell their wheat. What happened? He gave them the finger. That is how the Liberal government looks after farmers and agriculture.

I am told here today that the agriculture minister said farmers should not be able to farm as an occupation, that they should have a job off the farm. Is this government trying to create an industry like the one there was in the Soviet Union? People worked at a full day's job and then grew their food. Using a small spade in their gardens they supplied one-third of all the food that was produced in the Soviet Union.

If we want to see what can happen to a country where the farmers are protected and where farming is not profitable, just go over there. Pay them a visit. Today, if the American government does not give that country free grain, people will starve to death because they cannot afford to buy it. That country owes billions of dollars to other countries. That country was number one in 1981 when I visited there. That country was the mightiest power in the world. Because that country did not look after its economy in the local market and its farmers, it is now the world's biggest basket case. From 1912 to 1917 it was the bread basket of Europe. That country has half of the agricultural land in Europe and today it is begging other countries to give it food so people will not starve to death.

That is how serious the situation is in western Canada. The majority of farm families today have one of the partners and in many cases both partners out working. They cannot survive even if they get other jobs. That is why this government has to look at what these farmers need.

The Liberals promised in the 1993 election that they were going to come in with a whole farm support program that would look after us if we had to fight the European subsidies. They have reneged on that. Not only have they reneged on it, but they have also done away with the programs we had. On the NISA program, which they brag about, we were just told today in West Block by witnesses who were appearing that out of 140,000 NISA accounts, 42,000 have less than $1,000 in them.

Young farmers cannot survive today. If we want the young farmers on the unemployment line, they will be there. Very soon it will not just be Case or Flexi-Coil that shut down their lines of production. There will be shutdowns in other industries.

If we want to have people stay in their jobs not just in the farming industry, it is important that we make the farm viable. Today in western Canada 45% of all jobs have some link to agriculture. If that is not maintained, the $7 billion surplus in the EI fund will be eaten up and will disappear.

The government has a choice. It should help make farmers viable and give them support until the markets again give them a chance to operate on their own. Tax relief is important. When I look at the taxes I pay on my property and I lose anywhere from $30 to $50 an acre, that is unfair. That should not be happening.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, as a point of clarification, when I said the tax relief situation was not sufficient to make sure producers were back on the land this spring, what I said was that they do not pay enough personal income tax or corporate income tax, that any type of tax relief would make the difference.

The hon. member talks about property taxes. I am sure he recognizes that is not a jurisdiction of the federal government but in fact is the jurisdiction of municipal government whom he should probably talk to if his property taxes are too high. Any tax relief would not relieve him of anything on his municipal property taxes.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition say let us negotiate, let us get out of the subsidies with the EU and the U.S., let us make sure that there is tax relief. He did not mention the fact that there has to be support programs today. The member said that there have to be support programs. Would the member please clarify that the Reform Party is advocating relief and support programs right now for this year's agriculture.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from the hon. member.

I want to point out to him that about 60% of my property taxes are education taxes. Part of that comes from the federal government in transfer payments so it does affect me on my property taxes.

Look at the farm input costs on fuel. The tax on that is almost prohibitive not just to the farmers but to the railways and truckers for delivering the product. That is where we can reduce the taxes.

If we were to take away all the hidden taxes I would bet there would not be 10% of the costs. On a combine that costs $130,000 I am told there is only $13,000 of physical property costs in that. The rest is all taxes and labour. We are paying a lot of tax and we are not getting anything in return for it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, what is it the Reform Party would like to see done first? Its motion reads that Canada should defend the interests of farmers by challenging the unfair subsidies and unfair trading practices of foreign countries, and that failing that it should come up with emergency measures to provide tax relief, lower input costs, reduce user fees and address the inadequacies of the farm safety net programs. Before the hon. member answers, I would like to know which one the party wants first. I would say that if there is no emergency relief right away, it does not matter about the first suggestion.

I do wish to remind the Reform Party as it so eloquently fights for farmers on the central Canadian plains, as does the NDP, we also have a crisis in farming on the east coast in Nova Scotia, particularly in the Annapolis Valley and the Musquodoboit Valley.

I wanted to remind the member of the crisis we are facing as well. I would also like him to answer the question I asked.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

In 1993 our trade negotiators knew what kind of subsidies we were fighting and what had to be done to get a market that would be fair and provide a level playing field to farmers in North America. That was not done. That was neglected. We were sympathetic to what had to be done. Instead of reducing our subsidies 15%, we reduced them 85%.

Farmers were willing to do that because they knew what the problem was. As long as there was a market and decent prices, we did not complain about losing the extra profit. Today that has to be returned to the farming sector. The unfairness of the deal negotiated by the trade negotiators was not the fault of the farmers. It was the government's fault. The Liberals are the government. We as the opposition can only point out to them what the problem is and what funds are needed.

The government does the books and it has to make sure that the money is somewhere. I do not think farmers care from where it comes, whether it is out of NISA or out of the GRIP program which was dissolved in all three prairie provinces. Farmers have to have some support to tide them over until we get a level playing field and prices improve. And they will.

In 1971 the government gave us $6 an acre to summer fallow and we had a billion bushels of wheat that we could not sell. By 1974 we could not find a kernel of wheat in a granary anywhere because the demand was there. When millions of people are starving to death—

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Resuming debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for consent to split my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River. This is an important issue to many of us and he would like a few minutes to voice his opinion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Lethbridge would like to split his time. The member would have five minutes on debate and two and one-half minutes for questions and comments. Is it agreed?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about a lot of issues today but the main thing which was pointed out by the member from the NDP is that this is a Canadian issue from coast to coast. All farmers are being affected by this. The problems as we see them are that we are facing the lowest commodity prices in years and farm incomes have dropped right off the table. There are some reasons for this.

We have border disputes which are mainly due to poor regulations and losses at the trade table. Farmers are not allowed to compete fairly with choice in the market. We are facing unfair subsidies by the EU and U.S. governments. The government has not helped, as I mentioned, at the trade tables. The NISA program is not sufficient and was not designed to handle this magnitude of a problem across Canada. This government has been unprepared and unwilling to come forward and admit that there is a problem. There are high freight costs across the country and our transportation system is in disarray.

Our motion points out some things that the Reform Party proposes could be done to rectify the problem.

Canadian farmers are facing some of the toughest times they have seen in 30 years. Farmers are accustomed to having to deal with the cyclical patterns of the markets. However, prices of nearly all major farm commodities are down drastically and not just down seriously.

Farmers are worried about the border trade disputes, whether they will have enough cash to seed next spring, even whether they will have enough cash to pay their bills at the end of this year. When farmers cannot pay their bills, it has far-reaching effects right across our economy. Gross farm income continues to decline yet input prices continue to rise. How are our farmers supposed to survive? What is at the root of these problems? There are many things but I will try to elaborate on a few.

There are American and European farmers who seek massive subsidies from their governments. European farmers are having a record year. American farmers are in line for nearly a $6 billion handout and they will receive tax breaks, something that we have been requesting for many, many years. Give our Canadian taxpayers a break.

This government has not offered Canadian farmers any of these things. Canada has been very diligent in cutting off its subsidies when it comes to agriculture. The government has repeatedly thrown Canadian farmers to the wolves, all in the name of WTO.

This government has not protected our farmers. Our farmers are the ones who put food on the table for every Canadian and they do it with a passion. Canadian farming is not just a business, it is a way of life. It is a way of life that is unique and important to Canada.

As a result of cutting the Crow rate, producers have had to absorb the full cost of freight which is sometimes as high as 33% of the cost of production. Railway lines have been abandoned. Producers who 20 years ago had to pay for the upgrading of railway lines are now facing the prospect of these same lines closing. The government is so short-sighted that it does not realize the implications of this. It does not understand that a huge increase in truck traffic will require a huge increase in road upkeep.

The Canadian government collects $2.7 billion in fuel taxes from the four western provinces, yet it only returns $35 million. These taxes are supposed to be used for road maintenance, but most of it disappears into general revenue. The roads in this country will be ground into dust if the government does not return the money that has been sucked out of the provinces.

In my area, the intensive livestock area, the fact that the infrastructure cannot handle the switch that the farmers have made into intensive livestock is the subject of much debate. They are paying money every time they start their vehicle through fuel taxes, but that money is not being returned to upkeep the infrastructure.

The government has no comprehensive plan to deal with this situation. NISA is not the answer. As has been pointed out, many of the NISA accounts have $1,000 in them and the average account is $18,000. That does not go very far in paying a farmer's bills.

The Reform Party supports our farmers. It has consistently been the voice for the man in the field. This government has shown that time and time again it does not care about farmers. It has been in power for over five years and has done nothing to improve the lot of our agriculture community. This government is in control of the next budget. When will it make agriculture a priority?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, the west coast fisheries report came out today and there is one statement in it that applies very equitably to agriculture and farming in this country. It says “Our fisheries and marine policy on the west coast is a perfect example of how Canada does not work, how unaccountable and dysfunctional our system of government can be”. If we get rid of the words “fisheries and marine policy” and replace them with “farming and agriculture policy” would the member not agree that statement is accurate when it comes to farming and agriculture in this country?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Rick Casson Reform Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, the basis of the problem is receiving fair value for the product produced, whatever that product may be.

The agriculture community is one of the only areas where farmers have no influence over their input costs. They have no influence over the taxes they pay and somebody else tells them how much they are going to get when they sell their product.

Speaking personally, I have a small farm. I hauled in my crop this year and sold it through the board. It was durum wheat. I had 100 tonnes of crop off a quarter section of dry land and I received $7,300 net in my pocket. It does not matter how many quarter sections there are, that is not going to cut it. That does not pay the bills and it does not put food on the table. It does not keep the economy going.

We could apply that to any industry, whether it be fisheries, farming, forestry or our retail sector. Anybody who is in business, and farming is a business, has to receive a fair price for the product they are producing. That is what we are after.