Mr. Speaker, I think I have touched a very sore spot. I am quoting from their very own platform of 1997. I want to put on the record just what is in that platform.
It states:
In cases such as agriculture and transportation, there is significant overlap between the provinces and the federal governments, with substantial duplication of services as a result. In the case of the environment, there are four federal departments responsible for elements of our environment. By merging the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries and Oceans into a Department of Sustainable Development, we can ensure proper priority is placed on the inter-generational responsibilities we all bear for the preservation of our environment, while at the same time finding the savings we need to meet our other main objectives.
In that regard they were going to cut the department of agriculture, which was going to be a savings of $608 million.
They go on to say:
We intend to reform this Department with a view to aligning its objectives more closely with those of the large and well-funded provincial ministries of agriculture.
I am not sure what the provincial ministers are saying about this today.
They go on to say:
Consistent with the trend in recent multilateral trade negotiations, we will be moving to reduce and eventually eliminate farm subsidy programs.
They were going to eliminate them all.
They continue:
Consistent with our commitment to freer markets, we will also accelerate the five year phase out in dairy subsidies.
The relationship between this Department and the private sector will also be changed. For example, we will broaden the scope for the transfer of research and development activities to the private sector. In exchange, we will be looking to increase cost-recovery for food inspection and regulatory oversight.
I know this is very difficult for them to accept after the initial speech in which they were asking the government to come out with both long term and short term subsidies to help farmers, which we are taking very seriously.
I will summarize what they would have done if they were sitting on this side of the House. Number one, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food would have disappeared. The budget would have been cut by $608 million or 40%.
Research and development activities would have been transferred to the private sector. Cost recovery for food inspection and regulatory oversight would have been increased. The dairy subsidy would have been phased out in three years, not five, without any compensation to dairy farmers, and farm subsidy programs would have been reduced and eliminated.
This platform is very similar to the Reform platform. They were going to put agriculture under a department for sustainable development. They did not foresee in the foreseeable future that farming might take a tumble.
Our government and our minister are working toward both a long term and a short term solution to the problems farmers are experiencing today.
The system, as a whole, is a good system. However, the minister has also clearly said that he recognizes the current downturn might prove too deep and too difficult for some producers to manage using what is currently in place.
Some farmers may not have enough in their NISA accounts to see them through 1999. That may be because they are new to the business or because they have had a couple of bad years due to circumstances outside their control. For whatever reason, they have not been able to save enough in their NISA accounts. We want to be able to assist those farmers.
We also want to design a program that will not undermine the system we have. In other words, we want to make sure that we design something which encourages farmers to use NISA in the way it was intended, but also provide a system to those most in need.
The National Safety Net Advisory Committee has examined disaster programs that are in place in British Columbia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island. It has recommended that a program based on the design of these programs, but with some modifications, be implemented at the national level.
The committee wants the program to be income-based and generally available to ensure it meets our trade obligations and cannot be successfully challenged. Such a whole farm approach is essential for this program to be effective and to succeed. I say that because some hon. members may either be nostalgic for the days of huge Tory-style payouts or may be confusing the committee's recommendations with such an approach.
The program viewed by the safety net committee would be a so-called green program, one that treats all farms fairly and does not discriminate against any commodity. That will be welcome news to farmers across the country.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has said that he and his provincial counterparts are looking at this design very carefully. Such a proposal is in line with the results of a meeting held with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial counterparts in Niagara-on-the-Lake in July of this year.
I began my speech by asking where the solutions to the farm income situation were going to come from. They are not going to come from the PC platform or the Reform Party platform.
NISA and its companion funds provide a partial answer. I am confident that the ongoing work of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the cabinet, in partnership with farmers and provincial governments, will give us the other parts.