House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there was still a little time left for questions and comments after my speech but I am not certain.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I think the hon. member had about five minutes. The best information I have, and I was not here, is that the hon. member's time had expired. Therefore, we will resume debate with the hon. member for Durham.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on the motion brought forward by the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

I spent many years farming. Although I cannot claim to be a full time farmer, I can certainly sympathize with a lot of our farm community, especially those in the west who are suffering significant economic hardship today. I can remember receiving a cheque for a grain shipment and wondering why it was that the total amount of the cheque did not equal my fertilizer bill. I can imagine that some farmers can take that one step further and wonder how they are going to feed and clothe their families based on such low income levels.

I am amazed a little about the shape and form of this debate in the House today. I have listened to the members opposite who talked about all the things we should do as a government to solve this problem.

Some of the pork producers in Durham suffered through the low commodity prices for pork just last year. They had severe economic hardship.

A number of things were totally beyond their control, mainly due to a high cycle of productivity and the collapse of international prices for pork. The government came forward and addressed the issue. It listened to the concerns of farmers all over the country and implemented an AIDA program.

I am certain that there are those who have concerns about the AIDA program. I heard some members opposite talk about the problems of making application for these funds and the administrative process. Quite frankly I am surprised by the opposition. It has not taken into account the necessity for accountability in our framework. By that I mean we chose a methodology of program delivery that required farmers to use their income tax returns in order to prove, to hypotheticate and to understand the nature of their income support levels. I will be sharing my time with the member for Chatham—Kent—Essex.

This process became somewhat cumbersome. A lot of people have concerns about it. There is a time delay between cashflow problems and when the cheques arrive. We know of the reverse situation where governments got into program delivery where they simply wrote cheques and told them later about whether one could prove the necessity for or need for the program.

These programs are disastrous in and among themselves. The worst thing governments can get into is paying out moneys to people with income problems and turning around a year later and saying they overcontributed to the program and need the money back.

I am sure members understand that there are idiosyncrasies about the program. I am sure a lot of farmers are discouraged by the fact that they have to fill out these forms. I have to admit that I am an accountant but I have never had to fill them out. I understand their concern with my profession which makes money filling out these forms. I share and sympathize with the problem. It should not be that complicated. Indeed I do not think it is that complicated. Many of my constituents tell me that they complete these forms by themselves.

We listened today to the Reform Party telling us two or three different points. I cannot seem to reconcile the messages. It was telling us that part of the solution was to form a regime that would protect farmers from the disparities of international subsidies and subsidy programs. At the same time it was telling us that we should reduce taxes. It did not take long to understand that these two policy choices were in direct conflict with each other.

Many other businesses in the country are subjected to the disparities of international subsidies. I only have to think of our aircraft industry, steel imports and many other industries with concerns about tariff and unfair subsidies in other countries. It is not within our economic or physical ability to protect every interest in the country from distorting trade practices in other countries. As a government and a people we could go to countries within the World Trade Organization and other forums to argue that we need fairer trade practices.

Surprisingly enough, today the leader of the Reform Party and the member for Lethbridge, if I recall, talked on and on about how terrible it was that the Prime Minister would go on trade missions and not be in the House. The way we deal with these trade distorting practices is to go and talk with people in other countries.

Not long ago I was able to go to Taiwan. At that time I was concerned about what I considered to be the unfair trade practices of the Taiwan government that favoured American imports of beef over those of Canada. We talked about how we could find some way to liberalize that regime and narrow it for the benefit of our farm community.

Many other speakers have intervened in this issue, but the reality is that our exports of agricultural products are at an all time high. Canadian farmers have been very successful at producing agricultural products efficiently and cheaply and at being able to export them into world markets.

I do not think it takes a lot of brains to understand the way the world is going if we look at the Asian community. Quite frankly the conclusion is that the world is going into an era where it will not be able to feed itself. Certainly communities in Asia and others will not be able to feed themselves. It is a good opportunity for our agricultural industries.

One issue today was about government concern in this regard. Strangely enough, suddenly the Reform Party is greatly concerned about agricultural issues. My research tells me that the Leader of the Opposition in the last session of parliament never asked one question about agriculture and in this session he has only asked one.

We heard members of the Reform Party today. They are very concerned about the agricultural plight of the west, specifically Saskatchewan, yet the questions were on APEC, about the hurt feelings of a few people involved in the APEC inquiry. Farmers, whether in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, were the least thing on their mind when it came to question period.

We are here today talking about some of the programs available to farmers. The NISA program has been in place for many years. It is a tremendous program where taxpayers attempt to match contributions to the fund by farmers to allow them the ability to smooth out their income over peak years.

Because of the drastic downturn in commodity prices and some of the climatic conditions that have impacted on the production of agricultural products in the west this system is not adequate enough. When we are designing income support programs we should find out where to put the safety net and how much we can afford to support the safety net.

Situations occur, whether in agriculture or other industries, where there is oversupply and undersupply and a rationalization going on in the market. Agricultural producers in my riding are not looking for free handouts. They are not looking to the government to subsidize them, unlike what the Reform Party is seemingly suggesting today.

If I went around my riding and asked the farming community whether it would would be happy with a program which protected them from all things in the world, which is what the Reform Party is proposing in the motion, my constituents would tell me no. They are big people. They are very confident they can effectively run their farming operations. Farmers want us to sit down at the trade tables to negotiate a reduction in international subsidies which gives Canadians the ability to compete in worldwide markets. I suggest that is what the government is doing.

We have a World Trade Organization meeting coming up in Seattle next month. The government is working very hard at the position it will put forward to reduce agricultural subsidies throughout the world. The best we can do for Canadians is not create another regime of subsidies and support like the Reform Party would have us do but reduce the unfair practices of today.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, to be quite honest, I am absolutely astounded by the hon. member's comments. He seemed to want to use his entire 10 minutes of presentation to slam the Reform Party. I agree with one point the member made. Farmers are not looking for a handout. He is quite correct. I think that is universal all across the land.

The reality is that farmers do not have a level playing field. It is fine for the hon. member to talk about taking a strong position in the WTO and negotiating it, but what do farmers do in the meantime. That is what the motion is all about.

Whether or not the hon. member wants to get out of Ontario and face reality, the reality is that farmers are going broke while the government talks and designs a program with so much built-in accountability that it does not deliver any help to farmers.

Why does the hon. member not wake up, smell the coffee and understand what is happening on farms in western Canada?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member a bit about reality. First, the people of Ontario have gone through tough times in the past. Second, we do not start equalizing tariffs by saying that we will increase ours. That is not a negotiating tool.

It does not make any sense to say we want them to reduce their tariffs and the way we will get them to do it is to increase ours. Quite frankly that is why we have had a long and heavy international regime of high tariff laws. As we put up ours somebody else puts up theirs and by the time we are all through we are all worse off. That is the plan of the Reform Party. It is just a no-brainer. It has not worked in the past and it will not work in the future.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I too am astounded the Liberals cannot see there is a real contradiction in what they are saying.

The member opposite asks how we can subsidize everybody that deals in the international marketplace. I think the member has a big blind spot. Reduce the tax burden on all Canadians including farmers and the government will not have to subsidize farmers and other businesses. Our high taxes built right into all the input costs like fuel, fertilizer, chemicals and capital expenditures can be reduced.

My question is for the member. Would he not agree that a tax reduction would help increase the bottom line for all farmers?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is saying about taxes on input costs within the farming operation. We all know that the biggest tax cost is income taxes.

Once again the Reform Party is telling me how irrelevant it really is. We are talking about people who are losing their farms, not making any money and obviously experiencing huge losses, and the Reform Party is arguing that we should have income tax reductions. It does not make any sense at all. It is ludicrous.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. It is my understanding that we are going into the WTO negotiations in a very different way this time and that in fact the government and various commodity groups have got together at least for the initial position.

Would my colleague care to comment on how he thinks that will affect the outcome of this round of negotiations?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for his intelligent question. Clearly trade agreements take some time to evolve. The way we do that is through compromise and conciliation.

The role that the government has now taken, as the member suggests, to enter into a pre-consultation process to try to get some agreement on how it can move forward is the only intelligent way to deal with the distortion issues the Reform Party talks about. Creating a regime of new tariff laws within Canada is not the way to create that conciliatory process.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more that tariffs are not the answer. Certainly subsidies are not the answer.

My question is for the hon. member. In areas other than Ontario agriculture we recognize that approximately 45% of western Canadian farmers may well not be able to farm next year. Is the member suggesting that we simply negotiate the subsidies and the tariffs and not worry about those 45% of farmers who may not be able to make it into the next year. If he does not believe that, what are the alternatives?

What is his government's alternative, other than a very flawed AIDA program?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about a very flawed AIDA program, but the fact of the matter is that the government has ponied up and has put $900 million on the table. As I understand it, of the applications that have been made for assistance, over 50% are from the province of Saskatchewan which has been the most hard hit by this time factor.

Are we going to be all things to all people? Are we going to help every single farmer 100% of the time? I do not think so. In my own riding people who have applied for the AIDA program complain that it does not do everything they would like it to do. However, I think when they sit back and think about how far we expect governments to reach into their wallets, all they are really doing is reaching into the wallets of other taxpayers.

What is the level of support that we can afford in this country? The reality is that we cannot be all things to all people, but we can try to do the best we can with the resources we have and I think we have been very effective at doing that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Jerry Pickard Liberal Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate having the opportunity to debate this very important issue on farm income.

The federal government is committed to a strong, healthy, viable agricultural sector. Looking at the sector as whole it is exactly that, a strong, healthy and viable sector. That may surprise some people because that is not what we have been hearing in the news lately. One of the things I hope to do today is to give my colleagues and those who are listening a better understanding of this whole farm issue. It is very complex. It is not a simple issue, as many people have tried to say.

I am not suggesting that the sector is without challenges. Some farmers in pockets throughout our country, in western Canada in particular, have had many problems to face this past year. Farming is affected by weather and the marketplace, and sometimes, as we have witnessed in the past year, both factors collide at one time.

In this case the farmers' bottom line has felt the impact of a whole range of circumstances coming together at one time. The crisis in the Asian and Russian economies and the downturn in Latin America caused some markets to shrink. Declining commodity prices and an overproduction of wheat in the world also had an impact. We experienced at the same time difficult flood conditions in one region and drought in another. Needless to say, the effect on income to farmers, particularly those in grains, oilseeds and hogs, was severe.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has responded to that situation and is continuing to work to put the tools in place to assist the producers, especially those who are most in need.

There are a number of tools which were put in place by this government to help producers through difficult times, as the minister of agriculture has pointed out in his remarks. However, often the challenges farmers face throughout the country are as diverse as the commodities they produce. As the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech earlier this year, a government that pretends it can be everything to everybody is a government that in the end will do nothing for anybody.

What a government can do is create conditions for a productive and competitive agricultural sector as a whole. That is what this government has done and that is what this government will continue to do. While doomsayers would have us believe that there is a crisis in Canadian agriculture, overall and across this great nation the agricultural sector is strong.

Overall Canadian farmers are among the most productive and efficient in the world. Farm production has been going up and so has farm net worth. Overall farmers have adjusted to constantly changing international markets. Their success is obvious when we look at our export numbers. Agricultural exports have risen from $13 billion to $22 billion over the last five years and even with the economic challenges of this past year they will be up slightly from 1997, which was a record year. Horticultural crops, special crops and red meat all had increases last year.

Trade is most important to growth in this sector. About half of the average farm gate income to Canadian farmers is the result of trade. That is why the government is working on the international front to bring order and stability to world markets and to provide better access to world markets. Despite the commodity market challenges, the outlook for Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is positive.

Our industry has also met the evolving demand for specialized processed products. Our exports of value added products are surging. In fact, they grew by almost 9% last year. Processed goods means processing plants and jobs, jobs that add to the sustainability of our rural communities.

The industry itself has a lot of confidence in its own capabilities. Already Canada has about 3.3% of the world's agri-food trade. The Canadian Agri-Food Marketing Council, or CAMC, has set a goal to increase that to 4% by the year 2005.

CAMC, which is made up of agriculture and food representatives, has also set a target of increasing processed agricultural exports over and above bulk commodity exports. By current indicators, there is no reason to think the goal will not be met.

Our supply managed commodities are faring well. Farm cash receipts for chicken, for example, went up about $250 million from 1995 to 1998 and were about $1.3 billion last year. Egg receipts have increased slightly, while dairy receipts grew by $299 million to close to $4 billion for that same period.

Furthermore, for many commodities that have been affected by weak prices there are signs of gradual improvement, with indications that prices have hit a cyclical bottom. Red meat is doing extremely well and feedlot levels are at an all time high.

The worst situation a farmer can experience is foreclosure. It is the last thing anyone wants to see happen. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provides a financial review to producers through the farm consultation service and, for a stay of proceedings, financial counselling and mediation through the farm debt mediation service. These services have been extensively communicated to producers and creditors. While there is some increased activity at this time under these programs, applications are not at a high rate across Canada. Fortunately, we are not seeing thousands of producers experiencing financial difficulty, although there are reports which say that is happening.

The Government of Canada knows how important the agriculture and agri-food sector is to Canadians in general. The Canadian agriculture and food industry accounts for close to one-tenth of Canada's gross domestic product. It employs 1.8 million people either directly or indirectly. I would say that is a pretty solid business.

It is an industry that is varied and offers many interesting careers for young people. While we know the hard work of Canada's farmers helps to drive the entire economy, it is becoming more obvious that there is a wealth of other rewarding and worthwhile paths available to young people in this sector as well. Graduates from Canada's agricultural colleges and universities have jobs lined up before they graduate and there are even signing bonuses for some who are graduating. This is another sign of an industry that is strong and growing.

Canada has a worldwide reputation in agri-food products. It is unsurpassed anywhere in terms of high quality and safety. No matter where we go in the world, when people see a label with the red maple leaf, it is recognized for its quality, which is second to none. We continue to build on that reputation with team Canada missions and exhibitions at international food shows and by attracting buyers and investors to Canadian industry as we will be doing when we host the North American Salon international de l'alimentation.

The agriculture and agri-food industry has gone through a great deal of change over the last decade and has proven over and over again that it can meet the challenges and tackle the opportunities presented to it as it moves forward in the new millennium.

There are certain areas of the overall sector that are facing difficult times and the federal government is providing those producers with the tools to overcome these difficulties. Success is not a solo effort, nor is failure. By working together, the industry and all levels of government, this industry will continue on a path of growth and success.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member speak, I thought to myself that if I was looking for a career what I would do is go into agriculture and start farming. It is the growth industry of Canada according to the hon. member. Egg production is going up and the price is going up. It is all the way down the line. Red meat is better than it has ever been. It is just a wonderful, rosy picture. How can the hon. member make statements like that when there is all kinds of evidence to the contrary?

We heard from the people who are representing the farmers of Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta. All of them said that these people are in trouble, and this gentleman has the audacity to tell us that they do not have a problem, that there is just a bit of a problem here and there in isolated little pockets. We are not talking about isolated little pockets; we are talking about an industry that is in trouble in very many of its areas.

Exactly what is the hon. member trying to tell us about agriculture? Does he believe there is a problem, or does he believe there is not a problem?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jerry Pickard Liberal Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out early in my comments, oftentimes there are disastrous issues that happen in pocketed areas of Canada. I also mentioned the difficulties which western Canada is experiencing today. There is no question that we have a sliding of price in the commodity market and there is no question that they have had difficult weather to deal with over the last year. However, let us not say that a whole industry is in trouble because of one sector of that industry. What I am trying to say is that Canada's agricultural industry is steadily improving. There are opportunities for young people.

In my riding there is a tremendous number of dollars in agriculture and people are working very well. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to find agricultural workers in my riding. We are looking for more and more workers all the time. There is a strong element of agriculture in the country. The unfortunate part is that colleagues across the way narrow their perspective to look at one very small issue.

I am not underplaying the fact that it is important to those people who are affected; I am underlining the fact that members opposite do not look at the entire picture. They only look at a very narrow section of Canada. They have not spoken of Ontario in the time they have been talking today.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, through the AIDA program I think we have seen some very significant payouts to other parts of the country, excluding Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I suppose that AIDA provides farmers in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada with some substantial subsidies, but we have a huge problem.

The hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex may not know this, but in western Canada approximately 46% of our farmers are grain and oilseed farmers who may not be in business a year from now because of the policies of the Liberal government.

Could the hon. member share with us the secret with respect to the AIDA program that pays such great amounts of money to farmers everywhere except in Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Why is the AIDA program targeting and persecuting farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba while helping farmers in other parts of the country?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jerry Pickard Liberal Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think it should be stated here and now that those agreements which have been worked out with the federal government, the provincial governments and the producers are in place to help producers. There is absolutely no question that it is not just the federal government which is part of the AIDA program.

The reality is that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in this House announced $900 million for the farm community. As I understand the facts, another $600 million will come from the provinces. As a result, $1.5 billion will go into agriculture this year.

The reality is, as one of my colleagues pointed out to me, that very close to half of that money will go to the western province of Saskatchewan. The reality is, there are large payments and there is support going to western Canada. There is no question, that is in place.

Sometimes people can say that what is being sent is not enough, and that is reality. However, it is a fair amount of money if one stops to think about $1.5 billion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have an entire presentation that could probably take all afternoon if I really wanted to do justice to this issue. Unfortunately, I know you are not going to allow me that kind of time to address this issue that seems to be of such little importance to the members opposite.

Quite frankly, sitting here and listening to the presentation by the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex who just spoke, one would think that there is no problem. At the culmination of his presentation he had the audacity to say that there is just a little wee problem in one part of the country. That little wee problem happens to be the breadbasket of Canada. It happens to be the western prairies.

When he says it is not an entire industry that is affected by these low commodity prices, just little pockets here and there, a little wee problem that the opposition seems to be narrowly focusing on to quote the hon. member, I cannot believe it.

We are talking about an entire industry. Wake up over there. It is an entire industry called the grain industry. It is all the commodities in the grain industry that are affected by these low prices because the government has not done its job in defending farmers at the WTO in the trade negotiations.

I used to be a farmer, unlike the hon. member who is sitting across the way laughing about this problem. I am sure that is going to be comforting to farmers in western Canada. Farm families that are faced with losing their farms right now would be comforted to hear him laughing.

The reality is many members in the parties on this side of the House used to be farmers. I know there are a few on the other side as well and they should understand and empathize with this issue.

I had the pleasure this fall of actually spending a couple of days in therapy. I spent a couple of days running a combine and helping to harvest on my brother's farm in the Peace River country in British Columbia. It was therapy from this unreal world that is Ottawa to get back to the farm and actually sit in a combine and do something productive for a few days, unlike what the government is always trying to do which is totally unproductive from the viewpoint of the farmers.

I had the opportunity to run a truck for a day or two and haul grain for the elevators. Farmers are usually very upbeat during harvest time. They are very optimistic people. Despite all that mother nature can throw at them, despite everything that is beyond their control, usually they are very upbeat especially at harvest time. Harvest time is usually paycheque time after an entire year of energy, effort, blood, sweat and tears that goes into farming. That is usually when farmers get some return for the fruits of their yearly labour, which is really a labour of love, a love of the land, but that return was not there this year.

What does the government hold out? It holds out speeches like the one we just heard from the member for Chatham—Kent Essex that downgrade this whole issue and say that it is not a problem at all, that it is addressing the issue in the small pockets where it is a problem.

That is going to be very small comfort to the farm families of western Canada who face losing their farms right now. They are looking for some small ray of hope from their government in Ottawa, some ray of hope going into the new millennium.

In addressing this issue today, I want to interrupt my remarks to quote verbatim a couple of letters I have received from two farmers in the Peace River country. One is from north Peace and one is from the south in my riding of Prince George—Peace River. The farming and agricultural area of the riding is split by the Peace River.

The first letter states:

Now that harvest is done I wanted to drop you a line and let you know how things are. This was our 11th harvest, we had decent wheat and canola and the barley yield was down a bit. The problem, as you know, is the prices. When we sat down this spring and made up our seeding plans, canola was at almost $9.00, now it is below $6; barley was up to $2.25 but it has dropped back to $1.65.

This kind of volatility makes it very difficult to make our cashflow work properly. We end up living on our line of credit almost year round. I know people say you should contract for the prices when they are high, but we had no harvest in 96 and 97 and the thought of having to make up the shortfall in contracts that a person could not deliver on as well as the blow of no harvest, keeps us from being too anxious to contract grain we have not grown yet. We do enough gambling just to get the crop in and out again!

We, of course, are enrolled in all the safety net programs that are going and in the short term, Crop Insurance and WFIP have been helpful. Crop Insurance has never quite been enough to pay the basic input costs on a complete loss. The 60% ceiling is not making it, I think 75 or 80% would be closer to the mark. As for WFIP, it worked well for us for the first year, but it is not designed to make up for price disasters, more for physical disasters. Also it does not work if the disaster goes on for more than 2 years as the reference margins then get so low that you don't generate a claim. We don't have enough cash to put more than our allowed minimum in NISA so it is taking a long time to build up enough of a cushion to have any kind of saving effect on a farm our size (1,600 acres).

All in all, it is quite discouraging that we can be doing our job to the best of our ability and coming up with a good product, that we then have no control over the price that we get for that product. All other businesses that I can think of have a profit margin built into their product that reflects the cost of producing that product and allows for some profit to build your business and to live a decent life on. Why is this not the case in Farming? We are hoping that since you've been in the business, you'll understand our concerns and be able to put them forward to the people who might be able to get things changed.

It is signed by Rodney Strasky from Farmington, British Columbia.

The other letter reads:

As a Peace River grain farmer I continue to be a survivor of Canada's cheap food policies. Other farmers have not been so fortunate. I feel that my energies are subsidizing my urban cousins as statistics show that Canadian consumers pay only 10% of their income on foodstuffs. This is the lowest in the world. Citizens of other countries pay 15% up to 100% of their income to eat. This means that Canadian farmers have given Canada the highest standard of living in the world. How can I continue to compete with the American and European treasuries who are causing our unrealistically low grain prices?

For example, in June 1988 I sold barley for $3.00/bushel, while today the price is a paltry $1.71/bu. We farmers have invested in new technologies and methods to be more efficient and to grow a quality safe food product for consumers. For the past 10 years, my yearly reward has either been a negative or minimal return. There have been increased machinery costs—new combines now cost 1/4 million dollars. Other inputs have also increased. Fertilizer and herbicides continue to increase. Diesel fuel alone has increased 11 cents/litre since Jan/99.

Directed proactive strategies are needed immediately to allow our vital food producers to survive. If we can't receive higher prices then give us lower input costs.

I am requesting that your party urge the Government to:

1) Reduce or eliminate all indirect and direct taxes from all farm inputs, i.e., fuel, fertilizer, machinery, etc.

2) Provide tax incentives for farmers to invest in new technologies.

3) Get tough at the WTO table. Canadian farmers are losers in these power struggles.

4) Provide more R&D monies for agriculture.

5) Eliminate or reduce the 19 year competition shelter that Pesticide companies use to artificially price pesticide products. A sheltered period of 3 years would give the companies sufficient time to recapture their costs and develop profits.

6) Take international initiatives to ensure that international companies such as Monsanto are unable to obtain genetic patents in perpetuity on plant and animal life systems. Remember that we are members of the Animal Kingdom.

7) Provide a business taxation system that targets and supports primary food producers.

Thank you for pursuing these and other issues that I have brought to your attention.

The letter is signed by Arthur A. Hadland from Baldonnel, British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I see I have only one minute left for my remarks.

In summary what does this disastrous drop in commodity prices really mean? We heard Liberal member after Liberal member quote statistics about how things are actually quite rosy, but they were not really interested in talking about statistics.

We want to talk about all those in the farm communities who rely on farmers, the fuel suppliers, the pesticide and fertilizer outlets, the equipment dealers, the grain companies and railroads and all their employees. We want to talk about the parents who cannot afford to pay the fees to have their sons in minor hockey or their daughters in figure skating this winter. We want to talk about farm families that are losing their homes and livelihoods. They are sometimes second and third generation. We want to talk about what that means in real human terms.

We can stand here and quote statistics all we want. The reality is that real people are suffering because of the inadequacies of the government's policy.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I too resent the suggestion that it is only farmers in little pockets of the country that are in financial trouble.

Farmers who grow wheat in Ontario are allowed to export a portion of their product outside the Ontario wheat marketing board. Would it not be beneficial for western Canadian farmers to export their wheat outside of the Canadian wheat marketing board in addition to voluntarily marketing through the wheat board if they so wish?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Farmers are looking for some options or alternatives in addition to some short term help to get them through the present situation which has seen their incomes drop so drastically through no fault of their own. That is certainly one area.

Ironically enough, there are government policies in place in Canada that pit one area against another, and the way the Canadian Wheat Board operates in western Canada is one of them. I have had personal experience with that.

My brother and I operated a 3,000 acre grain farm in the Peace River country. For a few years we tried to market our own grain on the other side of the Rocky Mountains. We used to truck the grain over there ourselves. After doing some research, we found out there were small areas of British Columbia on the other side of the Rocky Mountains that were outside of the Canadian Wheat Board area which got to sell their wheat directly to milling companies. They had the advantage of the domestic price which was considerably higher than what the Canadian Wheat Board would pay. Yet if we tried to do that with our wheat and trucked it down at our own expense, it would be illegal and we could be fined and charged.

That is one area in which the government can look at making some changes. We have certainly advocated that for some time. Yet we see the government is unwilling to give farmers the tools they need to help themselves. That is why it is ironic that the member for Chatham—Kent Essex was adamant in talking about giving the industry and producers the tools to do the job. In so many ways the government has proven to be reluctant to do that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this very important issue. I am very disappointed in what I have heard so far from the members opposite. I hope they will pay more attention to the debate and offer some useful input as we go along.

This situation is very serious. It is not something that affects a few people in the hinterland of western Canada. This affects most of the farmers and certainly all of the grain farmers in western Canada. Hog farmers have gone through extremely difficult times. I know it also affects farmers in the rest of Canada. I cannot understand the attitude of the government when it comes to not treating this issue as a serious issue.

I rent my farm out on a crop share basis. I understand very well what the markets are like. I have my income to offset losses from my farm but a lot of other farmers do not have enough off farm income to offset their losses. These losses have been ongoing. In some cases farmers have been feeling them for years, especially in cases where there has been flooding year after year, as the member from the Peace River country referred to, or in cases of drought as there has been in the area I am from. Farmers are not asking for handouts. They are not looking for money from the government just because things are difficult. They are looking for fair treatment. They want the government to take serious action to deal with the trade issues that are so dramatically depressing prices.

The government, the minister and others have paid lip service to this issue, but what have they really done about it? They say one thing and do quite another. They really should be ashamed at the way they are looking at the issue.

I would be happy to stand here today and say that the Liberals are doing a good job but it simply is not true. I also cannot see that they really care a lot about it.

I want to talk a little about the situation right now so that the Liberals understand it. We understand it well. It is such serious situation that in Saskatchewan alone farmers will experience losses of $50 million this year. That means there will be no profit. They will not even have enough money to cover their year to year expenses, let alone make payments on the land. This will be the situation in many cases.

The situation is particularly serious in western Canada. It less so in Ontario and in the rest of the country but I believe it is still serious. The reason it is more serious in western Canada is that Ontario has the GRIP which is still in place and is much richer than it ever was in western Canada. It was given special treatment from the start. I do not say this by way of attacking Ontario farmers. They have done their work and this is what they wanted. They fought for it and were successful. However, the government seemed for some reason to give this to the farmers from Ontario where it would not give the same thing to farmers in western Canada. It clearly viewed farmers from western Canada with less seriousness.

Supply management, which is more prevalent in central Canada, fixes prices based on cost and for that reason farmers will not suffer as much in Ontario. It is a serious situation that I recognize in Ontario and the rest of the country as well.

When looking at the current situation, it is important to look at how the situation affects people. It affects farm families. It affects small town business people who depend on what farmers earn to make a living themselves. It affects people right across western Canada and stretches right into the major centres of western Canada: Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg. The impact is felt even in those larger centres. We are not talking about a few people. We are talking about a very serious situation.

I think back to when I was a farm economist and worked for Alberta agriculture with farmers. Through the 1980s, I worked with dozens and dozens of farmers who were going out of business, many going broke. I sat down at dozens of kitchen tables with farm wives and husbands who were in tears and desperate. Their children saw the tears in their eyes. I thought that once we got through this situation it would never happen again. Sadly, it is happening again as I speak and it is because there has not been the action that was required on the part of government.

What has the government done? Looking at the short term, it put in place the AIDA program which farmers say is not going to work and the government has to know that.

The government has raised taxes. I heard a previous member say “Why are you talking about income tax? If you do not make any money you do not pay income tax”. Where is his head? There are taxes on everything these people buy. It drives prices up. Taxes account for half or more of fuel costs. I cannot believe a member would say something like that when talking about the tax load. They just do not understand.

New user fees have more than doubled since the government has been in place. The government dumped the freight subsidy, with little compensation. Nothing was put in place to help deal with the situation. It has actually limited marketing options and has done nothing to reduce the red tape. It has in fact increased it. It is a shameful record.

What does Reform propose? The House will know it is a top priority issue with Reform by the number of debates we have called for, the emergency debates we have called for, the supply days we have used to discuss the subject for a committee and all the other work that the Reform MPs have done. I guess one would expect that from a party that has more than 20 members of parliament who either right now have direct connections with a farm or have owned farms and farmed in the past. It is a serious issue with us but we do not see the same level of commitment to the issue from the member's office.

What Reform is proposing is much more substantial than just talk. Starting in 1990, I was a member of the first Reform agriculture task force, along with the current leader of the the new United Alternative in Saskatchewan. We were among seven people who were committed to making things better for agriculture. We called for the elimination of the Crow subsidy, but we called for part of the capitalized value of the Crow. We were looking at maybe $3.5 to $4 billion, maybe half the capitalized value of the Crow, to be put into what we called a trade distortion adjustment program which would compensate farmers for damage done due to unfair trade in other countries around the world. This is not talking about handouts, just fair treatment.

We have called for a trade distortion adjustment program since coming here literally hundreds of times in the House and in committee. We have explained what it is. We have encouraged the government to put this in place but it is not going to happen. I have given up trying to pretend the government is ever going to fix the problem.

Had that program been put in place, farmers would not be in the situation they are currently in right now. Liberals usually are good at stealing the concept and talking about good ideas. Unfortunately their flaw is that they do not implement the good ideas completely. This was a good idea. I wish to God that these people had taken that idea and implemented it. I am sad today that they did not.

As well as that program, which would have gone a long way to solving the problem, when Reform forms government, and I believe we will in the next election because the country needs us and more people are recognizing that, we will lower taxes and that will help farmers in a very real way. We will lower or eliminate unfair user fees. We are not against user fees as a whole but they should be fair and reasonable in the context of the services being provided. We will open up options for western Canadian farmers and for farmers right across the country. We will open up marketing options and make the wheat board a voluntary board. We will open up options in transportation. We will make things better for farmers because I know the government is not going to.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech across the way. I have actually been listening to his rhetoric for the last six years and not much has changed.

The Reform stated in its 1998 Blue Sheet-Principles & Policies of The Reform Party of Canada that it was going to a phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies and support programs.

The taxpayers' budget of 1995 called for $640 million to be saved by downsizing the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Industry, Fisheries and Oceans, and Natural Resources. It also called for a further reduction of $690 million to be saved by cutting other regional and sector specific funding through the Departments of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Environment and Industry. It even asked for an additional $1 billion in savings by cutting 15% from the overhead cost of all departments in the government.

I really have to ask where the member is coming from. I think he is talking through his hat. We at least, on this side of the House, have taken a serious approach. He is talking about renting his land out. I am an active farmer. I happen to be in supply management, which is one of the things the hon. member says he wants to do away with.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do not expect I will ever get through to the member. I have been trying for six years, as he says. Quite frankly, he is not listening. When we talk about reducing subsidies, we are talking about reducing the cost of the bureaucracy in Ottawa. Everyone, including him, knows that the bureaucracy should be cut back.

We are talking about tax reduction, so there is a trade off. When some of the subsidies are lowered there is tax reduction. That has not happened. We are talking about opening up marketing options so there will be more money for commodities. Instead, it continues to limit.

In the end, the only way we will solve the problem is to eliminate the Liberals. That sounds like an awful partisan statement, and maybe it is, but I am fed up with Liberals who either do not understand because they do not want to or deliberately make it look like they do not understand what we are proposing, as the member has just done.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I heard an hon. member across the way say that this should be good. We have of course all become accustomed to any time a Reformer stands up in the House, it is indeed quite good.

I was present in the Chamber this morning when the Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food made his brief presentation and that certainly was not good. It did not hold any hope for farmers in western Canada. They were looking to their minister of agriculture going into what promises be one of the toughest winters on record and certainly the bleakest look ahead to Christmas for farm families in western Canada.

Can the hon. member comment on some of the facts the minister of agriculture laid before the House during his short presentation. He talked about the $1.5 billion the government has put together. Of course even that is not totally accurate because the federal government has only put in $900 million, the rest is from the provinces. He said that $220 million has been paid out so far, averaging a little less than $15,000 per farmer.

With the wealth of information the hon. member has, both as a farmer himself and as a farm economist in his past life before getting into politics, can the member tell us what that amount of money will do for farms such as it is?