Debates of June 11th, 1998

Message From The Senate

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I cannot respond to the hon. House leader of the opposition because I have no idea what he is referring to.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-9, an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry services and other matters related to maritime trade and transport and amending the Pilotage Act and amending and repealing other acts as a consequence—Chapter 10.

Bill C-12, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act—Chapter 11.

Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act—Chapter 12.

Bill S-9, an act respecting depository bills and depository notes and to amend the Financial Administration Act—Chapter 13.

Bill C-31, an act respecting Canada Lands Surveyors—Chapter 14.

Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867—Chapter 15.

Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts—Chapter 16.

Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts—Chapter 17.

Bill C-411, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act—Chapter 18.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a result of the royal assent that just took place, business that normally would have been conducted under Government Orders was not conducted.

I am going to ask for unanimous consent to return to government orders for approximately one minute so that the House can hear a motion to approve the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-410, an act to change the name of certain electoral districts and to concur in it.

This is a bill that is of importance to all parties in the House. The names of ridings are changing and there is a certain urgency that this proceed as quickly as possible.

If you would ask the House for consent that that motion be put, I do not think it requires any debate. It would just require a minute or so of House time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The chief government whip has asked for unanimous to revert Government Orders for a short period of time, no more than five minutes, for the purpose of disposing of a bill. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

moved that the seconding reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-410, an act to change the name of certain electoral districts.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. I have received notice from the hon. member for Elk Island that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday, June 12, 1998.

It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.

Income Tax Act

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

moved that Bill C-227, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (income deferral from forced destruction of livestock or natural disaster), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present my private members' bill. It would appear it is the last private members' bill of this spring session of parliament.

It is actually quite a simple issue. It is an attempt to correct a strange anomaly in the Income Tax Act. I would have real trouble understanding how any members of this House could reasonably object to it.

Certainly in recent years Canadians across this country have suffered devastating emotional, psychological and financial impacts of natural disasters with huge costs and losses of both property and peace of mind.

Farmers who are individuals with the most intimate professional and personal ties to the land oftentimes compose the group that is most severely affected by these natural disasters. Over the past three years, farmers across the country have suffered serious losses due to the disastrous flooding of major river systems.

Extensive national media coverage familiarized most Canadians with the Saguenay flood in Quebec and the Red River flood in Manitoba. However, fewer Canadians were aware of the flooding that took place in northern Alberta and certainly in my riding.

During these periods of flooding my constituency office was bombarded with calls from distressed farmers in dire need of assistance. Many have been forced to sell their cattle as they were unable to feed them due to destruction of their feed crops. These same constituents were concerned that they would be unable to make ends meet that year let alone make enough headway to be back on their feet by the following year. The constituents' calls I received are what gave rise to this bill being discussed here today.

This bill would allow farmers to defer for one year all income from the sale or destruction of livestock given that the sale was necessitated by a shortage of feed due to a natural disaster. This bill would also allow farmers to defer income from compensation they receive from Agriculture Canada in the case of forced destruction of livestock because of infectious disease such as anthrax. This deferment of income tax would lessen the immediate financial burden on farmers, giving them time to repair damage to their farms or to rebuild their stock of farm animals.

Unfortunately Bill C-227 is non-votable. However, I am hoping that the discussion today will raise awareness in this House of the positive changes that could and should be made to aid those farmers adversely affected by natural occurrences beyond their control.

Through this bill I am not asking that the government introduce an entirely new element to the Income Tax Act. Currently the act does allow for deferment of income from the sale of livestock but for some curious reason only in the event of drought.

This bill simply aims to remove the inequity by extending that same consideration to all farmers forced to sell or destroy livestock due to natural disasters, infection or disease. Therefore acceptance of the principles of this bill would simply mean recognition of the need to close the gaps in existing legislation.

Frankly, I am appalled that such gaps were allowed to exist in the first place. Surely if insufficient moisture preventing the growth of crops to feed livestock is sufficient reason to defer income from the sale of the animals, then excessive moisture that destroys the crops needed to feed the animals is also sufficient reason to defer income from the sale of animals.

In both cases the farmers are forced to sell their livestock because of natural occurrences beyond their control. In one case the natural occurrence is drought, while in the other it is flooding. In both cases the farmers would benefit from income tax deferral which would give them time to recover from whatever disaster has occurred.

In addition to the many phone calls I received both during and after the northern Alberta floods, I also received an abundance of letters. One letter written by a constituent on behalf of the farmers in the Kinuso area detailed the financial minefield faced by farmers on flooded lands. This constituent described their situation as a vicious circle of high cost and low returns.

During the northern Alberta floods the vicious circle went something like this. Excessive moisture due to heavy rains and excessive flooding drastically reduced the amount of hay that farmers were able to bale and what they were able to bale was in very poor condition. If any crop was harvested at all or if any hay was baled, it was only enough to supplement the feed that had to be brought in from elsewhere.

At the time farmers were faced with exorbitantly high prices for feed because of the shortage of feed in the area and unusually low prices for cattle simply because there was an excess of cattle forced onto the market by the forced sell off. The constituent's letter describes the situation as a triple whammy: no local feed, high prices for imported feed and very low cattle prices.

Many farmers were faced with a situation in which they could not afford to feed their livestock, but if they sold it, they would receive such low prices that they would not be able to replace their livestock for the same price at a later date. Of course, a substantial amount of that income that they received from the sale of livestock would then be claimed by the tax man, leaving them even less to replace the cattle with in another year after the natural disaster had passed.

When the farmers were taxed on the pittance they received for the sale of their livestock, the additional financial burden of taxation was unbearable to many.

All farmers are affected by natural disasters but it is the young farmers who are financially destroyed. Unlike the more established farmers, they do not have something to fall back on. Oftentimes they have invested all that they have into a small farming business, only to see it swept away by some merciless flood.

Immediately taxing these young farmers on their income from the forced sale of livestock is unduly harsh when they do not have a financial safety net to fall back on. The immediate spike of income that is generated through the forced sale of livestock in many cases makes the same young farmers ineligible for existing safety nets that are there for financial disasters.

The principles of this bill would be especially helpful to those farmers who are just beginning and who are desperately struggling to make ends meet.

I am hopeful that all members of this House will see the value of this bill, although I am uncertain of the response from the opposite side of the House, given their horrendous track record in regard to meeting western farmers' needs.

If any other economic group in this country were to suffer the level of discrimination that the western Canadian farmers have had to suffer over the last number of decades in this country, there would simply be blood in the streets. That may be a harsh statement, but that is not an exaggeration. One only has to look back in Canadian history to the Winnipeg strike or some of the protests by the aboriginal community. When other groups found themselves backed into a corner, they took drastic action to right that wrong.

When one looks at the record, the western Canadian farmers certainly have suffered some real injustices in this country. If we look back at the Crow rate, the subsidized freight rate that was introduced in this country, it was not to help the western Canadian farmers, but to help the central Canadian feedlot operators to move feed grain from the plains of western Canada to southern Ontario to feed cattle. At the same time, the western Canadian farmers had to simply turn around and pay the full rate for manufactured goods returning west from central Ontario. If that is not discrimination I do not know what is.

We can think of many other examples. We have been debating the issue of the Canadian Wheat Board in this House for some months. It was not created to benefit the western Canadian farmer. It was created originally to produce wheat to ship to Britain to help the war effort. Western Canadian farmers were again asked to contribute billions of dollars to the war effort, more than what the manufacturing workers of central Canada were asked to contribute. I could go on and on with different examples where that discrimination exists.

In recognition of the unfairness of some of these things the government could move quickly to deal with this issue and bring some fairness. I am not terribly optimistic that will happen. In conjunction with the issue of the flooding in northern Alberta I asked this House through private member's Motion No. 11 to provide the same kind of disaster relief for the farmers whose property and farms were destroyed in the flooding simply to give those farmers the same level of disaster relief that farmers in Ontario and Quebec were granted because of the ice storm and the flooding. I think the reaction from the other side of the House was an insult. A simple request for some fairness and equality was simply turned down without even a moment's consideration.

My motion would have guaranteed that the part time farmers who intended to become full time farmers but who were forced to seek off farm employment to build farm equity financial assistance in the event of a natural disaster. It is unfortunate that after the motion was debated, the government quickly and with very little thoughtful consideration voted it down.

I experienced additional disappointment earlier this year when I received a phone call from a constituent who was faced with extreme financial hardship and simply felt he had no place to turn. Through no fault of his own because of heavy flooding and heavy rains over the last couple of years in our part of northern Alberta this farmer had been forced to go two consecutive years without being able to harvest a crop. This put the farmer in real financial hardship. He was unable to meet his commitment to the Farm Credit Corporation.

One would think that under those circumstances a crown corporation like the Farm Credit Corporation could show this individual some compassion and some consideration. But no, that was not possible. It simply evicted this man and his family and they were out on the street. It is the height of cruelty in such a situation to treat him like that after he had faced that kind of hardship and psychological bombardment while at the same time not two miles away, Alberta Pacific Pulp Mill was unable to meet its obligations under a contract with the Alberta government and it turned around and negotiated a settlement to forgive some $250 million worth of interest on the debt.

Surely if this government can afford things like the $1.5 billion subsidized loan to China to buy Candu reactors or the several hundred million dollars in farm aid to Indonesia, it should certainly be able to show some compassion for these western Canadian farmers who through no fault of their own have found themselves in financial trouble. It simply does not happen.

This individual not only lost his farm but his home. He was dealt with very callously by representatives of the Farm Credit Corporation. In spite of appeals I made to the minister and to farm credit head offices, they had no time to look at the situation.

[An hon. member]

A predatory organization.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

The hon. member could not have said it better.

However, if members on the opposite side of the House think I am being unduly critical of their performance I would like to remind them that the changes proposed by this bill present the perfect opportunity for the government to show that it does care about the needs of farmers.

Certainly farmers in my riding and presumably farmers across Canada would be pleased to see the changes I am proposing. I would therefore implore all members of the House, but especially those members opposite, to give serious consideration to this bill. Although not votable by choice of the committee responsible to make that decision, it is my hope that this discussion has highlighted the gaps in the existing legislation.

It is also my hope that the government will take advantage of this excellent opportunity to pursue greater fairness not only for the flood victims in my riding but for all farmers across this country forced to sell or destroy livestock as a result of disease or natural disaster.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill endeavours to extend the current one year tax deferral for income from forced destruction of livestock to other amounts paid to farmers with respect to natural disasters.

The hon. member for Athabasca in proposing this wishes to ease the financial burden on farmers whose property is damaged or lost through a capricious act of nature. I applaud my colleague for his initiative in this regard. It is important as we all witnessed during the recent ice storm that lives and livelihood disrupted by natural emergencies be quickly restored. I also agree that governments have a crucial role to play in the rebuilding process that follows devastation.

I would also like to point out, however, that while I support in principle the spirit of this proposed amendment, it is flawed in two very important respects. The proposal before us today is inconsistent with existing tax deferral provisions for farmers. In addition, the proposal fails from a technical perspective because it fully identifies neither the amounts to be deferred nor the circumstances whereby deferral would take place.

The Income Tax Act allows farmers to defer for tax purposes amounts received with respect to livestock in two important circumstances, forced destruction under statutory authority and in the case of widespread drought.

The proposed amendment attempts to build on the current one year tax deferral for income from the forced destruction of farm animals. The government from time to time orders the destruction of livestock known or suspected to carry various diseases in order to prevent the spread of illness to other animals or humans. Farmers may defer the inclusion in income of amounts paid by the government as compensation for the slaughter of diseased animals and need only report these amounts in the year following the year of animal loss.

This tax treatment is proper because the government recognizes that the disposal of livestock was involuntary on the farmer's part. In addition, depending on the timing of government action, farmers may not have sufficient time to replenish livestock before the end of the year. To maintain tax neutrality affected farmers are allowed to defer the proceeds to the next taxation year and offset it by deducting the cost of animal replacement as it takes place.

The phrase “under statutory authority” in this regard is both clear and necessary. For income deferral to occur the government must be responsible for the timing of animal destruction as well as for the associated compensation. Unless these conditions are satisfied no special tax treatment is allowed.

The proposed amendment, on the other hand, would extend this special tax treatment to amounts paid with respect to a natural disaster under statutory authority. The use of the phrase “under statutory authority” in this context is confusing and inappropriate. Unlike the case of diseased livestock, the government does not order property destroyed through a natural disaster and does not compensate farmers in this regard under statutory authority.

A tax deferral is also provided to farmers for livestock sales associated with a prolonged drought. However, for special treatment to take place affected farmers must carry on business in a prescribed drought region as determined jointly by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In addition, relief is only extended to farmers whose herd is reduced by a specific magnitude throughout a taxation year and only a portion of income from the sale of livestock is eligible for deferral.

These conditions were put in place through consultations with affected farm groups and agriculture Canada to ensure that relief is granted for widespread drought and not for localized cases.

However, the proposed amendment includes no similar threshold even though droughts are also natural disasters. Thus the amendment is inconsistent with the current tax policy in this area.

Moreover, the current income deferral mechanisms are limited to livestock only where the proposed amendment is not. The proposal therefore represents a fundamental departure from previous policy and is not simply an extension of the current provisions.

I am also concerned that the intent of this amendment providing tax relief to farmers hit hard by nature is not fully realized by the proposed language. To begin, the proposal does not make clear which amounts are to benefit from special tax treatment. Amounts with respect to a natural disaster could include payments from numerous sources such as governments, insurance companies and other individuals.

Payments could also be made for a variety of purposes such as replacement of inventory, recovery of capital assets or even protective measures against future catastrophes. Some of these amounts should perhaps qualify for tax relief but others decidedly should not. Under the proposal all such payments could potentially qualify.

In addition, the meaning of natural disaster is not anywhere defined by this amendment. When we say disaster we normally refer to a sudden calamitous event resulting in great damage, loss or destruction. But for the purposes of tax law this does not suffice. In extending special tax treatment we must be very specific to ensure that relief is provided only where warranted.

It should also be noted that farmers already receive favourable tax treatment in Canada. For example, farmers may elect to report income and expenses on a cash basis rather than on an accrual basis as in most other businesses. Farmers are also eligible for the $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption for farm property. They may be able to defer proceeds from the sale of a farm property through a 10 year capital gains reserve and are in fact exempt from making quarterly tax instalments.

I believe everyone present here today will agree that victims of natural disasters deserve the federal government's and the nation's full support and empathy in reconstructing their homes and businesses.

However, I also believe that all levels of government already play a significant and constructive part in the process of restoration. The proposed amendment despite its good intentions is not consistent with current tax policy and does not effectively address the difficulties faced by affected farmers.

I thank the hon. member for bringing this issue forward. As he mentioned in his opening remarks, perhaps the discussion will shed some additional light on how we may find some other type of vehicle to address the concerns that the hon. member has brought forward. I reiterate that the amendment is not consistent with current tax policy and does not effectively address the difficulties that may be faced by affected farmers.

I bring to the attention of the House that although I do once again thank the member for bringing forward this issue, I must suggest that this proposal not be adopted by the House.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-227, an act to amend the Income Tax Act regarding income deferral for farmers who must sell or destroy livestock in the case of a natural disaster.

I congratulate the member for Athabasca for taking the time to investigate the Income Tax Act and to isolate some of the problems that farmers encounter when natural disasters occur.

In congratulating him I certainly would not want to agree with him about his comments and would want to disassociate myself with the comments he made about the Canadian Wheat Board. If he wanted to refer to the Crowsnest Pass freight rate agreement and the dissolution of the Crow benefit a few years ago, he would be on firmer ground and enjoy more support from this caucus.

This bill would allow farmers to defer income for 12 months if they have to sell off livestock or destroy livestock because of a natural disaster. This would give the farmer time to rebuild his or her livestock once that natural disaster was over.

Furthermore, in a case where Agriculture Canada orders livestock to be destroyed, any taxation on compensation would not be included in the farmer's taxes for a 12 month period. Again, this would give the farmer time to rebuild once the disease had been eradicated.

In the bill before us, Bill C-227, the hon. member is referring specifically to the aftermath of a flood in the Lesser Slave Lake area, but the bill would clearly apply to other areas where natural disaster has occurred. We think of the Red River flood, the Saguenay flood and the ice storms in eastern Ontario and Quebec of last winter.

The disaster financial assistance arrangements have been in place for some time. I believe they have been in place for 28 years. The program provides assistance when disaster strikes. It works, accordingly, that the federal government may be requested by a provincial government to help out financially. This assistance is provided through the disaster financial assistance arrangements and the payments help those governments to meet the basic costs involved.

This financial assistance arrangement has been in place, as I say, for almost three decades and is administered under guidelines ensuring that federal financial assistance is provided in a fair and equitable way across Canada. The amount of this federal compensation is determined by a formula based on provincial population and other criteria.

With reference to the ice storm of 1998, despite the existence of the arrangements under DFAA, problems did occur. I know that we received calls and letters from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture following that severe ice storm and we were told that the provisions of the DFAA applied to some situations but not to others.

The federation told me that federal and provincial legislation covered capital losses but not the loss of income. For example, if a farmer had to throw out milk because the truck could not get to the yard to pick it up, he or she was compensated. On the other hand, trees in a farm orchard which were injured or stressed from the storm meant that the farmer was not compensated for lost productivity resulting from that.

In addition, there were problems with the definition of farmer for purposes of compensation. Many people who are forced to work off farm to support their operations were then considered to be hobby farmers and not eligible for assistance under the DFAA, although I think eventually there was an exception made for farmers affected by the ice storm and so-called hobby farmers were included back in January and February.

We know that off farm work has become the exception, not the rule, and that farmers work to subsidize their operations.

There is a need for a more detailed look at the DFAA as it relates to the loss of income and who is eligible for compensation. I know that the bill of the hon. member for Athabasca relates to the Income Tax Act, but what we are talking about is a measure of protection for the income of farmers.

Any discussion of protecting farm income must also take into account the government's lack of support for the agriculture and agri-food sector. The support has declined drastically throughout this decade. It stood at $6 billion in 1991 and it had been reduced to less than $2 billion by 1997, a decline of $4 billion, and this year's budget confirmed even further cuts.

Farmers and other rural dwellers have sacrificed enormously in the fight against the deficit. One might well ask what the agriculture minister is doing to represent the interests of rural Canadians at the cabinet table. We believe the government is doing too little rather than too much to support farmers facing difficult circumstances.

I want to refer briefly to an opposed vote in the supplementary estimates printed recently in the Order and Notice Papers. I would have liked to have spoken to this the other day, but time allocation did not permit it, so I will make reference to it now.

It involves the member for Prince George—Peace River, who was opposed to the federal department of agriculture spending $13.8 million on crop reinsurance for Saskatchewan. I want to go through this because I think it was perhaps a shortsighted, mean spirited approach. I just want to give a little bit of history to back up the point.

In the 1980s the provincial Conservative government of Saskatchewan set up a number of farm insurance programs.

Members will recall that there was a serious drought in Saskatchewan at that time and indeed some action was needed. Ottawa got involved. It was probably one of those late night phone calls between then Premier Devine and then Prime Minister Mulroney. In any event, they hastily devised ad hoc programs and carried so much debt that they drove the cost of farmers' premiums through the roof.

Following the 1991 provincial election in Saskatchewan, the incoming government moved to remedy the situation. The federal and provincial governments both wrote off a portion of the debt in these programs to put them on a sound financial footing.

Saskatchewan made a payment to do away with the debt and Ottawa did the same. As I understand it, the money involved in this vote is to be used for that purpose, namely, to retire a debt that was driving premiums not only up for farmers but out of sight.

Therefore, I cannot understand why the member for Prince George—Peace River would want to prevent this money from going to Saskatchewan farmers and I am sure the farmers in that province would not understand it either. I notice in passing that the member for Prince George—Peace River has asked the minister of agriculture on several occasions over this session to provide assistance to farmers in the Peace River area where crops had been lost due to rain and flooding.

I too have spoken out in this House, urging the minister of agriculture to do more to help the farmers in Peace River. So I am disappointed that the Reform Party member who wants assistance for Peace River farmers would ask that Ottawa turn its back on farmers in Saskatchewan. It seems to me that it is yet another example of that party picking and choosing who it is going to support and who it is not. I am sure this will not go unnoticed by farmers in my province.

In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca for his private member's bill and assure him of my support for it.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-227, moved by the member for Athabasca, is similar to Motion No. 11 that was moved by the hon. member some time ago. This bill is an effort to provide equality and fairness for farmers.

This bill will allow farmers to defer income for one year if the farmer has to sell off livestock or destroy it because of a natural disaster, in the case of floods, drought, et cetera.

In the case of a natural disaster, if the farmer must sell livestock because their feed has been destroyed or for any other reason, the taxes on the income received from the sale will be deferred for one year. This will give the farmer time to rebuild the livestock once the natural disaster has passed.

In the case of an Agriculture Canada order to destroy livestock, any taxation on compensation would not be included in the farmer's taxes for one year. Again, this will give the farmer time to rebuild the livestock once the disease has been eradicated. This money is not taxed in the case of drought, so it should logically be extended to include livestock affected by other natural disasters and forced destruction of livestock for other health reasons.

With the aftermath of the ice storm of January 1998 there is a great need to re-evaluate the income support mechanism in the agricultural sector. When a natural disaster occurs, whether it be the floods of Manitoba, the Saguenay, northern Alberta, or last summer's drought in Nova Scotia, it is most often farmers who are hit the hardest financially.

It is time for the federal government to take a more proactive rather than reactive stance and start developing policies that benefit producers in good times and in bad times. In saying that, it is important that we emphasize the word consistency when we talk about disaster assistance. Without consistency in the delivery of assistance programs for farmers it would only create division between farmers across this great nation.

Before I go on any further, I would like to state for the record that when the Progressive Conservative government was in power between 1984 and 1989 support for our farmers was greater than ever before. Crop and income insurance totalled $21.7 billion, about $4 billion a year. Grains and oilseed farmers hurt by the 1988 drought received $850 million in emergency assistance.

It was also the Progressive Conservative government that in January 1991 brought in a new generation of farm safety net programs that farmers could count on. They were aimed at boosting farm income.

One of the most important programs, which continues to exist to this day, the net income stabilization account, replaced ad hoc programs and put in place help for farmers in all regions of this country.

The bill before us clearly demonstrates the need for us to re-evaluate our income protection system for farmers. Although government officials might say that weather conditions are never the same, disaster assistance is not the same either. I would suggest that this is where the problem lies.

There must be consistency in determining the level of assistance. It should not simply be based on the amount of publicity a natural disaster gets. This consistency must be applied to circumstances from coast to coast. Ad hoc programs provide for ad hoc solutions.

With the environmental and climatic changes that this world is undergoing, it is vital now, more than ever, to monitor these issues on an ongoing basis and develop consistent policies that would help farmers deal with these changes both financially and realistically.

I would like to mention that the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, our party's agriculture critic, has a private member's bill, Bill C-387, which addresses the problem of consistency. The hon. member's bill would establish a national committee to develop policies and procedures to ensure co-ordination in the delivery of programs by governments in the case of agricultural losses or disasters created by weather or pests, to co-ordinate the delivery of information, assistance, relief and compensation and to study the compliance of such programs with the WTO requirements.

The committee would consist of a membership of up to 21 members. Three would be nominated by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. One member would be nominated by each provincial agriculture minister. Five members would be representatives of farmers and would be nominated by such organizations representing farmers. Three members would be representatives of industry related to agriculture products and would be nominated by such organizations representing that industry.

The committee would monitor situations on an ongoing basis and discuss what income protection measures would be available to farmers in the event of disasters or unusual conditions caused by weather or pests, taking into account crop insurance, flood and drought protection programs and NISA.

That being said, the PC Party will support this bill. I hope the hon. member for Athabasca will also support my colleague's bill when it comes before the House. Unfortunately, Bill C-227 is not votable. It is important that all provinces from coast to coast have input and share ideas on income protection for the farming community. This bill clearly shows that there is a much larger problem. The main problem is the need for consistency in all financial arrangements between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. What is needed is for the federal government to show leadership on this issue and ensure that equity and fairness is there.

In conclusion, now that we know the House will rise tomorrow for the summer recess, I wish all members of parliament, including you, Mr. Speaker, a very nice summer vacation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Athabasca, as the mover of the bill, has the last five minutes to sum up.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I expected the response that I received from the government. Nonetheless, I am still very disappointed with it. We can always find ways around the issue. We can always find flaws in the bill. My intention was to raise the issue of fairness and equality.

I would encourage the government, as imperfect as my bill is, to address the issue and to make an effort, through the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Finance, or whomever would be appropriate, to bring some fairness to the issue so that those livestock producers who have to sell off livestock the same as they would in a drought or in a flood situation would be able to retain that income in the following year to replace that livestock.

In that spirit I would like to move that Bill C-227 be withdrawn and the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member of Athabasca has requested the unanimous consent of the House to have the contents of the motion referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Does he have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Access To Information Act

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a private member on a point of order to seek unanimous consent. I feel very awkward after what just occurred two seconds ago.

Last October I submitted a private member's bill dealing with the access to information bill which proposed a great number of amendments to the legislation. I received support from all parties. There were representations from the Bloc, the Reform Party, the Conservatives and the NDP. I received seconders from all opposition parties and seconders to a total of 113 on the government backbenches.

Unfortunately in the time since then I have had many representations on my bill. A lot of people looked at it and made suggestions. They have noticed some flaws and some technical difficulties in a few areas which maybe I did not think out very clearly.

I emphasize here it is still at first reading; it has not been picked. If it ever does get to be read in second reading I would not want debate to be deflected on the flaws. I would hope the debate would deal with the good points of the bill.

Therefore I would request unanimous consent of the House to substitute the text, which I will forthwith table, for the text submitted last October and that the said bill keep its number, which is Bill C-264, and standing on the order paper as there is no change in title.

I point out that the other option would have been to simply submit it under a new title, but I would much rather keep it under the old designation of Bill C-264.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the request for unanimous consent by the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington to submit a new text for a bill already presented standing in his name.

Does the House give it unanimous consent?