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?