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

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

On questions and comments we will have one minute for the question and one minute for the response.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting that a member with a background in media and communications would give us a speech which is very obviously a canned speech straight off the shelf.

I wonder if he understood anything he read. He does read very well. He gave us a lot of platitudes. He said farming was high tech. I am lost for words. He said water and fertilizer should be used effectively. He is into a lot of fertilizer all right. Mostly he spent time singing a hymn to our agricultural research establishment. It is great. It is one of the best in the world, but it has been around for over 100 years.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear in the intervention of the hon. member that he is not interested in the debate. Despite the fact that farmers deserve a healthy debate, the member is not prepared to give it. He would be happier simply hurling allegations and insults across the floor.

In my prepared speech I was trying to talk about the fact that research is playing a vital role in agriculture and agri-food. If the hon. member from Saskatchewan wants to belittle that, that is fine, but I do not think his constituents will be very impressed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, with all the research being done—and we know costs have to be cut—why is it that the Canadian Wheat Board for the last three or four years has been marketing less and less grain but costs have still gone up about 8% to 10% a year?

Where could we do some cutting in that marketing agency? When prices drop from 40% to 70% for grain, surely there should be some cutbacks instead of continual increases.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Mr. Speaker, farmers on the prairies will have an opportunity to look at the problem he raises. As he well knows, there is an election process taking place right now. Ten of the fifteen directors will be farmers.

If that is an issue which concerns farmers, and I am sure it does, the new board of directors will look at it. If there are some solutions to bringing down the overhead of the wheat board, I am sure these new directors will find them and implement the new ideas they bring to the board.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Allan Kerpan Reform Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I always find it very interesting to come here not just to talk to agriculture issues but to a lot of other issues. Members of the government come in with canned speeches and read from them as if they were quoting from the Scriptures.

Has the member been out of Winnipeg lately to talk to farmers and to find out how serious the situation is? Does he have a clue what the motion is today? Are we talking about R and D in agriculture or are we talking about a farm income crisis? The questions are quite simple.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is typical of this member that he generally does not know what he is talking about. I assure the member that I grew up on a farm in southern Manitoba. I have scads of relatives and friends who work farms. I see and talk to them all the time. He may not want to believe that, but if he wants to check it out I invite him to do so.

I am very familiar with the motion. I find it very interesting that in effect the Reform Party is asking us to look at the farm crisis right now and do it on an urgent basis. There is nothing wrong with that, but the motion asks us to deal with other countries around the world concerning unfair subsidies.

It would take a number of months, if not years, to negotiate some new deals with other countries on subsidies. Yet that is exactly what members of the Reform Party want. They want us to spend years dealing on these international matters and at the same time hop on the farm crisis tomorrow. It is one way or the other. They cannot have it both ways.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to join in the debate concerning the future of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector because it is a fundamental concern that unites us all.

As a former agriculture producer of asparagus, cauliflower and tobacco, I know very well the ups and downs of farm income, low commodity prices and weather conditions. There is much the government can do and should do.

While we acknowledge that farming is a risky business, our government is working from coast to coast to coast in support of agriculture and our agri-food sector. Together with farmers, local organizations, provincial and territorial governments we are working co-operatively to improve producer efficiencies, to develop market opportunities, and to encourage sustainable environmental practices.

As the minister pointed out in his remarks, farmers and governments have both planned well ahead of time for a market downturn in farm commodities. We are now, however, experiencing a farm crisis.

At the October 15 meeting of the National Safety Nets Advisory Council there was a discussion of a national disaster program. The federal and provincial representatives as well as farm leaders from across the country agreed that farmers were facing some very difficult economic times.

As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stated in my riding two weeks ago, he does not want Canadian farmers left twisting in the wind if the current bout with poor commodity prices continues for long.

Jack Wilkinson, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, feels a program could be finalized relatively quickly even by February. While he is not sure what the final program may look like, it could be premium free and could be triggered by individual farm operators suffering from a drastic loss of income caused by either crop losses or reduced market prices.

“A whole farm approach may be taken and a program will have to be designed to be trade neutral”, stated Mr. Wilkinson. He suggested that any new program, if put in place, will complement existing programs.

For Ontario farmers existing programs include the market revenue program for grain and oilseeds producers, the NISA program and crop insurance, but we also need a third line of defence.

Changes have been made to NISA already, enabling farmers to take advantage of early withdrawals based on estimated income projections rather than on year end tax statements. There are whole farm disaster type programs now in place in Alberta, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.

NISA program moneys are available to Canadian farmers and add up to about $2.5 billion. That equates to $17,000 for the average Canadian participant and about $16,000 for the average Ontario participant. I would be remiss in saying that there are approximately 40,000 who have $1,000 in that program.

We now live in a global economic environment and there is much more competition for our product. On October 23 I had the pleasure of taking the minister of agriculture to four operations in my riding to see hemp, sugar beets, soybeans and a large farm implement dealer. I believe it is important to hear from the grassroots about what they are thinking, what their concerns are and their ideas for the future.

Chatham—Kent in southwestern Ontario is Canada's largest producer of hemp. A new firm called Kenex Limited, headed by Jean Laprise, is an example of the ability of our agriculture entrepreneurs to succeed in an increasingly competitive world. Already it has invested over $4 million in harvesting and production, making inside door panels for cars and trucks, floor mats, hemp cheese and hemp nuts, all for export.

The federal government is assisting in their enterprises. I was pleased this summer to announce funding for Kenex through the $60 million per year Canadian adaptation and rural development fund to help set up a processing line. It is one way we can help our rural communities adapt to change.

Many farmers across Canada are diversifying their operations and trying new crops, aiming for new markets. I also announced this summer funding for asparagus growers in my riding to assist them in the niche crop they are exporting.

Sugar beets are returning to southwestern Ontario after a 30 year absence. Some 3,000 acres were grown last year and this year 6,500 acres were grown by 103 growers, with estimated gross sales of $8.5 million, and 100% of this product is shipped to Michigan. It provides an additional crop rotation, increases employment through the supply, production, piling and transportation chain, and provides a future for many farmers. These are but a few examples of success stories in the agri-food industry.

Those of us who represent ridings in rural Canada, who have raised their families and earned a living in rural Canada, know full well the importance of farming in the agri-food sector. Producers, processors and retailers from the field to the fork represent a vital contribution to Canada's economy.

Those of us who live in rural Canada also know that many commodity prices are at or near record lows. Low grain prices, low hog and cattle prices, along with rising input costs, are causing income related concerns among producers. Since grains and oilseeds have been heavily hit by the loss of international markets, prairie farmers are most affected.

The shift toward canola and special crops like beans and lentils is no coincidence. Farmers are paying close attention to market signals and using that information to decide what to produce and how to produce it.

I am sure we can all agree that the current troubling situation was not created by factors only within Canada. The Asian financial crisis and Russia's economic woes have meant lost sales. Good crops combined with reduced demand have resulted in an oversupply in the marketplace and lower commodity prices. These low prices are expected to continue through 1999.

In the long term diversification means a stronger farm and a stronger farm sector and farmers know it because it accords with their keen business sense and strong competitive spirit.

Staying at the forefront of development is a constant process, a process of adapting to changing conditions, of adopting new technologies and of improving one's position in the marketplace. Hemp and sugar beet producers are doing exactly that in my riding.

The question then becomes what is the government's role in cushioning the impact of the farm income crisis. The government and our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food are addressing this issue in the most prudent and effective manner. In the short term the net income stabilization account holds $2.5 billion that Canadian farmers can access. This represents an annual contribution of $600 million by the federal government, $400 million by the provinces, and $600 million by farmers.

The safety net program is available to the farmers right now. Seventy-five per cent of NISA participants have sufficient funds to bring 1998 incomes up to average earnings in the 1993 to 1997 period. Any simplistic short term solution is not in anyone's best interest. Only a long term solution to the low commodity prices is appropriate. This solution cannot encourage trade sanctions and provoke a trade war. Sanctions would hurt the long term viability of Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector.

Canadian farmers do not want a stop gap or an ad hoc approach. Upon the invitation of our minister of agriculture, farm leaders and provincial government representatives are meeting tomorrow to discuss the problem. Let us hope the discussions are productive and fruitful and are in the interest of our farmers first and foremost.

Diversification cannot prevent downturns in the market but it can blunt some of the effects of that downturn. Diversification is not the only solution but is part of the effort to ensure the best possible prospects for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I must express my appreciation. It is good to see somebody on the other side who knows something about agriculture. It is also reassuring to see the hon. member working at committee to recognize the difficulties that farmers are having. She talked about a third line of defence. I am glad she is willing to look at other things that work. Unfortunately she needs to inform herself a little more fully about NISA.

I would like her to reply to a question. How do we communicate the importance of this issue to all Canadians? The concern we have over here is that not enough people are made aware of the importance of agriculture to Canada.

I can appeal to Canadians by putting this in context by saying that we are talking at great length about whether we should give a 1% or 2% raise to our union members, postal employees, teachers, workers in the automotive industry, electrical, telephone and delivery services. We express grave concerns that these people are not getting a 1% or 2% raise but here we have farmers taking a 75% cut in their pay. That is very serious. It affects a large part of Canada and yet we are unable to get most Canadians to recognize the seriousness of the problem.

We can talk about $22 billion in exports and we know how important that is but if we go beyond that people's eyes glaze over at these numbers sometimes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I certainly agree that we have a big learning cycle out there to educate our non-farmer consumers on this issue.

All too often we hear that it is the farmers' problem. Prior to being a member of parliament I worked as a constituency assistant. I had a man of the cloth who came in and was right downturned on farmers. Being a farmer I did not take too kindly to his remarks.

He said he did not know why farmers needed subsidies. He said the shelves are full in the stores. I said that was wonderful and was glad he realized that but I also asked him if he realized the food was not grown in cans on the shelves in the stores.

I believe our urban colleagues are certainly understanding our situation with the pricing and to see exactly what is out there. I think we have a little battle ahead of us but I do believe they are recognizing the vital importance agriculture plays in our society, not only farmers but the further processors. Many people have family members who are connected indirectly or directly with the agriculture sector.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Malpeque P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is very concerned about the farm crisis and agriculture issues. I have heard her talk passionately on it many times.

One common theme runs through all farm crises. We have had farm crises in past generations. It does not matter in what generation the farm crisis occurs or what commodity or community. There is as a result of a farm crisis economic violence, I would call it, inflicted on farm families. That is the level I want to deal with.

Do we have anything in place? What about the Farm Debt Mediation Act or is there anything in place that the government can do to deal with that kind of economic violence that will take place within farm families at the community and individual level? That is what we have to deal with.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that question. I can certainly understand where he is coming from.

I have been very fortunate to be on the front lines working in a constituency office and addressing some of these concerns over the past years when there have been crises within our communities in the farming sector.

I believe the revamping of the farm debt review board has a program that will help some of these farmers. Being a farmer in my past life, we always think next year will be a better year. Sometimes our pride gets ahead of common sense a little by thinking that another struggling effort can be made to put in the crops.

With this program farmers can actually access information to see if there is a possibility of them continuing next year. They can see the avenues or how they could change their farming practices. I think it will be tapped into on a regular basis in the next few months.

I look forward to tomorrow's outcome when we have the provincial ministers and agricultural leaders in town. These are the people who will give us the best answers as to how we address this national disaster program.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

As the chief critic for the Reform Party on agriculture I find it a pleasure to be here today to speak on this Reform supply day motion dealing with the income crisis currently occurring in Canada.

We found it necessary to bring this supply motion forward and to bring a motion forward in the agriculture standing committee to move the government along on this issue and recognize there is a problem today and that it will be even worse in the future. There is every indication that the government was not prepared to take any immediate action to deal with this problem and was looking down the road that maybe it would solve itself.

I would like to make a correction to what has been going on in the House. A number of members on the government side have repeatedly stated that we have raised this issue simply as a western crisis. We well know that when one sector of the agriculture economy goes into a crisis situation on the income side that it is not too long until a major portion of the Canadian economy follows suit.

I refer directly back to the comments by the member for Calgary Southwest. He said we recognize that there is a Canadian income crisis which is why we have raised this debate today. Politics has to take a back seat to the issue facing people today.

Many farmers even when they are making a profit are not in the rich and wealthy category. We have heard the same story today as we have heard in the House in past weeks, the same reasons why the government feels it did not have to really do anything. It was kind of along the idea that the global market has failed us, the farm income crisis is due to the Asian flu or the Russian economy going down the tubes. It is just a cycle.

Also we have heard that NISA and crop insurance will address all the problems. That is just not the case and I have noted the government is moving along the road to admitting that there is a major problem and that something has to be done. Tomorrow the agriculture ministers are appearing in Ottawa from across the country and that will help move this issue along further.

If the government is sincere about ensuring the future of agriculture it will have to take the actions required so that a farmer does not need two or three jobs off the farm. The minister of agriculture has made comments to the effect that the farm economy goes up and down and suggested that farmers look for some outside source of income. A viable agriculture operator and his family cannot be put under greater stress by getting a job to supplement his farm income when it is not sufficient for him to make a living.

That suggestion is fine for the small farmer who maybe has only a few acres or is only part time farmer at best, but it certainly cannot be applied to our commercial farmers. The government has to create an environment which producers can make an adequate living from farming. I believe that we are debating this issue today because the government has failed to do its job over the past 30 years without going into a long history of 100 years ago.

A government needs the foresight to look down the road and have in place programs and policies that enable a vital industry like agriculture to continue through the good and bad times that are always coming along. I do not just fault the Liberal government on this. The Conservative government shared in that past.

I remember back in 1970 when wheat was $1 a bushel in Interlake and Manitoba.

The few people who would buy it tried putting it through livestock and that soon went down the tubes also.

We have had this before and somehow, someday a government has to put in place programs and policies that will ensure farmers carry through when the next downturn comes along. That opportunity is now available to this government and that is where the farming industry is looking for solutions.

The priorities of this government also need to be examined. Education and health are major issues and major programs that have to be fully funded and cared for. These should be at the top level of this government's next budget. In addition, agriculture should be added as a top level area to be addressed in the next budget.

Some of the examples of misguided priorities have probably been examined here today. They include the spending with regard to the Firearms Act. I would be surprised if my friend from Yorkton—Melville did not mention that. But $330 million going into a program that will not do any good shows a misguided attempt to priorize government spending to an area that will buy votes in some sectors of the country, big cities perhaps, but it will not do anything effective for the country.

There is a lot of money in many parts of government departments similar to that wasteful spending that could be marshalled to be used to deal with the crisis before us.

We have had several speakers from the different parties and I note that our friends to the left, the NDP, are singing along the lines of $1 billion here or $1 billion there. That is not the solution to this crisis or the long term crisis. The Conservative Party has been repeating some of the same things and I find that disappointing also.

The minister has stated this government has frozen user fees for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. What about eliminating that agency? What about a corresponding reduction in income taxes? What about the cost recovery programs of the Canadian grain commission? What about pilot fees on the Great Lakes? Will the minister commit to eliminating these costs today?

In short, we have to create an environment with a viable farming community and we must reduce the cost of government to enable us to do that.

I end with an analogy. We had the famous Prime Minister batter situation arise and I think the Prime Minister is really more of a pitcher. The pitcher is supposed to be the leader of the team. He has the ball in his hands and it is up to him to throw that ball and make the next action, address the issue in front of him.

If this pitcher, this little guy from Shawinigan, throws the next baseball into the dirt on this issue, the taxpaying farmers of Canada, along with many other taxpayers, will soon recall him from the team and probably bring in a reliever.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, agriculture.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Malpeque P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Selkirk—Interlake has farmers in mind in terms of the farm crisis and I want to back him up, but this is not a western issue and I do not believe people on this side of the House believe that it is in fact a Canadian issue.

His remarks lacked specifics. There is a funny thing about the farm crisis. If one has not experienced the farm crisis personally it is very difficult to understand the loss of pride, the loss of one's heritage and so on.

Does the member have any specifics? Would he support utilizing the Farm Credit Corporation in some fashion to deal with this crisis? Would he support introducing green programs? Are there extra tools that the member could offer that the farm debt mediation board could utilize in terms of dealing with this crisis?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the crisis that is facing us today has a long history and a long track record. It goes way back to the previous government of which the questioner was a member.

We have raised this issue and brought it to the attention of the government along with many industry players and representatives.

The industry and the opposition parties do not have control of the budget that will be coming down in February. We do not know how much has been committed to other programs that are not related to agriculture. We do not know where the government will be able to get that money by repriorizing its spending. Heaven knows, it may even raise taxes. Who knows what it will do?

The fact is that no one can tell the government what to do in its next budget. We can suggest, but it is up to the government to come up with solutions in its budget and to repriorize its spending toward agriculture.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Selkirk—Interlake. He accused the NDP of wanting to throw a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there.

I can assure the hon. member that our agriculture critic, the member for Palliser, has estimated that anywhere from $500 million to $700 million is needed for emergency aid now so that farmers right across this country can get through the winter.

As a former member of the fisheries and oceans committee, I want to express this statement, relating it to farming and agriculture, and see if he agrees. “Our fisheries and marine policy is a perfect example of how Canada does not work and how unaccountable and dysfunctional our system of government can be”.

If we relate that to farming and agriculture, would he not agree that is a valid statement?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, he certainly seemed to have the agreement of a lot of members in the House after his speech.

The crisis that we are talking about has to have a two-pronged solution, both for the short term and the long term. Simply throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it in the long term. That is what the budget is for in February and that is where the government has to move.

We have to wait until all of the industry players have had a chance to put their solutions forward. At that time, through the committee on agriculture, we will be able to put forward reports with recommendations that will have a viable, long term solution for the government to follow. We are going to get that done in time for the February budget.

I take great pride in the fact that Reform has been the party pushing this issue forward the most at this point.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, it has been very, very difficult to have questions answered by the government. I asked this question earlier and I must emphasize once again that the government is ignoring the question. What are the bureaucrats in agriculture doing?

I read an article in the paper awhile back that described how many bureaucrats we have in all of the departments of agriculture across this country.

There are 5.7 farmers for every bureaucrat. Farmers have come to me and asked: “What are these guys doing? This crisis is coming down the pike and nobody has prepared us for it”. It is the very same thing that the member asked: “What would you do?”

We do not need more programs designed by bureaucrats.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, with the limited resources of any economy we have to use the resources available to us in the wisest fashion.

Things such as excessive numbers of employees, starting programs simply to have a program in a given area, to get votes in that area and to make everybody feel good have to be cut.

We heard today in committee a suggestion that a task force be created to address the very issue of wasted, misguided spending by various departments.

The industry believes that a lot of money can be found for agriculture in the existing budget. That is the challenge for the government.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to get in on the latter part of this debate, having just come from a constituency where another problem related to agriculture is very, very important.

In the area where I come from taxes rank third. For some dry land farmers it is freight, fuel and then taxes.

I want to show how this government, by a reversal of form, is killing rural government in Saskatchewan.

Rural government in Saskatchewan is maintained by rural municipalities. Generally it has an elected reeve and six councillors. We recognize and my friends in the rural government recognize that some of the land that is under their taxation jurisdiction, as part of the municipality, now comes under Indian land claims.

This argument is not about rural municipalities versus native claims. It is a direct concern of the little rural municipality out there with 400 or 500 people. This humongous government has reversed a policy and is forcing the rural municipalities to raise their taxes. It is not just one rural municipality. Many will follow.

This is a federal issue. What this government is doing is trying to pass on a debt that is owed by this government to the rural government of Saskatchewan.

Under the previous government there was a treaty land entitlement. I want hon. members opposite to listen carefully to this. That government agreed that the rural municipality from which the land would be taken would receive compensation based on 22.5 times the previous year's taxes.

After 10 years this was agreed upon. Harry Swain, deputy minister of Indian and northern affairs, wrote to the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and said “The mechanism agreed with Saskatchewan in the September 13 cost-sharing agreement on treaty land entitlement appears to be appropriate”. That is when they agreed to pay 22.5 times the previous year's taxes. He was referring to the specific land claims.

Just one year later, in 1992, deputy minister of Indian and northern affairs Dan Goodleaf wrote “The federal government recognizes that the recent TLE framework agreement has created a level of expectation by RMs that a standard of 22.5 times the previous year's tax revenue will be paid in all cases of reserve creation”.

My time does not allow me to read all of it, but I want to point out that one year after that promise there was a change in government.

This government was elected. By the way, five Liberals from Saskatchewan were elected.

What happened? This government unilaterally, after a commitment was made to the RMs of Saskatchewan, changed the 22.5 times to a lousy five times.

One has to ask the question: Where were the Liberals who were elected from Saskatchewan to support the RMs during that time? Where were those Liberals?

It means this. People who owned a piece of land with a tax rate of $1,000 were promised that they would receive $22,500 and the RM would maintain the roads. This government has now said that it will give them $5,000 and they can maintain the roads forever.

The RMs have been slapped in the face. As a result they have to raise taxes in the balance of the RMs because of the lost revenue.

The real problem is in the fact that no one in Saskatchewan can understand why the previous minister of Indian affairs and northern development refused to meet with SARM, the Saskatchewan school trustees and the provincial government.

The economy of Saskatchewan is in dire straits. Would this minister meet with the groups which are so drastically affected by this reversal?

A former Prime Minister of Canada from Saskatchewan finally erected a dam across the Saskatchewan River. Up until that time this hon. gentleman said that the federal government said Saskatchewan was not worth a damn. That is exactly what this government is saying to the rural municipalities.

This government is saying that it will give people $5,000 instead of $22,500 and they can maintain the roads. These people cannot do it.

Here is the situation. The government negotiates a treaty with an Indian band. The RM knows it is going to get 22.5 times the last assessment or the taxes on that piece of land. It does not happen. What happens? Revenue goes down. There is no money available for the schools. People are moving out.

Six or seven more land claims are imminent. This government sits here, smacks us in the face and says that it unilaterally decided it is going to be five times the assessment.

Where have the members of the NDP been? Where have the NDP members been in protesting this in rural Saskatchewan?

We are supposed to believe that the premier of Saskatchewan can pick up the phone to call the Prime Minister. All the premier would have to say is “back off and give Saskatchewan what it deserves. Give rural Saskatchewan what was originally promised”. Or do they really agree and continue to knock it away? More farmers are being affected very quickly.

This is a debt which is owed by the people of Canada. This government is saying to those 300 or 400 people in the rural municipality: “Who are you? You are not going to get the 22.5 times the previous year's taxes. You are going to get five times and you people can bloody well get your change out of your pockets and pay more tax dollars”. This is just one RM, but it is gaining momentum throughout Saskatchewan.

I can assure members that this local government, as well as the trustees, as well as the villages and towns, want to know if the government is going to continue this robbery. These people want to know if this government is going to continue smacking us in the face with five times the assessment and making the RMs responsible for maintaining the roads forever. This is an utter disgrace. It is a smack in the face to agriculture. It is a smack in the face to the people who have built the roads and everything else. Let us show a little concern. Let us reverse this and go back to the original agreement and do not slap Saskatchewan in the face again and again with every land treaty that is settled.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Malpeque P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I have been here most of the day during this debate. In all seriousness I am really wondering why the motion by the Reform Party was put today.

I have asked several times for Reformers to come forward with specifics and they have not. The member opposite was not on the farm crisis really at all. Are they just blowing smoke over there? Is this a debate for their pet peeves about other issues?

We have seen all kinds of attacks on the government, on the Canadian Wheat Board, on this and on that but we have not seen one specific from the Reform Party in terms of dealing with this farm crisis. The farm crisis is serious. It must be dealt with now.

Tomorrow the minister of agriculture has a meeting with the farm leaders and all the ministers of agriculture from across the country. He is being proactive.

Here is an opportunity today for Reformers to put forward some suggestions and we are hearing none. Let me ask again, could they give me some specifics. I know their policy talks about using market mechanisms. Are they now recognizing that there is a crisis out there? Are they willing to go beyond the market mechanisms and go to ad hoc programs? Are they willing to use farm credit? Are they willing to use green programs? Does the farm debt mediation board need to be strengthened? Give us some suggestions, some specifics.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite made the suggestion that I should be more specific. How much more specific can anyone be as it relates to the taxes of the farmers in a growing number of areas within my constituency?

I was elected to serve my constituency first. That is what I am doing. How much more specific does the member want? This government reneged. Instead of giving 23.5 times the taxes of the previous years, it is going to cut it down to 5. Then the government latches on to the RMs and says they can maintain the roads on top of that. They are losing money. This is a debt. That is specific. It is a debt of the federal government. It was promised by the federal government. It was promised to the RMs. It was promised to the taxpayers and the Liberal government is not living up to that debt, and that is specific.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member for Souris Mountain asked where was the NDP in all this. I can assure the hon. member that when farmers are in trouble or anyone in this country is in trouble they can always count on the NDP provincially and federally for support.

In the last parliament it was not the New Democratic Party that voted for the privatization of CN. It was not the New Democratic Party that voted for the privatization of our transportation system in Bill C-101. It was not the NDP that voted for the dismantling of the Crow rate. It was not the New Democratic Party that laid the burden on farmers for the transportation problems right across the country.

The government and the Reform Party must have known that when we download that kind of financial responsibility on the farmers they are going to have problems down the road. Would the member not agree that because we do not have a national agricultural policy that is one of the major reasons why we are in such trouble today?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comment. I still believe, however, that the New Democratic Party could help on this issue. I believe it could help on the taxation issue. I think the NDP should get together with the premier of Saskatchewan and do something about it.

Hon. members ought to know that every time we get into a situation like this, farmers are looking at this massive bureaucracy. For every five and a half farmers we must have a government employee. That is part of the problem. The other problem is taxation. I just vented one area of taxation. Time does not permit me to get into two more areas of taxation which drop right smack in the laps of the members opposite.