Debates of Oct. 25th, 1999

Supply

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals took over as the government, this country took in $120 billion a year and spent $162 billion a year. If we were going to sustain any kind of support whether it be in the agriculture industry or any other sector, we could no longer continue on a course of bankruptcy as a country.

We made some tough decisions. Support programs were removed. The hon. member wants to forget that there was $1.6 billion in capital money which was put in as a replacement of some programs in western Canada. Adjustment programs of hundreds of millions of dollars were put in to assist the industry to adjust. There is $600 million a year contribution by the federal government in the safety nets. In the last two years there has been another $900 million.

We would all like to have more. Our challenge is to do as much as we can with the resources that are available. We will continue to look at that and try to find other appropriate ways to assist.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we go to the next speaker I want to clarify a couple of items.

As we have done in the past, during the time provided for questions and comments if there seems to be a number of members who wish to ask a question, I will identify at least three initially if there is a five minute period so people will know whether or not they are going to be called. If that is the case, then it is obvious that questions and comments will have to be kept at around 60 seconds. We have done it that way for the last year or so. We will continue to do it that way.

I also want to clarify that in this first round it was one 30 minute slot to the official opposition, it being a supply day motion, and then 10 minutes with a five minute question and comment for each of the recognized parties. I was in error in saying that the hon. member was splitting his time. It was 10 minutes to start with.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, three things are clear from this motion: the failure of the government's agriculture income disaster assistance program; the need to set up an emergency program immediately to come to the aid of farmers, and the matter of the unfair subsidies paid by foreign countries to their farmers.

Our remarks will focus on these three points. The first is the government's failure with its AIDA program. The government has no compassion.

The federal income security program is a fiasco that ignores the reality faced by the farmers. The present situation in agriculture is proof that the AIDA program does not work and cannot guarantee farmers a decent standard of living. The government cannot simply wash its hands. It is responsible for the situation and is contributing to maintaining this farm income crisis situation.

The main problem, but not the only one, arises from the fact the AIDA program, as designed today, is denying the benefits to a number of producers that it was originally intended to provide. As it is currently designed, AIDA program will not distribute the $900 million in federal government funds set aside for farmers in the coming years. It will not enable the government to keep its promises of support.

AIDA therefore does not meet the needs of farmers. The problems posed by AIDA are many and prove that the federal government really does not know farmers. In its design, AIDA does not take account of the situation farmers are in.

Why are agriculture producers with a negative cost-price ratio being penalized? Why does the program set a ceiling on what a farmer can receive, and the method by which the ceiling is calculated means that the ceiling is lowered when the farmer is experiencing a crisis?

Why has the minister not made a commitment to producers to spend all of the announced $900 million? Why has the minister not made an exception in his assistance program to include the sheep producers who experienced heavy losses in the 1997 scrapie crisis and were ineligible for the $600 per capita compensation? Why has he not made that effort, given that it would have cost only about $1.5 million?

The flaws in the program are the fault of the government and will contribute to keeping farmers in a precarious situation. The rule on negative margins will seriously affect farmers who are in such situations this year.

Because of the sharp drop in commodity prices this past year, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture estimates that there will be 10,000 farms with negative margins. Is the federal government prepared to change its principles and to give consideration to these otherwise viable operations deserving of assistance? Is the government prepared to accept responsibility for the eventual disappearance of farm businesses because of the flaws in AIDA?

This situation notwithstanding, the federal government is doing nothing, thus giving proof of its lack of compassion. Why has it not followed the recommendations of its advisory committee?

In Quebec a revenue stabilization program has been in place for some twenty years. It is a three-way program, with the federal government contributing one-third.

The Quebec government is currently satisfied with the AIDA arrangement, because the province continues to manage its own program and the moneys received were used to lower participants' contributions. The same goes for those who do not have access to the stabilization program, but who benefit from NISA because, again, they are subsidized by the province and the program is managed by Quebec.

The second point is the need to take action to save farmers. Farmers are going through the worst crisis since the thirties. In Quebec, low prices for pork, down 34% from last year, have had a direct impact on farmers' income.

Faced with this situation, the government must continue to help the agricultural sector, particularly since it has the means to do so, while also complying with international agreements. However, if this government finally decides to act, the measures will have to be comprehensive because the agricultural issue concerns the whole country.

According to Statistics Canada, the net farm income went from $4 billion in 1989 down to $2 billion in 1998. In Quebec, the net farm income dropped by $10 million over that same nine year period. Based on estimates, Quebec's total net farm income will be $526 million, that is a 26% drop over the average income for the past five years.

The last point is subsidies made to the agricultural sector in foreign countries. Ottawa is more virtuous than necessary. According to Bob Friesen of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ottawa went too far in that “Canada reduced subsidies beyond what was expected of it. Ottawa could do a lot more for farmers without violating trade agreements”.

For each dollar received by Canadian farmers, their American and European competitors receive $2.5 dollars, and this does not include the $8.6 billion that they just received in assistance.

In 1998, the OECD estimated that total support through agricultural policies amounted to $140 U.S. per capita in Canada, compared to $363 in the United States and $381 in Europe.

As we can see, the argument invoked by the Minister of Agriculture about the constraints imposed by the WTO is not valid. Let us not forget that, under the 1995 GATT agreement, the signatories pledged to reduce their farm subsidies by 15%.

Canada, ever virtuous, went for up to 50% of international guidelines, while the United States and the Europeans went for up to the full 100%. The Bloc Quebecois will always take the side of farmers when they are being oppressed.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has rightly noted that the federal government has constantly been saying it had to cut subsidies to farmers due to the trade agreements that are in place. The minister's answer this morning and the fact that the government has cut subsidies up to 60% when it only had to cut to 20% indicate it has really been using one excuse or the other, whatever suits that day.

Does the hon. member agree that the government has abandoned farmers in an effort to meet a budget line and that it has been using the excuse of the trade agreements?

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely, because the government still had some leeway, particularly in a time of crisis. If the agricultural sector were in its prime, then would be the time to go all virtuous, and take the hard line adopted in Cairns.

But with the sector now in crisis throughout the country, I think the government could have taken the maximum leeway allowed under the WTO rules.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Bloc members have looked at the realized net income for Quebec. They would then understand that the situation there is not nearly as serious as it is in other parts of the country. The realized net income there has not dropped.

My question for the hon. member is twofold. First, does the hon. member recognize that AIDA does not address the real problem in the farm income crisis? The real problem is the long number of years where the income has been so low that when AIDA pays out it pays out only a very small amount, a few thousand dollars that does nothing to help the crisis.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the member's question.

Quebec producers' net income from farming has indeed dropped less than that of producers in western Canada. There are several reasons for this, one being that our income support program has been stable for 25 years. Instead of fluctuating with the federal subsidy, Quebec takes what the federal government offers under the tripartite agreement and maintains the stability of our program. This is a big help. Quebec therefore plays a greater role than the other provinces in supporting its farmers. When there is a crisis, we pay our farmers and then we collect from Ottawa, which the other provinces do not do. They do the opposite.

If AIDA is not meeting farmers' needs, I think everyone who spoke this morning has shown why. Just applying is a nightmare requiring farmers to pay an accountant $1,000 to fill out the forms. Right from the word go, there is a problem

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to lead off on this important topic today on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus.

The record will show that our caucus as been in the forefront of this issue. We have discharged our obligation as an opposition party by bringing the crisis in agriculture to the floor of the House of Commons on numerous occasions. We also brought it to the standing committee on agriculture and to meetings with farm organizations, particularly on the prairies.

Our caucus does not have any difficulty or major disagreement with the resolution before us today. Our disagreement is with the party that has moved this motion because we believe strongly that the crisis in agriculture, especially on the prairies, has been accelerated by the rise of the Reform Party in western Canada and the eager acceptance by the government opposite of some of its half-baked ideas.

Reform members may not like it, but consider their farm policy resolution back in Saskatoon in 1991. They stated that their party's policy was not guided by the interests of producers but by the “demand of consumers for secure supplies of food at the lowest competitive prices”.

That was nothing short of a declaration of war on the family farm. Shilling for this cheap food policy led to predictions at the time that up to one half of the farmers in western Canada could be wiped out. Well, guess what? According to an Angus Reid poll a couple of months ago 46% of western farmers are seriously thinking about packing it in if their current demoralizing financial situation continues.

A mass exodus of farmers should be music to the ears of Reform members. After all, it was their leader who said in Truro, Nova Scotia, in 1992 “The brute truth is that the prairie provinces cannot support the number of farmers they have been supporting”.

This brute truth was corroborated in 1995 by Reform's lead agricultural critic, the member for Kindersley—Lloydminster. The official opposition leader said a few minutes ago that we should listen to Hermanson. Let me quote Mr. Hermanson who said in March 1995:

I am not complaining about the cuts in support to agriculture. I will say it again, so that it is clear to the House. I am not complaining about the cuts in support to agriculture. Probably Reform would have done some of the cutting differently, and I think better.

By “better” the former member undoubtedly meant deeper. When the Liberal government heard the Reform Party's agricultural proposal to shift from government supported to an industry shaped by market forces it put on its happy face and moved as quickly as possible to accommodate those recommendations. It did so by taking a meat axe to government programs relating to agriculture.

The facts of the matter are that all signatories to the 1993 GATT Uruguay round agreed to lower domestic support payments by 20% over five years. The government thought it had a better idea: why not eliminate it by 60%. Why not accommodate Reform and cut much deeper? It was a win-win situation for the government and accordingly it hacked and slashed support payments with a vengeance. Instead of simply agreeing to abide by the 20% GATT rule in reducing domestic support payments the government, as I mentioned, has happily reduced it by 60%.

What is the impact of these cuts? Today, on every dollar of wheat sold the Canadian farmer receives a grand total of nine cents in subsidies. We must contrast that with the 38 cents received by the American wheat grower or the 56 cents in subsidies awarded to the European grower. It is an unconscionable disparity that explains why our farmers are at a huge disadvantage.

I want to address some remarks to the minister of agriculture. The minister told delegates to the united grain growers convention 11 months ago that he was fully aware that as bad as 1998 had been on the prairies in Manitoba and Saskatchewan the outlook for 1999 was even worse. More important, he pledged to do something about it and that something became known as AIDA.

AIDA does not seem to be working very well in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It seems to be working not too badly in British Columbia or Alberta. There are statistics on that. It certainly seems to be working reasonably well in southwestern Ontario where we hear that cheques are in the magnitude of $65,000 or $70,000. In Manitoba, and it is important to note that less than half the producers are even qualifying for anything, the average cheque is about $14,000. In Saskatchewan it is even less, as the member is noting. It is $11,128.00. Again more than half the farmers that are applying under AIDA are not receiving anything.

I am sure it could be agreed that it takes a particular form of genius to predict accurately the provinces most at risk for an upcoming year and then design an assistance program which actually extends more help to the farmers in neighbouring provinces than the farmers that actually need it. It is like calling for emergency highway assistance after seeing a two vehicle accident. Police and ambulance arrive to provide assistance to the people who saw the crash while the victims of the crash remain trapped inside with no one paying them any attention.

Since we are in the middle of the world series it is worth saying that prairie farmers are paraphrasing what Babe Ruth said about another program, that AIDA is not worth a cup of warm spit on the prairies. That is exactly what farmers wanted to tell the agriculture minister to his face last July in Prince Albert. They wanted him to step out of the shadow of the Marlborough Hotel on July 6 and speak so that everyone could hear him, so that there could be a genuine dialogue between farmers and their Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I was amazed on that occasion that the minister failed to recognize that farmers see the minister of agriculture as their minister. They wanted to talk to their minister and tell him their frustrations about the complicated AIDA forms, the exclusion of negative margins, the inclusion of NISA and off farm income, the low commodity prices and high input costs. In short, these farmers wanted to tell their minister about the state of agriculture as they live it on a daily basis.

Instead of understanding their desire to be heard and to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue with their minister, the minister of agriculture came across that afternoon as petulant and uncaring to the several hundred farmers in attendance.

Farmers were not interested that day in the minister's six second sound bite. They wanted to talk to him directly. They wanted to tell him in their words what was wrong with AIDA from their point of view and what was needed to correct it. They wanted desperately to tell him that they need an effective, long term, viable safety net program to support them.

We support that on this side of the House as well. Farmers know that for them to be competitive Canada must provide them with levels of domestic support comparable to those provided by our trading competitors. The minister denied prairie farmers that opportunity on that occasion and in their disappointment and frustration some of them reacted.

Because of how poorly AIDA is working on the prairies some people say scrap it, get rid of it. Our caucus does not agree with scrapping the AIDA program. We say again that it seems to be working elsewhere. Therefore it can be made to work in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

However for AIDA to work on the prairies the reference period must be extended to five years or more. The three year reference period is simply too short. A longer period would provide a much more accurate picture as to what is actually happening to net farm income, especially for grains and oilseed producers. In addition to a long reference period, negative margins must be factored in to the AIDA calculation.

In closing, two days ago the Minister of National Defence in Ottawa, in speaking to an audience of current and former peacekeepers, said that the failure to act in the face of misery and hurt when one has the means to correct it is wrong. I pass that message on to the minister of agriculture and indeed the entire government opposite.

The government knows there is unprecedented hurt and stress in rural Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That stress extends beyond the farmgate. It includes grocery and hardware stores, gasoline and implement dealers. Without immediate action the hurt will become unsustainable and unprecedented numbers of farmers and others will simply walk away, devastating our rural way of life.

These injustices must be corrected immediately. On behalf of the caucus I urge the government, through the minister of agriculture, to make the changes to AIDA that are so desperately needed. With the changes outlined here prairie farmers can continue to do what they do as well as anyone in the world, and their sons and daughters can follow in their footsteps with some assurance that with hard work and a bit of luck they too can expect a reasonable living standard. That is what our farm families are seeking and I implore the government to act now before it is too late.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, much of what my hon. colleague from Palliser has said and has said very well is true but I do want to correct his opening remarks. Coming from the same province as I do, there are three basic questions I want to put to him just for the record.

First, could he comment on the fact that the NDP government in Saskatchewan took a real beating at the rural polls in the September election? Second, what government was it in Saskatchewan that stole some $450 million from the farmers GRIP program? Third, would he like to explain why the property tax on farmland has increased some 300% in NDP Saskatchewan?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there was a modest downturn of rural support in Saskatchewan last September. No provinces have GRIP any longer. It simply was far too expensive a program not just for Saskatchewan but for a number of other provinces as well. Taxes on farms need to be addressed by all three levels: provincial, federal and municipal.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently when the minister of agriculture spoke. He said that not all programs were perfect and that some people from time to time may fall through the cracks. We also recognize, according to Statistics Canada, that net farm income dropped in 1996-97 by 55% and is projected to drop by another 35% in 1997-98.

What would my hon. colleague expect the minister of agriculture to say to farmers from the Annapolis Valley who for the past three years have experienced drought conditions and cannot qualify under the AIDA program or any other program, or to those farmers who in the last few years came into the farming business and are unable to benefit from this program?

The problem was beyond their control. It was something that happened to them. It was not something they mismanaged. It was just something that happened. What would my hon. colleague expect the minister of agriculture to do?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the member for West Nova. Part of the problem he is addressing about the Annapolis Valley would be resolved if there were an extension on the three year period for AIDA to which I referred in my speech.

Farmers have gone through a tough patch and had no crop. Under AIDA they cannot put down a negative margin. They can only put down a zero. If they have lost $20,000 or $30,000 in a crop year they cannot include it at the moment under the AIDA application. Extending that out to five or seven years would give a better picture and get a truer value of the extent of the loss farmers and producers are suffering.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to one or two observations made by the hon. member for Palliser.

In his remarks a few minutes ago he indicated, and one could perhaps infer it from what he said, that very little AIDA money is flowing into his home province of Saskatchewan. In the interest of accuracy we should share with the member the latest information.

As of October 20, five days ago, a total of $72,149,506 has been paid out to farmers in the member's province of Saskatchewan. That is from a total number of claims paid of 6,865. With Saskatchewan having so many cereal grain farmers and cereal grain farmers being so impacted by low commodity prices it is understandable that the largest amount of money would be going into the member's home province. Almost half of the AIDA money paid out has gone to Saskatchewan.

I wanted to share that information with the member as I am quite sure he would want farmers to understand it.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, $72 million is a significant amount of money, but I would respond to the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia by reminding him that the Government of Saskatchewan has put $140 million in and of itself into the AIDA program. The member is telling us that $72 million of the AIDA program was paid back, not a terribly significant or compelling number.

The member did not tell us from the data he has how many people in Saskatchewan do not qualify for AIDA. As I said in my speech, from the figures I have seen, less than half of the producers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are qualifying for any kind of payment.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak to this particular issue.

I agree with the assessment made by my colleague from the NDP on the motion put forward by the Reform Party. We also do not disagree with the issues put forward in the Reform motion. However, I suspect it must be difficult for the Reform members to keep turning those 180 degree turns all the time and making changes to positions that they had taken previously and putting forward resolutions such as we have today.

I would also suggest that if the Reformers really felt that it was an issue of great importance, then perhaps it could have been a votable motion as opposed to simply a non-votable supply day.

There are obviously some issues that the Reform Party, needless to say, has not been terribly forthcoming with respect to its position on assistance to agriculture. As a matter of fact a number of Reform members have indicated quite emphatically that tax relief and reduced subsidies are the only ways we should be going in industry. I could quote a number of members who suggest that the Reform Party does not really believe in support and spending through ad hoc programs to the agriculture industry.

In a debate with me on national TV, the member who put forward the motion suggested quite clearly that hog farmers should take a lesson from cattle producers and stop whining. That does not speak very well to the belief that agriculture is in desperate turmoil and needs some assistance.

I wish to talk about a couple of issues, the first one being AIDA. The member from Charleswood has indicated that the provincial governments are doing a wonderful job but that the federal government is not doing its job. The federal government takes credit for $1.5 billion which has been allocated to the AIDA program and farm relief.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to advise me. I think the member put my name to certain quotes pertaining to this issue. If so, could the hon. member tell me exactly what they were?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That would be a question of debate. Provided that another member is not in some way casting unparliamentary aspersion on another member, it is not the role of the Chair to get involved in such questions. The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like, it happened on November 30. I have the transcript from CBC television.

The member from Winnipeg, who suggested that a wonderful job has been done by the federal government with respect to dollars allocated to this particular farm crisis, had indicated that over $200 million has already been distributed. However, remember that the minister of agriculture continually stands in the House and says that $1.5 billion has been allocated to the AIDA and farm disaster programs that we are now suffering. Two hundred million dollars being distributed to this date, October 25, is a far cry from the $1.5 billion he continues to use.

Let us look at the AIDA numbers. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have in fact received a goodly share of the $200 million that has been distributed thus far, but for every one application that has been approved there is one application that has been denied.

I asked the minister of agriculture earlier this morning if he believes that the people who have been denied do not require any assistance throughout the farm disaster. His answer was “absolutely not”. He said that not everyone was going to qualify and not everyone was going to get assistance from the $1.5 billion. To date, only $200 million has been allocated.

In Manitoba and Saskatchewan right now there are people who are in desperate straits. They do not qualify for AIDA. For what reason? It is because the AIDA program has criteria attached to it which will never allow them to qualify for disaster assistance or AIDA assistance.

Let us talk about some of those inefficiencies or deficiencies within the AIDA program. Negative margins was mentioned. When we first talked about this as the PC Party of Canada, we had a program set out that dealt with 70% of the farm income. We would also like to see negative margins covered. When the program was put into place negative margins were not covered. A substantial number of applicants need cashflow in order to put their crops in next year but they have been disqualified because negative margins are not allowed in the program.

A five year averaging of margins was not allowed. A three year averaging of margins was accepted by the government, a criteria that disqualified a number of people. Seventy per cent of nothing is nothing but that does not mean the producer or farmer does not need cash in order to continue the operation. A five year averaging would have been much better.

Let us talk about the bureaucratic nightmare of applying for the AIDA program. It is so complicated that in some cases it dissuades people from even applying. Beyond that, once a person gets an application into the AIDA bureaucracy, there is a whole different set of circumstances.

Why is it that in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where the federal government administers the program, almost one out of every two applicants gets disqualified? There are verifiers and the rules change every day. We can talk to five different verifiers or auditors and five different answers will come forward. That is not only frustrating for an applicant who has put in an application, but it is also to the point where other applicants will not even apply. Rules are changed on a daily basis. We need some consistency within the program to make it fair.

Another issue not dealt with in the existing AIDA program is that of year ends, a simple little bureaucratic nightmare. For a corporate farmer with a year end that falls outside of the calendar year end, the AIDA program is unfortunately backdated to a 1997-98 program as opposed to a 1998-99 program. We recognize that the 1999 crop year is going to have some serious ramifications on the farm economy. With corporate year ends, which have not yet been resolved, some corporate farmers may not have any option or opportunity to take advantage of AIDA in 1999. That is an absolute travesty because those particular producers as well as all producers need a 1999 support system.

I have the distinct displeasure of representing an area that has more than simply a commodity crisis going on right now. We have a natural disaster. Millions of acres of land could not be seeded in the spring because of too much water.

The minister of agriculture has tried to make the AIDA program everything for everybody. This is an extraordinary circumstance that has to be dealt with by extraordinary support from the federal government. It has not been forthcoming. Those producers in the area who do not have any crops and who do not comply with the AIDA criteria will not be farming in the next year.

I speak with some authority. When our party was in power prior to 1993, we came forward with some very strong programs. We implemented the NISA program which people throughout the House are now taking credit for. We came up with the GRIP program which is still in effect in Alberta and in Ontario and is doing quite well for the producers in those areas. However, it was the Liberal government in 1995 that decided to take a little short term gain for a long term pain. It got rid of the GRIP program. If it were in place today we would not be standing in the House trying to demand additional support services from the government.

Through the late eighties and early nineties the Progressive Conservative Party put hundreds of millions of dollars in support to farm communities and farmers with respect to drought assistance and commodity assistance. The federal government can take some lessons from what happened prior to 1993, and I wish it would.

The Reform Party talks simply of tax relief and getting rid of subsidies. That is very laudable. It should happen and it will happen, but it will not happen between now and next spring when farmers will need and demand some assistance to get their crops in.

I thank the Reform Party for bringing forward the motion. However, it has always stood in the House and said “If you can't stand on your own, then you had better get out of the way”. Our party says “If you can't stand on your own in this particular situation, we should be there as a part of the government to say that here are the services and support that is necessary to keep you going until the next crop year”.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member correctly, he is saying we should loosen the criteria and give as much money as possible to all the farmers who say they have a problem.

That was precisely the mistake made by the government when it attempted to help the east coast fishermen who were affected by the cod moratorium. A lot of the $1.5 billion that went to the maritimes did not reach the people who actually needed it.

Surely criteria have to be established and there has to be a bureaucracy that looks at how the money is spent on a program like this. If the member really has complaints about the AIDA program, surely he has a responsibility to be specific in his complaints rather than just suggesting we add more money to the pot.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously not listening. I never asked for more money to be added to the pot.

I suggested that the $1.5 billion, that has continued to be used as the number distributed to agriculture, should be distributed. The number now stands at $200 million for 1998. The reason the minister of agriculture is tinkering with the program now is because he is embarrassed. The criteria that were put into place in that program were so restrictive that it never had the opportunity of putting the money out that was necessary to get out.

I think the government should be embarrassed that $1.5 billion is available and only $200 million has gone out to desperate farmers who need it. When the government changes the criteria to reasonable criteria then the full $1.5 billion can be distributed to the people who really need it, not one out of every two applications being denied.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will bring forward some factual information in reply to my hon. friend from Brandon—Souris.

I think he left the impression with some listeners and viewers that the GRIP in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan was taken away against their wishes. I remind the member for Brandon—Souris that GRIP was abandoned because those two provinces did not want GRIP. They felt that the premiums were too high and the federal government agreed to it. The province of Ontario wanted to continue with GRIP and does so today.

The member for Brandon—Souris finds the AIDA program wanting and would like to see it improved. Again he would like to leave the impression that it is the sole responsibility of the federal government. I would remind the member for Brandon—Souris that this is not just a one government program. The provinces are involved as well. The federal government pays 60% of AIDA. The provinces pay 40%. The provinces agreed to the criteria involved in AIDA.

My friend from Brandon—Souris supported the former Filmon government which agreed to AIDA. The Romanow government, which still exists by a thread, agreed to the criteria of AIDA.

It is nice to bring these things into perspective so that the people out there, many of whom are not farmers and are living in cities, understand the true facts about AIDA.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe there is some foreshadowing there with respect to the Filmon government and the NDP government. The federal government also agreed to the AIDA and perhaps it may well be a former federal government.

Let us talk about the issues brought up by the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. First, the GRIP was put into place and it was and is a good program in those provinces that still continue with it; FIDP in Alberta and the MRI program in Ontario.

It was to the government's detriment that GRIP was taken away in 1995. Had the government had vision, it could have seen that the commodity prices are very cyclical in the farming economy. One government and a provincial government suggested they did not want to have it for the opportunity of saving money, as the federal government did when it took away its contribution to the GRIP. Perhaps it should have seen down the road that this program was going to be necessary in 1999, 2000 or 2001, instead of getting rid of it. It was short term gain for long term pain.

As for the provincial government, yes, Manitoba did give $50 an acre for unseeded acreage. That came totally at the expense of the provincial government. The federal government has still not made its commitment to that $50 per acre.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

It is important that we are debating this motion today. I congratulate the member for Selkirk—Interlake for bringing it forward. The country's agricultural crisis is not being addressed properly. It needs to be discussed and debated. The issues need to be brought forward for all Canadians to consider. It is a simple fact that the agricultural industry in Canada is in crisis. There was no indication in the throne speech from the Prime Minister that he was going to adjust programs to handle this, which has necessitated this motion.

As we debate this today, family farms are being repossessed. Families are being torn from the land they have worked for generations. Families are losing a way of life that is unique to Canada and to their heritage. Their fathers and grandfathers sweated and worked hard for years to develop a way of life. Not only do they lose their farms and their jobs, they lose their homes, their heritage, possibly their pride and their self-esteem.

With all the hard work that went into their farms, things outside their realm are affecting what they do. No matter how hard they work and no matter how sharp they are in their marketing decisions, the fact remains that they cannot sell their product for enough to pay the bills.

Situations have come into the farm communities over which the farmers have had no control. Our farmers now need some help. They need help to compete against the monopolistic wheat board. They need help against European subsidies that drive up production and drive down prices. They need help against U.S. protectionism and subsidies that distort the marketplace. They need help against the natural disasters that have devastated the prairies in this and previous years.

Farmers need help to combat the attacks by people who know nothing about farm life and rural life. Environmentalists have come forward without any thought of what they are doing to our agricultural people, with unfounded allegations that are going to tremendously affect farm life. Farmers need help to fight the input costs that have been driven up, the input costs and taxes that have been created by this government.

The government they have to turn to for help is the same government that has put them in this position. It is a catch 22 situation. Most of their problems have been created by the people they are forced to go to as a last resort.

Farmers would sooner keep everything inside than say that they need help. They would not ask for help unless it was very badly needed. They have to go to the government that has its hands in their pockets right up to the elbow. We are here to find help from one of the sources that is creating the problem.

The east coast fishery is in turmoil. As mentioned earlier by a government member, the TAGS program on the east coast did not do what it was supposed to do. We can look at the dairy and hog industry in Quebec, or the diverse crops and farming in Ontario. The prairies have been devastated by low commodities. We can look at the B.C. forest and fishing industries, or the dairy industry in the Fraser Valley.

The one thing people do not want to hear is “Hi, I am a Liberal. I am from the Liberal government and I am here to help you”. That sends shock waves and fear through the hearts of all producers.

This country has come to a crossroads when it comes to agriculture. As a country, as a government and as a people we have to decide if we are going to put the measures in place to preserve a way of life that has helped to build such a great nation. We have to decide if the family farm and the family farm way of life is worth preserving and we have to decide now because if we do not, it is gone.

There has not been a crisis such as this one since the Great Depression. I did not live through that, having been born after it, but I listened to my folks talk about it. Terrible stress and duress was put on families and the things that happened then, we do not need again. We need to do things quickly. The problem is many faceted in the agriculture industry. We need to react quickly and respond immediately.

We need to have programs in place that will give some long term stability to the industry. We need to look at all costs. Commodity prices are down and revenues are low, but let us look at the other side of the issue.

The government has put a program in place that obviously is not working. It seems to be reluctant to move further. It is trying to match the amount of dollars it took out of the budget to suit the program instead of looking at the damage being done and then having the program match that.

We need a government that will stand up for farmers and a way of life that Canadians are proud of. We need a government that will go to bat for its people and not create bureaucratic nightmares that do not get the job done.

The official opposition has come up with a plan. Our job is to point out the shortcomings of the government but also to bring forward plans and ideas that will help to solve the situation. Five key areas need to be addressed.

The first one is a short term solution. We have to find some solutions immediately. The AIDA program is not working. It needs to be replaced or reformed. The hurt in the agricultural community is not being addressed by the size of this program. We have to look at all angles. Some of the provinces have come up with ideas. The federal government should look at what is going on in Alberta and what has been developed for the short term.

We also need medium and long term solutions. Every time we get in a crisis we try to develop a program to handle it. Let us develop that program when we are in good times to carry us through the bad times so that farmers do not have to come on bended knee to the government for help. Let us get something in place that will work.

Some changes are needed to the safety net programs. The three year average currently used in AIDA needs to be extended. We have heard that from other members. Negative margins need to be considered in the program. The application process needs to be simplified. For every farmer that is receiving aid, one is being rejected for various reasons. Are those people who are being rejected disappearing or is their hurt gone? No, they are still there and need to be addressed.

Crop insurance programs need to be put in place that would address those situations as they arise. The premiums must be affordable so that farmers can get in early and they are there to help.

We need free and fair trade abroad. We have done a good job in reducing subsidies but other countries we deal with have not. For instance, European subsidies on wheat production are 7.7 times higher than Canada's. U.S. subsidies are 4.5 times higher than Canada's. We have to address that situation. We need a government that will put a team together to say to the Europeans and the Americans that something has to be done about reducing the subsidies to bring up the commodity prices.

Trade laws must be modified. There is a situation very close to my home where groundless anti-dumping complaints have been lodged by the United States. We have to change the rules. We have to go to the bargaining table and stand up for our producers.

Many of my colleagues and I had the opportunity to meet with some northern state U.S. senators over the last year. We need to open up that dialogue. It became quite obvious through these talks that we need to know more about each other and we need to educate them on what we are doing in the House.

The government must actively promote value added processing. We should not sell a grain that has not been processed. We should not be selling our other products unless we can add value. We have to put some emphasis on that as that would bring relief to the prairies and add value to the products.

The government needs to open up the marketing choices that farmers have. They should not be restricted. There should not be a monopoly. They should be able to make the choices they want to make in order to improve their bottom line.

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding the criteria for something like the AIDA program, there are two choices. We can either make the criteria very stiff in order to prevent people from abusing it, or we can make it looser so that people who should not take advantage of it can do so. Another alternative is to add money to the AIDA program.

What scenario does the member think the government should follow? Should it loosen the rules and thereby have people abuse the program, or should it put more money into the program?

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that way of thinking about the situation is the problem. Let us listen on Thursday and Friday when the premiers and the delegations are here from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Let us hear what they think needs to be done.

To assume that if restrictive regulations are not in place that eliminate half of the people from applying and that to reduce the regulations will cause abuse, is wrong. People are genuinely hurting. We have to make this program available to them. To approve one application and then to reject the next one for whatever reason is not the answer. To assume abuse is the wrong way to go about it.

Let us find out from the representatives of the farming community exactly what needs to be done. Let us follow their lead. They are the ones that do know.