Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1998

Supply

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I am pleased to be here. There is a cabinet meeting going on at the present time and I will not be able to stay for all of the morning or all of the day, but I can assure hon. members that I will be following today's debate.

There has been a freeze on cost recovery. That commitment was made by my predecessor and by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the department. The approach to cost recovery in the future is another one of those stones that we are not going to leave unturned. We are looking at that.

That is why it is so important that we take a look at absolutely everything. We have these tools. We have to ask: What can we do here and what can we do there? If we could do something more, how would we do it? How would we fund it? Are we prepared to shift resources from here to there in order to do it at the present time? What are the repercussions of doing that?

The bottom line is that whatever we do we have to do it in a different way than the United States. The $6 billion put into agriculture last week by the United States goes to producers whether they individually need the support or not. There will be large producers in the United States who do not need support who will get millions of dollars. That support is not targeted to the producers who need it. I think members opposite will agree with me that whatever we do in our safety net system, the system must target those who need it. It must not be a system in which we simply throw out money on an ad hoc basis, as some people think we should do. That will not do the job. We should invest that money as it should be invested.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the fact that the minister of agriculture is here and there are a couple of things which should be clarified. I would ask for the consent of the House to extend the time by a couple of minutes so that I might ask the minister a question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to extend the time for questions and comments to the minister for five minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the minister for taking a few more questions. I realize he has a meeting to go to, so I thank him very much for his time.

Four items were raised in the minister's speech which I would like him to clarify.

First, he said that our economic fundamentals are sound, that they are in good order. Would he not admit that our debt load is twice that of the Americans, our nearest competitors, and that because of that we have a much higher tax burden which puts our farmers at a distinct disadvantage? As the minister knows, I quoted some figures in my speech that show our farmers are experiencing a much higher tax burden than American farmers.

The minister said that it is a business decision not to participate in NISA. It has not been a business decision by farmers not to participate in NISA. It is because they cannot. Farm incomes have been so low that they have been unable to contribute. Those farmers who are being hurt the most have been unable to put funds away in NISA so the government could match those funds and they could withdraw them at this point. There are farmers who are well off and there are certain sectors which have not been touched or hurt by this crisis, but others are unable to contribute. Would the minister not agree this is the case?

It almost shocks me that the minister would say that farmers need other sources of income if they want to continue farming. Is the minister saying that farmers should not expect to make their living from agriculture? That is a serious matter.

My final question is: Did the minister's bureaucrats not see this coming?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to take five minutes to ask his questions, I need equivalent time.

With respect to the debt load, this government has been very clear. We agree that personal income taxes in Canada are too high. We have taken steps to address that. Last year 400,000 Canadians were taken off the tax rolls. I could go on.

As far as NISA is concerned, I made it very clear that it is a business decision or an economic decision. For whatever reason, some people made that decision. Eighty-five per cent of participants with eligible production are covered. Well over 85% of producers in Saskatchewan are enrolled in NISA.

As I said earlier, I do not like to see farmers searching for other sources of income. I do not like to see somebody starting up a manufacturing business in the industrial park in Belleville who has to ask one of his family members to provide another source of income.

I will bring it closer to home. My son bought the farm from my wife and I. He is farming 800 acres. He is heavily in debt. He made a personal decision to burn the candle at both ends.

I do not like to see that happen, but he is working off the farm full time. I asked him why he is doing it and he told me he wants to pay his debt and mortgage down sooner. He said that if he did that for a while he would be in a better position to be able to be on the farm full time. That is decision. He made that for his own personal reasons. I do not like to see it happen.

I would like everybody who wants to farm, be a doctor, run a garage or start up a small manufacturing business to be able to do it. I would like to see them all succeed. Unfortunately that is not reality. There is competition out there. There are expenses.

Yes, there is a big debt, but we are now paying down the debt. We reduced the deficit from $42 billion to zero much faster than Canadians thought it could be done. We now have very low inflation. Our interest rates have been below those in the United States for a number of years. Nobody in the world denies that the economic fundamentals in Canada are the best they have been in many, many decades.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned NISA many times and said that we hang our hat on the NISA program. The minister also mentioned that there is $2.5 billion in NISA. Would the minister agree that it is an accumulated amount which is sitting in accounts and that, in fact, NISA contributions are not made specifically by the federal government? There is a contribution from the producers, from the provinces and from this government.

When we compare the $2.5 billion in Canada to the $20 billion in the United States, that is an unfair comparison. In fact, the Americans right now are acknowledging that they will put $6 billion into support programs and an immediate $2.9 billion will be in cash.

Would the minister please correct the impression that in fact the $2.5 billion came from the federal government and that it is enough to combat the $6 billion in the U.S.?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we put the forward thinking of the producers, the provincial and federal governments into the perspective of any good group of people in business, they plan for a time down the road that might not be as good or might not be as bad as today. That is forward thinking.

I commend the industry, the provincial governments, my colleagues on this side of the House, and those who sat before us on this side of the House for putting in place a system to prepare the industry for those future times.

Yes, it is a joint contribution, in comparison to the United States, but it is very significant. I said very clearly that it is not the be all and the end all. It is one of a number of tools that we have which we will continue to address and adjust in co-operation and in partnership with producers and the provincial governments.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the motion of the member for Yorkton—Melville.

The agricultural sector in general is experiencing a major crisis and much of the blame for this lies with the federal government, which is providing the sector with increasingly less financial support. In addition, the federal government's inaction in this period of budget surplus does not help resolve the problems facing farmers.

What is the situation in the agricultural sector right now? There are crises that cannot be ignored. Let us look first at the Asian crisis, whose effects are being felt worldwide. Demand for all farm products is down, and grain and meat prices, including and primarily that of pork, are down. World demand for wheat and pork has just about evaporated.

This drop in demand means that farmers can no longer sell their products and accordingly find themselves more often than not in an income loss situation.

Income for the first half of 1998 was down by over 5% compared to the first half of 1997, which means a drop of some 7% in crops and 4% in livestock.

The figures obtained by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture indicate that net farm incomes could drop by as much as 40% this year. The Asian crisis is not an isolated event. Canada's exports of farm products for the country as a whole increased by over 65%. They reached a record level of $22.3 billion.

The agriculture and agri-food sector alone will account for nearly a third of Canada's trade balance in 1997. But a downside of this success is the increased dependency of Canadian producers on international markets to earn a living.

At the same time, we have been witnessing the federal government's withdrawal from agriculture. Since it took office, the Liberal government repeatedly cut funding and services to farm producers in Quebec, while making them foot a larger part of the bill for whatever services are still being delivered.

As a result, Quebec producers have less and less money to operate. Government support has dropped by more than 60%, from $2.8 billion in 1993 to approximately $1 billion in 1997, in spite of the fact that, under international rules, $4 billion could be made available to further support the agricultural industry.

Cost recovery fees have been imposed on no less than 42 industries over a three-year period according to Agriculture Canada's estimates. And what about privatization efforts, where, once again, the farming community, the producers have to pay for services they are entitled to and used to get for free.

In its 1996 budget, the federal government announced the elimination of all dairy subsidies. For our producers in Quebec, this represents a $107 million loss they are still suffering from.

When the Crow rate was abandoned in 1995, the government granted $3 billion in compensation to western producers, but there are no plans to compensate our producers for the loss of the dairy subsidy. Only $66 million was paid in Quebec in adjustment measures after the Crow rate was abolished.

Once again, there is a double standard in which Quebec is the big loser. In this respect, I could give you an example I have often used in this House: the scrapie crisis in Quebec. Not only have 11,000 sheep been put down—on the basis of a mere 38 screening tests, which raises serious questions—but active measures to support this industry have yet to be put in place.

Of course, the government mentioned a few measures to increase maximum compensation to $600 per animal, but this is not enough. The whole industry must get back on its feet, and all these measures must be retroactive, because the people most affected are those who got involved and who tried to solve this problem from the very beginning.

Is the government obsessed with the idea of complying with the new WTO rules? Is this why it stopped helping farmers over four years ago and why it gutted out these various farm support programs?

Let us not forget that while the American government reduced its global support for agriculture by 23% over a seven-year period, the Canadian government cut its support by 21% over three years. What do our farmers have to gain by complying with the WTO rules before their main competitors who, incidentally, often enjoy a better climate than we do?

The situation in the farming industry is such that it is now essential to reinvest in basic support structures to secure long term sustainability.

Meanwhile, what are the Americans doing? They are supporting farmers. According to the figures released by the American Farm Bureau, subsidies in 1998 will total $15.2 billion in the United States. This unfair competition raises legitimate concerns among farmers in Canada and elsewhere. While the federal government is abandoning our farmers, the U.S. government is helping their American counterparts to keep their heads above water. Faced with this unfair competition, what should our farmers do?

Are there solutions? I think there are. The first one is very simple. The government must wake up to the seriousness of the situation farmers are facing. Second, the government must sit down with the industry and its representatives to discuss better ways of at least alleviating the effects of the present crisis and, finally, other measures will also have to be taken, which will undoubtedly mean that the federal government will have to increase funding to the farming sector. We cannot stay competitive if we are at a disadvantage.

I will conclude by saying a few words about the situation in Quebec. Obviously, this issue brings home to me all the more clearly the need for the people of Quebec to attain sovereignty because, in continuing to pull out of the farming sector, the federal government has not acted in the interests of Quebec farmers, as I have shown with respect to the sheep and dairy industries.

A Quebec government that was master of its own destiny would have worked exclusively in the interests of Quebec farmers. That is what we did in the case of hogs. We sorted out the situation ourselves, as we are doing with our crop insurance, farm income stabilization insurance and CNRS programs.

Members often do not understand that these companion programs are applied differently in Quebec than in the rest of Canada. The reason for that is that my country, Quebec, takes an interest in farmers.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for her speech. There are a few things I think should be clarified when it comes to the scrapie situation. The standing committee had extensive hearings on scrapie.

The minister and the department had very close productive discussions with sheep producers in Quebec on the situation they had and the situation with scrapie as far as improvements made to the program being very substantial.

In addition to that, I think something we always forget is that the federal government has transferred $200 million to the province of Quebec which chose to spend that money in a different way. Rather than have it for disaster relief, Quebec chose to spend it on price support. When there was nothing to sell because of the disease, the producers were not getting anything.

We have to put some blame on the producers themselves and on the provincial government, which chose to spend the transfers from the federal government in a different way.

If that had been spent differently or if the provincial government now decides to maybe reconsider how to dispense with the transfers, not just in sheep but in hogs and in other livestock, we could have a better program, a NISA type program for the province of Quebec.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my kind colleague.

We have indeed had great co-operation from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in connection with scrapie, but there are two things I need to point out.

First, we cannot accept the lack of retroactivity for those sheep farmers who were the first to subscribe to the wholly federal program of a wholly federal agency, and who in so doing had the honesty and courage to, perhaps, save the Canadian sheep industry. We expect them to get the same compensation as others who will come along in future.

The second question raised by my colleague—and I am glad he raised it because that was what I was saying at the end of my speech—is that, unlike the other provinces, Quebec does not have the same measures for its farm safety-net programs, its companion programs, and does not apply them in the same way.

This is so much the case that a departmental employee—Mr. Richardson, if I remember correctly—told the committee that, even if Quebec wanted to take the famous $200 million—and Minister Julien wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to this effect—this would be impossible because the rules established with the federal government are different for Quebec than for elsewhere in Canada.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about a compensation package offered sheep producers who have problems with scrapie. It seems she suggested that the $600 a head offered in compensation to those sheep producers is not adequate.

As a cattle producer I know that when someone slaughters a cow toward the end of her useful life they may not get much more than $600 for her.

I was wondering if the member could explain what she thought would be reasonable compensation for victims of the scrapie outbreak.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was probably misunderstood. The $600 figure was discussed and accepted by industry. We are very much in agreement on this amount.

Our major problem is that the 10% production loss in Quebec will never be properly compensated for because the measure is not retroactive. If the agency cannot allow retroactivity, the minister can create retroactive compensation through an ad hoc program.

I wish to state before this House that Quebec is currently the hardest hit province. Our sheep came from all over Canada and were sold all over Canada. What is happening to us today I would not wish on any other province. No one is exempt from this, however, because there is a very strong genetic link where this disease is concerned.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to take part in this important debate today on the crisis in farm income.

I was looking through notes yesterday and we first started to raise these questions in February of this year, continued on through the spring and we certainly have focused on since parliament has come back on this very important crisis in rural Canada in general, in western Canada in particular.

As colleagues have mentioned, net farm income declined by some 84% in my province of Saskatchewan in 1997 and it looks like it is going to fall by another 40% this year.

My colleague, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, attempted to have an emergency debate on the crisis in farm income on October 5. That was not successful. My colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and I held a news conference in Regina on October 16. We invited some farmers who were particularly hurting from this crisis. Lloyd Pletz who farms north of Bell Prairies was one of those individuals. He told the assembled media that day “I'm finished. I have no way to hang on”. Donnett Elder, who was also attending, has worked in the farm stress area answering phones for the past 10 years and she reports that it has never been worse out there with the phone ringing off the hook from farmers who are terribly concerned about the situation. She is looking at a $40,000 shortfall in 1998.

I mention people like Lloyd Pletz and Donnett Elder because we are attempting to put a face on a very serious and growing crisis.

I know the word crisis is a frequently overused word but it is a word that certainly applies in this instance. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has noted that net farm income will decline by 40% overall and we are even looking at worse numbers on the prairies. It is incredible when one adds in the 84% loss in Saskatchewan and then add to that 40% to 45% this year. For farmers in Alberta it is 35% and in Manitoba it is 40%. Hog farmers virtually from coast to coast are looking at losses of $40 per animal when they get them to market.

This crisis is largely as a result of economic and trade conditions over the last couple of years. The economic meltdown in southeast Asia has been a large part of it. However, other countries have the same problems, not just Canada. Farmers in European countries and in the United States would face similar problems but their governments have taken steps to cushion the blow and reduce the impact on farmers in those communities.

In Canada we are left with the situation where so far the minister of agriculture agrees that there is a crisis but nobody is yet prepared to do anything about it. It reminds me of the old tea ad “only in Canada, you say”.

The U.S. administration is kicking in $2.857 billion under market loss payments. It begins today to help offset heavy losses resulting from historic low commodity prices, the very same problems many Canadian farmers are facing. European farmers are receiving a subsidy for wheat of up to $205 Canadian a tonne, well above the current projected world price.

We have been told by our senior international trade negotiator that in the United States the subsidy support for wheat farmers is some five times higher for American wheat than what is available to their Canadian counterpart. The bottom line is that Canadian farmers simply cannot compete.

Canadian farmers are as good as any in the world. We hope we have a goal in to double our agricultural exports by 2005 but there is no way Canadian farmers can do that without some help soon from their governments.

I asked yesterday in the House when help was going to be forthcoming to ensure that farmers were planning to plant a spring crop in 1999 rather than planning for an auction sale in the same year.

The United States is pumping up farm subsidies which are not countervails by the WTO or the GATT. Europeans are pumping up, as I noted a minute ago. Here at home help for our farmers has been slashed significantly.

In 1993 when the WTO was negotiated, Canada agreed to reduce its subsidies on agriculture by about a billion dollars over five years. In other words, we are going from $5 billion to $4 billion over the course of five years. In the usual boy scout way that Canada often operates, we have done much better than that. We have slashed some 60% of farm subsidies. We have gone from $5 billion to perhaps $2 billion and some people insist that it is probably less than $1 billion in subsidies at the moment.

We look good on the international stage but our farmers are really in dire straits. They have paid more than their fair share on the war on the deficit. It is time for a reinvestment in agriculture.

In Saskatchewan net farm income is forecast for this year to be $320 million less than it was last year. Just in passing, that is almost exactly what Saskatchewan farmers used to receive from the Crow benefit.

Another aspect of this argument is that Canada has been assisted greatly by Canadian farmers in balancing the books because of our agricultural exports. If there is not some action taken quickly I am very concerned there is a great danger we will end up killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

The minister continually relies on the net income stabilization account and crop insurance. He says that they are very good programs. For the sake of argument I will not disagree with that except to say that they are not answers to the problems we are facing now. NISA and crop insurance were not designed to look after low commodity prices or the ice storm of last year.

Another point the minister makes constant reference to is that most farmers in NISA—and we heard him say that again this morning—on average have some $18,000 in their accounts. I saw some numbers recently in terms of NISA which I would like to share with the House.

Farmers earning between $10,000 and $75,000 per year gross income on their operations account for some 62% of all farmers. The average amount in their NISA accounts is not $18,000 a year. It is not $12,000. It is not even $6,000. The average in the NISA accounts of the smaller farmer is $5,925 per year. It is scarcely worth talking about. It certainly is not a program that can be relied upon to assist farmers in the emergency they find themselves in now.

My time is just about up. We are seeing farm costs increasing sharply. There has been a 21% increase in machinery over the last five years. Fertilizer is up 57% and chemicals, 63%. I asked the minister what he was doing about cost recovery, about the $138 million more that Canadian farmers are paying for things that are not counter to GATT or the WTO.

We in this corner of the House are very concerned that the Liberals are continuing to dismantle rural Canada. The rail system, the transportation system, is in sad shape. The costs are three times higher for shipping grain to the coast.

We are asking for help for the farm sector. We feel that the minister could redeem himself and his government by announcing today that he is prepared to help out farmers with long term disaster relief.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Palliser. He talked about the NISA program and how the minister of agriculture basically held it up as being the be-all and end-all of the farm crisis. Today we heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest that support mechanisms should not be put in place but that it should be long term tax breaks.

Could the member for Palliser give me some indication as to what his party would actually like to see with respect to farm support programs? Does he have any idea how they should be delivered to agriculturalists or producers that will have some difficulty putting crops in this coming spring season?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not have a problem with some long term tax breaks for farmers. Our concern is that we have to do something immediately because it will take some time. This is a crisis situation that demands an immediate response.

We have to support Canadian farmers as the Europeans are supporting their farmers and as the Americans are supporting U.S. farmers, or we will see such an exodus from the land that it will scarcely be believed.

There is no question we are witnessing the end of the family farm. We are moving to agribusiness and corporate farms. Perhaps a few new generation co-ops will be sprinkled in, but by and large we are seeing a real revolution in agriculture which will be hastened without help from the government.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the NDP member describe how we need relief and how we need it immediately. I agree. It is a desperate situation and we have to do something right now.

The devil is in the details. How would members propose to deliver this relief? How would they make sure that it gets to whom it belongs?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the government could very quickly ascertain who requires relief. I notice the U.S. secretary of agriculture is saying that the $2.857 billion support program coming into effect today will go exclusively to farmers who need it.

I disagree with the minister of agriculture when he says it will end up that millions of dollars will go to big farmers who basically do not need it. The Americans know which farmers require help and which farmers qualify. I am sure the Canadian department of agriculture can devise ways to ensure it goes without any great difficulty to the folks who really need it.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, certainly over the last days, weeks and months there has been a call from throughout Saskatchewan and western Canada for some type of farm support program.

The hon. member for Palliser, by the way, has become the member of parliament for a large part of my old riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre. How much does he think needs to be put on the table as part of a farm support program? What percentage would need to go to Saskatchewan or any other particular area, given the fact that the numbers we have heard this morning certainly vary from area to area? Some areas are in much worse conditions. Obviously Saskatchewan is one of those areas that is in very dire straits.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think we are talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars, somewhat under $1 billion.

In terms of what would go to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which everyone recognizes are the two provinces under the most stress at the moment, I would not be able to hazard a guess. I would assume they would take a significant portion of that money.

When the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and I met with the media a few weeks ago, we talked about somewhere between $500 million to $700 million to deal with the situation.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue on the floor of the House of Commons today is a very important one. It is more so important perhaps to my constituents and me than to a lot of other members on either the government side or the opposition benches.

I will clarify that by simply saying that coming from Brandon—Souris the economic backbone of my constituency is without question agriculture. Both from a direct and indirect standpoint the total economy developed in my community is based on agriculture. Therefore I feel very comfortable and very privileged to speak in the House, hopefully with some ability to convince the government the situation we are facing right now is one of crisis. That word has been used substantially today. I cannot help but use it again to identify the total crisis in the farm economy today.

I would like to thank the Reform Party, once and probably the last time in my illustrious political career, for putting the motion on the floor today so that we have an opportunity to debate it.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I do not think those members should get on their high horse just yet because there is a but here. I find it ironic that a party which obviously comes from the grassroots of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia would not make it a votable motion so that the government's feet would be held to the fire. Then government members would have to stand and indicate which way they voted on the motion.

As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, the motion speaks more to long term tax relief. As was mentioned earlier, I do not think there is as member on this side of the House, and perhaps on that side of the House, who does not agree with long term tax relief. However long term tax relief does not solve the problem we face today.

Being that I come from the wheat city I get an awful lot of people coming through my constituency office. I can honestly say—and I am pleased to say it—that many of the people who are coming through my door now perhaps would not have come through my door a year or two years ago.

These are farmer producers who have suffered in silence throughout the decade or the numbers of years of downturn in the farm economy. Quite frankly there is no more suffering in silence. They are coming through the door and saying “Rick, this is not good for agriculture”. They are saying that if something is not done within the next three to six months they will not be able to put in a crop this spring.

They are saying that they have suffered in silence and have done all they possibly could. They have taken the equity out of their land. They have taken the equity out of their farms. Their operating lines are to the maximum right now. Unfortunately there is no more help on the horizon. If they try to go to their suppliers or if they try to go to the banks to get more money to put in their crops, they will be told to sell their land, that there is no hope.

If we as Canadians want to get farmer producers off their land, we are heading in the right direction. My party and I say that help should be put in place today. We should not look five or ten years down the road when we can in fact bring in tax reforms and give them some relief from their taxes. The producers I talk to do not pay taxes because they have no income. They are not generating income and therefore are not paying taxes. Tax relief will not help them. They need support programs to offset the American and EU support programs that are in place.

Let me give some examples of what is happening out there. It is not simply the producers who will be affected. It is the community that producers support on a regular basis. I am talking about the industries that will be affected such as bulk fuel dealers, implement dealers, grocery stores and people who sell goods and services to farm producers. The economy goes around. If there is no income in the farm economy there is no income in the communities. When those industries stand up and do not suffer in silence the government may well get the message.

Let me give some examples of what is happening in the farm economy. I have received a number of letters, but I pulled this one from a farm wife. She sent me a copy of the grain receipt statements she received when her husband delivered his wheat quota for this spring. They sent in $19,677 worth of grain or almost $20,000 worth. The deductions for elevation, transportation and cleaning were $6,281. They received approximately $12,000 from $19,000 or $20,000 worth of grain.

That would be fine if that $19,000 worth or grain could have been $40,000 or a reasonable amount to compensate them for putting the crop in the ground. It is not. It is $20,000 and a third of it goes to other uncontrollable costs. The $12,000 they received is not sufficient to be able to break even with their inputs and what it cost them to produce the commodity.

Another gentleman walked into my office and gave me a complete financial statement of what it cost him to put in 160 acres of crop and his return.

These are producers who are good managers. These are producers who have done everything right. The problem they found is that they cannot sell the commodity for what it is worth.

An individual producer walked in, showed me his financials and said for every quarter section of land that he puts in right now, he is losing $115. That does not include the debt servicing of the land. That is strictly the input cost and the revenue that is coming off the land.

Would anybody here stay in business and produce a commodity that will be less than what it costs to grow or produce? The answer is that it cannot be done very often unless the equity comes out of the land. That is what they are doing right now.

When our government was in power we supported agriculture. Currently we have the ability under our trade agreements to have support programs in place that would equal $3 billion to $4 billion annually.

Currently that contribution is less than $1 billion, so there is room within the trade negotiations that we have already entered into but the government in its wisdom has decided that the agricultural producer is to take a great deal of the burden when dealing with the deficit that it so gladly says it has brought under control.

Let me give an understanding regarding what we did for agricultural producers. We have a record of stating quite emphatically that we will support agriculture.

Between 1984 and 1985 support for our farmers was greater than ever before. Crop and income insurance totalled $21.7 billion. The PC government eased the burden of borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation by setting up new programs like low interest refinancing of loans with the size of payments tied to price of products.

Farmers were also helped by a one time interest rate cut for those locked into long term loans with high rates. Farm debt review boards were set up to help farmers in financial trouble make arrangements with their creditors. A special fund was set up to help restructure debts.

We eased farm input costs with rebates on gasoline and diesel fuel bought for farm use. We doubled the ceiling for advance payments under the Advance Payments for Crops Act. We changed the Farm Improvement Loans Act so that farmers could borrow money not only to improve their farms but to diversify and develop new marketing ideas.

Grains and oilseeds farmers hurt by the 1988 drought received $850 million in emergency help. In 1985-86 and 1986-87, $146 million helped farmers through another season with no rain. A $15 million rural water development program was set up in 1988-89. I could go on and on.

We were there when farmers needed us. All I am asking is that this government be there when producers need it today. It is very difficult to say what has to be said in 10 minutes, so I ask for questions and comments. I would love to have more time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is a lot of interest in questions and comments. We will do it very quickly. The questions will be one minute and responses will be one minute. I will be on my feet in 60 seconds. Make sure you have framed your question and your response. That is what you will get, not one second more.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on this issue yet and I hope to do a five minute but I do want to ask the hon. member a question. He said his party has a record of stating it would support Canadian farmers.

The hon. member should know that in the last election, under the famous Tory blue book, the Tories wanted to take $600 million out of the ministry of agriculture. It says: “The first is to merge four existing federal departments: Agriculture and Agri-Food, Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources. A Jean Charest government will continue to expand the practice of cost recovery. With the trend of these negotiations, a Jean Charest government will be moving to reduce and eventually eliminate all farm subsidies. Since agricultural subsidy programs will inevitably be phased out around the world, there is a distinct advantage to Canadian farmers of making this transition as soon as possible”.

I want to ask the hon. member how he can—