Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset, which may come as no surprise to members, that I am not a farmer. I have spent some time on a farm like many Canadians. In fact, my wife's uncle has a 600 acre farm in a little community called Iron Bridge just about 80 kilometres this side of Sault Ste. Marie, which is my home town. It is a farm that grows mostly rocks and a bit of water. He also raises some cattle. Over the years he raised hogs and therefore has had to deal with commodity difficulties.
My family and I have actually spent a lot of time there over the years, mostly in the summer months, some of it bringing in the hay and working on the farm. My boys spent many of their years as youngsters working for their Uncle Ted.
That does not necessarily give me credentials as a farmer. I do not pretend to have them. However, I think is important that all Canadians understand what the position being put forward today represents.
Let us be clear. An opposition day is an opportunity for the opposition party in question to put forward a motion that somehow in some way might embarrass the government. It is not about serious policy. It is not about putting forward arguments and debate to the farmers of western Canada or southwestern Ontario. It is not about putting forward policies that make sense. It is about ranting, raving and railing on about how awful it is that this dastardly government is ignoring farmers.
The Reform Party has principles. If we do not like them it has others, which is exactly what we are seeing here. One part of the motion states:
—to provide tax relief, lower input costs, reduce user fees and address the inadequacies of the farm safety net program.
Yet we can see it is the Reform Party's position. It is quite interesting. Members of the Reform Party, in their own document referred to as the blue book, call for a self-reliant and economically viable agricultural industry which will use market mechanisms, including the free operation of comparative advantage between regions and commodities, free entry into all sectors of production, and marketing and global free trade to meet the needs of consumers. If their policies were adopted they would create a trade war which they know full well would not benefit farmers or consumers.
All of us in this place, whether we represent farm communities or urban communities, represent people who need a successful farming industry.
On the one hand they would do all these miraculous things. They consider themselves to be primarily free traders and on the other hand they would create a trade war that would see farmers across the country penalized.
Let us talk about some contradictions because hypocrisy sometimes is amazing. It is amazing to see some of the differences. They also support “the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies, support programs, trade restrictions and non-tariff barriers in conjunction with other countries and domestic sectors”.
They go on to say that they will vigorously use federal safety net programs to support Canadian food producers that are struggling. Which is it? Are we to use programs like NISA to support farmers who are struggling food producers, or are we to phase out and eliminate all subsidy support programs? What is NISA? Is that not a support program? On one hand they want to eliminate it. On the other hand they want to use it to support farmers.
This takes me back to the election campaign when the leader of the Reform Party would say one thing when talking in eastern Canada, perhaps about Quebec or whatever, and another thing when talking in western Canada. There seemed to be two messages or more. I cannot explain it.
I am reading from their document. This is not Liberal propaganda. They will support the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies and support programs. However they will vigorously use federal safety net programs to support Canadian food producers. It is pretty clear to me. They cannot have it both ways.
Here are some other interesting statistics out of the blue book. In their supposed taxpayers' budget of 1995 they called for $640 million to be saved by downsizing guess what department?