Debates of Nov. 16th, 1999

Questions On The Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

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

moved:

That this House regrets the failure of the government to recognize the importance of Canada's food industries:

(a) by failing to provide leadership, a long-term vision and workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agriculture sectors;

(b) by not adequately preparing for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v Marshall which acknowledged fishing, hunting and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal Peoples; and

(c) by failing to address the serious problems of Canada's agricultural producers, who are suffering from increasing subsidized competition, rising input costs, natural and economic disasters, and an inadequate long-term national safety net, the result of which has contributed greatly to increased financial and mental stresses on family farms and in fishing communities;

and, therefore, this House urges the government to give consideration to the immediate and long-term needs of Canada's agriculture and fishing industries.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would ask the Chair to recognize that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from West Nova, who will be speaking to the issue of fisheries. I will be speaking to the issue of agriculture.

I am very pleased to stand today and present the motion on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. The motion points to the failure of the federal government over the past six years to properly manage Canada's resource based industries, fisheries and agriculture, and to give them the priority they deserve.

This motion is about more than simply agriculture and fisheries, although we will use those as the examples, and certainly bad examples as demonstrated by the government.

The motion speaks to the lack of the ability of the government to manage. It speaks to the lack of leadership and vision, not only for agriculture and fisheries, but also the quality of life for Canadians who reside in rural communities throughout this great country of ours.

It speaks to the inability of the government to put forward the understanding that these areas of our economy are vital and important to Canadians. Our natural resources, particularly agriculture and fisheries, but also forestry and mining, have been the backbone of the country over the last century. They have been dropped down on the priority list to where it has almost been negligence on behalf of the government not to identify these areas as having a higher priority.

The federal government has failed to recognize the importance of our food industries. It has failed to provide clear direction, leadership, long term vision and workable solutions for our fishery and agriculture sectors.

The government has an opportunity today in debate in the House to finally show that it will be committed to the immediate and long term needs of Canada's agriculture and fishing industries. The government has been noticeably absent in its commitment over the past six years.

I will speak with some authority on the agriculture industry. I will begin today's debate speaking to that area.

There is a simple reality. Farm families and rural communities across Canada are paying a very high price for having a Liberal government unchallenged and uncaring in Ottawa. There is a long pattern of neglect, but the past few years have shown just how dramatically issues of importance to rural Canada have fallen off the government's agenda.

The family farm is a way of life. Food production is a source of life. The two are interconnected and the survival of both is fundamental to the well-being of every Canadian. The federal government must act now to maintain the viability of Canadian farms and Canadian fishing industries in villages throughout the country.

It is time the Liberal government realized that agriculture is important to this country as a supplier of the best food in the world.

The United States and the European Union have identified agriculture as being a priority in the support systems that have been set up to make sure that farms are retained within their societies. Our government has not done so. I would like to hear what it believes the future of these two vital industries will be having been neglected for the past six years.

Agriculture is one of the most efficient industries in Canada. Our reputation in the world is strong. We have 10% of the world's farmland. The growing globe will always need more to eat and will always find new ways to use agricultural products.

Canadian producers are in the best position to take advantage of this bright future. But if we fail to support our producers, if we fail to invest in agriculture and ensure its long term stability, that advantage will disappear. We will have to import foodstuffs in order to feed our population as opposed to depending on a reliable domestic food supply.

We need to recognize and emphasize the natural strength of this region. Canada has a rich future in value added industries if we develop the natural resources to which that value is added. One of the differences between the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party is we understand that agriculture and natural resources are still the fundamental building blocks of our Canadian economy.

I would like to comment now on the Liberal government's lack of leadership in addressing this very important issue. The throne speech is one example of how void the government is when it comes to any long term vision for Canadian resource based industries. There was no reference to what the current government proposes to do to maintain a viable agriculture and agri-food sector while that sector continues to suffer through one of the worst financial crunches since the 1930s.

The throne speech was devoid of any recognition of the agricultural situation that we as Canadians now find ourselves in. That is an absolute shame. I do not know if that speaks to the government's philosophy or lack thereof or to the inability of the minister to get that priority to the cabinet table.

In the advent of our current government's sudden focus on technology as the wave of the future, it has unfortunately disregarded the fact that agriculture's sustainability remains one of the basic needs of any country in the world, particularly Canada. The agricultural sector in Canada is facing increasing subsidized competition, rising input costs, natural and economic disasters and an inadequate national safety net program while the government stands idle.

For example, for every $1 farmers in Canada receive on a per capita basis, their competitors in the United States and in Europe receive more than $2.50 in support from their governments. This does not include the $8.6 billion farm aid package recently approved by the United States, a move that will double direct payments to farmers in that country this year.

In February 1993 the minister of agriculture stated when he was in opposition:

GRIP and NISA, which are long term safety net programs, are being tried and are being worked with. So far in many areas they have been insufficient. They have been a disappointment to the farmers and the industry.

That is a quote from Hansard in 1993.

It is safe to say that most farmers today would take GRIP and NISA over AIDA, the disastrous program that has been put forward by the Liberal government. GRIP and NISA had vision, had long term understanding as to the safety net project. The GRIP program was taken away by the government and not replaced by any long term safety net program.

It is also sad to see the minister of agriculture using desperate attempts to gain sympathy from the agriculture community for his dismal record. He talks of taking a tough love approach. Perhaps the minister would like to expand on the definition of a tough love approach. Does it mean that agriculture, farmers and producers in our country are to stand alone or fall together? Is that the tough love approach the minister wishes to take?

It is also sad to see the minister pit farmer against farmer. I will not quote what was reported in a newspaper recently, but the issue was that there were others in the farm community who did not want to bail out any of their counterparts in the industry. That is not true. From what I have seen and heard having talked with my producers on a regular basis, there is a collegiality among producers. They want to have a long term vision, a long term program, a long term viability and understanding of this industry. We have none of that.

I do not know if we are going to end up with 1,000 producers producing all that is necessary for domestic production. Is that where the government wishes to go? If it is, there is more than just farm production at risk. There is a quality of life and a way of life in rural Canada.

I am very proud to say that I come from a rural community, as does my colleague from West Nova who deals with the fishery. I deal with agriculture. It is a way of life. It is the way that we live, a quality of life that we wish to retain. That vision, that understanding, that philosophy and that ideology has to be put forward in programs and must be accepted by the government of the day. If the government of the day cannot develop those programs, be assured that the next government under the Progressive Conservative Party will understand that, as did the previous Conservative government in 1993. The next government will put forward those programs, that vision, that philosophy and the ideology that will support rural Canada as opposed to destroying it.

I will now acquiesce to my colleague from West Nova to deal with the issue of aquaculture and fisheries.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret and a deep sense of frustration that I rise before the House to denounce the government's failure to adequately respond to the growing crisis that exists within our rural areas which depend almost exclusively on Canada's food industries to earn their livelihoods.

The PC Party has consistently called upon the government to act in the best interests of our farmers and fishers, yet our calls for assistance have basically fallen upon deaf ears. Our party is using our supply day motion to once again draw the attention of the government to the economic hardships that exist within our farming and fishing communities. The farm crisis in our western provinces and the recent crisis in the Atlantic fishery are prime examples of the government's failure to address the growing crisis in these two primary industries.

In his remarks, my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris effectively identified the serious problems facing our western farmers. Without an adequate long term federal aid program, many of our western farmers will be facing economic ruin. Despite numerous pleas for help from my hon. colleague along with those coming from the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the federal government, in particular its minister of agriculture, has simply introduced a band-aid solution that will do little to ensure the long term survival of our prairie farmers.

Perhaps overshadowed during the whole debate has been the equally serious crisis facing our Nova Scotia farmers. After three consecutive seasons of drought conditions, they find themselves wondering whether they will have a future for themselves and their families in this industry.

The AIDA program looked at the last three years to determine if there would be a benefit. The farmers who live in my constituency have been experiencing drought conditions for the last three years, but they have been unable to get any benefits from the AIDA program. That is only one of the issues and one of the examples of what is facing our farmers in southwestern Nova Scotia. That is not acceptable. What is being produced by these farmers is valuable not just from a food point of view but as an economic benefit as well.

Many Canadians are alarmed by the constant brain drain that is occurring in this country. There has been a continuous exodus of some of Canada's finest young minds who see a better future for themselves in the U.S. This situation is having a profound effect on our farming community. Our youth must see a future for themselves within the farming industry, yet this will only happen if the government starts to take the problem facing our farming industry seriously.

I do not think anything could epitomize more the government's lack of leadership than its recent handling of the supreme court decision in the Donald Marshall Jr. case. Despite having years to prepare for any consequences the supreme court decision would have, we sadly witnessed a total lack of understanding of this situation by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who was undoubtedly misguided and ill prepared to respond to the fear and anger that accompanied the court decision.

Why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was not prepared to immediately respond to the Donald Marshall decision continues to baffle everyone involved in the industry. It is beyond all comprehension why the minister failed to have a plan in place that would have responded to the decision. Now the minister would argue that he was prepared and that he did have a solution in hand, but the facts would tend to show otherwise.

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on September 17 yet the minister only released a statement on September 20, which in effect says he did not know he had to study it. For three days there were no comments. Obviously native fishers were more prepared for the decision than the minister as they began setting lobster traps almost immediately following the decision.

While tensions in Atlantic Canada continued to rise as a result of the supreme court decision, the minister of fisheries continued to reassure us that a solution was in hand. On October 1 he announced that he would seek a short term deal with the native community for a moratorium that would not rule out acting unilaterally if a decision was not reached. The chiefs acted on their own without the minister's assistance and introduced their own moratorium, which in most instances was maintained throughout the crisis.

Native chiefs, like our fisheries representatives, recognized the inability of the minister to show any kind of leadership in the dispute. Even the Prime Minister recognized the seriousness of the situation when he suggested that the government could ask the supreme court to suspend its decision. Obviously he realized that his minister of fisheries had fumbled the ball on this very serious issue and was looking for a way out of a very tense situation that was threatening to erupt into violence in the Atlantic provinces.

The Prime Minister and his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans openly disagreed regarding the solution to the Atlantic fishery crisis. If native and non-native fishers were looking for any type of leadership following the supreme court decision, they quickly realized that they were not going to find it within the ranks of the federal government.

On October 15 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the appointment of Mr. James MacKenzie to negotiate an agreement that would allow native and non-native fishers to share the resource. Almost a full month after the decision we discovered that the only solution that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had in response to the crisis was to appoint an independent negotiator. If this was the best the minister could offer, why did he not appoint this individual immediately following the ruling? Why did he only act following unfortunate acts of violence?

Native and non-native leaders within my constituency deserve much credit for coming to a temporary agreement over the fishery in lobster fishing area 34. They recognized that the government was either ill prepared, or even worse, did not care what happened to the fishery. They agreed to solve the problems themselves and they deserve much credit for reducing the tensions that exist in our area.

It is obvious that the minister of fisheries has no idea how to resolve the fisheries crisis and now he appoints Mr. MacKenzie to try to defuse the growing tension among native and non-native groups. Unfortunately he failed to provide Mr. MacKenzie with any terms of reference. It was almost seven weeks before Mr. MacKenzie's terms of reference were made public. That again shows the total lack of preparedness.

Why should the industry respect anything that comes out of the minister's mouth when he continues to show his total ineptitude in handling the situation? The minister of fisheries continues to say that this situation can only be resolved through consultation. I agree, but what is consultation worth if the minister refuses to listen to any of it?

For instance, over the last few years the minister has been threatening to increase the size of lobster to protect stocks. Our fishery representatives have agreed to do V-notching instead until such time and further scientific evidence can show that this system is not effective. The minister has yet to agree to this request but instead appears willing to put further hardship on our fishers by unilaterally imposing an increased lobster size. Now our fishers are faced with an increase in the number of fishers plus an increase in the size of lobsters which could result in a serious decline in revenue.

The lobster fishery is vital to our local economy as is our farming industry. It is time that our government began recognizing the importance of the food industry to the overall economy before it is too late.

I would like to conclude my remarks by moving an amendment to the opposition motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “provide” the following: “strong”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague for West Nova who has been and will continue to be very involved in the fisheries issue, particularly as it now unfolds with the Marshall decision.

We do not need to look too far in the distant future to know that perhaps at some point in time the minister of fisheries will have a position of power. Knowing full well what was going on in the supreme court with respect to Marshall, would my colleague have tried to put into place some planning, some strategy for best case and worst case scenarios? Or, would he simply have done what the government has done and wait until all this unfolded with no strategy and no plan?

If so, how would he have seen this play out as opposed to having the violence that we have seen and the inability of government to negotiate after the fact? What would he have seen as a better resolution to the issue?

That speaks directly to the motion: the lack of management, the inability to be able to put forward plans and to mitigate issues and situations which have happened in the past with respect to fisheries, agriculture, port disputes, lumber disputes, pork disputes and beef disputes. We have had them all. How would my hon. colleague have tried to come up with something better as a strategy or plan than what happened?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy my hon. colleague asked that question. I do not know if it is my involvement some years ago with the Boy Scout movement or if it is my personal way of doing things from my business background, but I like knowing or at least being prepared for what is coming, be it good or bad. I always try to prepare.

It is for this reason that I just cannot fathom why the minister of fisheries was not prepared. He said that it could have gone many ways. There were two obvious ways that it could have gone: either the decision was in favour of Donald Marshall or it was not.

If it were in favour of Donald Marshall there were things that could have been done. He could have been prepared. He could have come down to the affected areas and said that they had a plan, that they were working with both sides, that they would work with them and iron out some kind of solution at least in the long term so they could work toward a longer term solution to the problem. Had it gone the other side, the native community would have had some concerns. Obviously negotiations would have been needed there.

However, there was none of that. There was no preparedness. It took seven weeks to show the terms of reference for the negotiator, almost a month to appoint a negotiator, and three days to make an initial announcement on the decision. That is total unpreparedness. It is not acceptable and this is ongoing.

I was speaking with a friend shortly after the decision came down. I said it blew me away that the government did not have a solution in place. He said that was how it was, that there was never a solution, only band-aids one after another.

That is not a solution. There has to be one. We need a government that thinks forward, not just puts out the fires as they happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I point out to my colleague on the opposite side that the supreme court decision with respect to Marshall was a divided decision. There was a minority of the judges that ruled in entirely the opposite.

I would like to ask him that had the Marshall issue been an issue before parliament instead of before the supreme court, how would he have come down. Would he have come down on the side of the majority decision of the judges, that is to extend the rights to the aboriginals over the lobster fishery, or would he have come down on the side of the minority which said that this was not appropriate? How would he have voted had this been an issue before parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I respect the spirit in which it was asked, but I think there is a clear difference between what the government did and what this party would do.

We would not have had this decision go to the supreme court but would have dealt with the issue in parliament so that it could have been debated. Then we would have gone back to the parties involved and negotiated a settlement. We would not have put it in the hands of the supreme court.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate today and to provide some of the details of the government's response to the serious financial situation facing many Canadian farmers today.

I do not want to diminish or underestimate the level of the crisis for a number of producers in Canada today, but I do want to say as well that overall our agriculture and agrifood sector is strong. It is and will continue to make a major contribution to the Canadian economy.

This past year, however, has not been easy for many producers. We understand that very fully. They have been struggling against a number of things. They have been struggling against low commodity prices that are in effect around the world. They have been struggling because of the fallout of the Asian economy and some of the markets that have been lost there. They have been struggling because of those reduced markets. They have been struggling because of excessive moisture in some cases and in others lack of moisture in certain parts of the country. All these issues have combined to have a serious impact on the economies of many producers, particularly those in the grain, oilseed and hog industries.

However under the government's leadership, and with the co-operation of the provincial governments and farm organizations, we have come together to respond to the situation.

I remind the House and Canadians again that about a year ago the hon. member for Brandon—Souris and his party were recommending that the government should come to the assistance of Canadian farmers to the extent of $276 million, I believe it was. I remind the House that the government has come to the assistance of producers in a number of ways, one of which has been $1.07 billion or close to $1.1 billion to assist producers, which is just about four times what the hon. member's party said it would give. Thank goodness it is not in power, but I think we understand why.

Those members can say all they want, but I remind everybody of the situation in 1993 when their party ended its reign of terror and left Canada taking in $120 billion a year and spending $162 billion a year, the largest single deficit in the history of Canada. We were for all technical purposes bankrupt because of nine years in which they were in power, adding to a situation they took over but a situation they promised Canadians they would fix but only made considerably worse.

The member for West Nova made reference to the fact that farmers in Nova Scotia had been suffering from drought for two or three years. Shortly after I became minister I reminded the producers and the government there that a crop insurance program needed to be in place to assist in the forage industry, for example. They did not do that when they had the first drought. They did not do that when they had the second drought. Now they are working on it and I praise them for it. They have now had three years of experience in that regard. It shows a lack of understanding by hon. members in that some of these matters are under the control of the provinces, and I assume the hon. member is encouraging the provincial government in that province.

The member for Brandon—Souris also made comments with reference to GRIP. GRIP was not all bad and was not all good, but I ask him to ask some of the provinces like the province of Saskatchewan why they cancelled GRIP. This is one of the reasons, and not the only one, that a number of farmers in Saskatchewan are in very grave difficulty. Other provinces kept a portion or a GRIP-type program which has been working very well for them.

In February of this year our government moved to aid Canadian farmers by putting in place the agriculture income disaster program. That program is funded 60% by the federal government and 40% by the provincial government. The first announcement on the program will support Canadian farmers with contributions to the extent of $1.5 billion in addition to the $1 billion per year in safety net programs already in place. That took place after extensive consultations with the National Safety Nets Advisory Committee made up of representatives of all major farm commodities. That announcement was made last year.

In early November of this year we made an additional announcement of another $170 million from the 60% federal portion. We made some further changes to assist, to deepen and to broaden the coverage of the program, bringing the total federal support close to $1.1 billion.

We are encouraging the provinces to join in the standard 60:40 support to the program. That has taken place over the years and has become accepted by everyone. We are telling the provinces that if they do not wish to put it forward to support the aid program they can do it with equivalent measures. We presume and expect that relationship will continue.

I admit the AIDA program may not be perfect but it has proven to help many Canadian farmers withstand the crisis they are facing. Over 51,000 applications have been received. More than $370 million have been paid out so far for 1998.

I assure the House and Canadian farmers that the total money will be paid out. We have made changes to ensure that. If necessary, we will continue to make changes to the program to ensure that. I do know and admit that the money did not flow as quickly as we all would like it to. There are applications which have to take place so that we can direct the money to those who need it. I also assure members that in the very near future the remainder of the money for 1998 will be paid out.

For example, in Saskatchewan to date over 8,000 farmers have received over $80 million. I should add that if the province agrees to participate in covering the changes that we made recently to negative margins, over the two years of the program our estimates are that it will move to about $585 million to assist producers in the province of Saskatchewan alone.

I should also mention other changes we have made in response to the comments of the safety nets advisory committee. They include changes to the reference period, to how we treat family labour, to the choice of accounting system and I could go on. We have also made changes to the advance payments so that farmers can, at this time, apply for 60% of their anticipated requirement for 1999 so that we can get them more cash to help them.

This past summer we made access easier and faster to crop insurance. We made changes to the NISA program so that withdrawals from and deposits to are improved. As a result, over 41,000 more Canadian farmers have access to that fund, and I could go on. That made available another $117 million.

I remind everyone that there are still, for example, in the province of Saskatchewan, over 26,000 farmers who have triggered withdrawals from the NISA program as a result of their 1998 business year, and there is over $280 million still available. I encourage them to participate in that program.

I could go on but I will sum up by saying that we have continued and we will continue to support our farmers with effective and flexible safety nets. We will continue to work with them and for them to find additional ways to support and strengthen rural agricultural Canada and rural Canada in general.

We will continue the dialogue with the provinces and the farm groups. We will be working with them to put in place a longer term agricultural disaster assistance program, one that will work effectively and invaluably with the NISA program, crop insurance program and all other programs at the present time. I am confident that we can work with the sector to strengthen and improve the agriculture in rural Canada.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity to be able to question a government minister on any issue, and especially one of the importance that our farmers have been experiencing throughout the country, whether it was a commodity issue that took place last year or the farm income crisis which they have currently.

My question to the hon. minister is quite simple. When it comes to hog farmers in the province of New Brunswick, and I am speaking primarily about the ones in my riding, they are very clear in terms of having a long range program for disaster relief and in terms of what AIDA is filling as a stop gap to complement NISA. Would the minister now say that the abolition of the GRIP program was a clear and utter mistake?

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

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of programs in the past that were discussed by all sectors of the industry. At one time the pork industry was involved in a national tripartite stabilization program. Over the years it was discussed that some changes could be made to that. As the hon. member said, a GRIP program was put in. It was basically a whole farm program that was there.

The bottom line is that for a number of reasons, some because of the industry itself, some because of the way in which the provinces felt about the program, and yes, some because of discussions with the federal government, some of these programs have been changed. That is why we are looking at a full analysis and a review of the safety net programs that are there and a long term program to put in place to assist producers over a long term period.

There may be very well be benefits carried forward from some of the thoughts and ideas in the GRIP program. It too was not perfect. If it had been perfect it would still be there. The bottom line is that because it was not what everybody wanted, there have been some changes as we see today.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding there are a number of farmers who have applied for AIDA. Very few, if any, that I know of have received any funding. Most of them have been denied. Many have come to my office with the forms and I can honestly say that I have never seen such complicated, ridiculous types of forms that farmers are expected to fill in to accomplish this task of making an application.

I have an accounting degree and I can understand why accountants are having such severe problem with it. Why is the government making this so complicated for the average farmer? Why is it using, according to Stats Canada, 1997 stats in order to make decisions regarding AIDA? This is 1999. Why are we using dated stats to deny farmers this support?

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

Mr. Speaker, the requests from the provincial governments and the industry beginning about a year ago was that there needed to be some support to recognize the precipitous drops in incomes, particularly those in the grains and hog industries, relative to the three previous years 1997, 1996 and 1995.

I have reminded the House before that the forms that the hon. member is referring to are, yes, seven pages long. I will not go into them, but they ask farmers to give beginning inventory, ending inventory, expenses, income, accounts receivable, et cetera.

As a government, we have a responsibility. The hon. member and his party often remind us of the responsibility we have in the way in which we expend taxpayers' money. We said, the industry said and the provinces said that they wanted the resources available targeted to those who were in need.

The program that was put in place supported and supports someone if their gross margin drops below 70% of what their gross margin had averaged for the three previous years. I can only assume that the individuals who came in to see the hon. member did not trigger the criteria of gross margins being below 70% of what they had averaged for the three previous reference years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one clarification. The minister continually suggests that the proposed program that we came forward with and the $276 million is in fact true. That was a federal contribution not inclusive of the provincial contributions. It was also six months prior to when this minister even realized that there was a problem.

I should also tell the House that it was tied into a long term program, which I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food would like to be able to say that he has it well in hand, but would he admit that it is not well in hand?

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

Mr. Speaker, it shows how up to date our party and our government is compared to the hon. member's party. He may have come forward with those figures but we came forward in the end with $1.1 billion four times.

He knows full well that there are discussions going on in co-operation with the provinces, the safety nets advisory committee and the industry to put in place the long term safety net program. Yes, we do have it in hand. Yes, we are consulting with the industry. Yes, we will be taking direction and consultation with them as it should be.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a pleasure to have the minister present today for the debate. Being the fine gentleman that he is, I am certain he would be pleased to stick around for another five minutes for an extension on questions. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House for that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to extend the time for questions and comments to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have to leave for a cabinet meeting, but if the members wish me to stay for five more minutes I will.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the Progressive Conservative Party on the Liberal government's failure to recognize the importance of Canada's food industry.

In the three issues that will be put before the House today, I want to stress the second one, namely, that the government was not properly prepared for the “decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v Marshall, which acknowledged fishing, hunting and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal peoples”. The peoples referred to are, specifically, the Malecite and the Mi'kmaq.

Looking at the events, it is true the Liberal government over there was not prepared to face the music. The proof is that the decision was brought down around the middle of September and the incidents with the native fishermen began only toward the end of September or the beginning of October.

During the hearings the Standing Committee on Fisheries started holding as soon as the House resumed in mid-October, we realized, when we heard what the aboriginal witnesses were saying, that they had approached the Canadian government many times. They had done so as early as last spring in order to be ready with a Plan B, if ever the Canadian government were to lose in court.

I also know that they did so during the summer, in order to still have the possibility of preparing a Plan B. The Canadian government rejected this each time, preferring to believe that only its version of the story would hold any weight. Now it has to be acknowledged that the Canadian government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have been left high and dry, one might say.

During last week's recess, there was another event that proved that the Canadian government is totally off track. Mr. Thériault was hired to assist Mr. MacKenzie in the negotiations, in order to provide the maritimes fishermen with representation in these negotiations, because the so-called traditional fishing communities did not feel that the chief negotiator was listening to and understanding them.

I might add that we only learned of the few lines defining the mandate of Mr. MacKenzie at the time of the announcement of his assistant's appointment. This indicates, once again, the extent of the government's lack of preparedness for the situation.

More serious in this situation is the fact that the minister is splitting the mandate to negotiate. The government is talking about trying to reach short term agreements with the aboriginal peoples on fishing starting this winter and early spring to enable aboriginal fisher to get along with traditional fishers. This is a praiseworthy goal, but the short and the long term are being totally separated, and this fact is causing concern among the fishers.

I would like to clarify something here. The government wants to introduce new players into the lobster fishing industry, which is already quite full. There is no more room, and all the industry players agree that, if new fishers are to be brought in, others must be withdrawn.

I wonder, therefore, what meaning the short term agreements with the native bands have. Fishers deciding to pull out give their most valuable possession, their fishing site, to someone else. It is a vital part of them. Who would give away a vital part of one's self just like that, when told it is just for the short term? The example is perhaps a bit strong, but, when one gives part of one's self away, it can never be replaced. It is a bit like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

An essentially irreversible process is under way. It is going to be very difficult for those fishers who voluntarily decide to return their licenses to Fisheries and Oceans to change their mind. On that basis, how will it be possible to reconcile the long term process the minister has initiated?

What I understand is that the Government of Canada is giving the Indian affairs minister the so called long term process, because, the Marshall decision, the decision by the supreme court that allows aboriginal peoples to exercise their fishing rights, provides that the fishing must be for a moderate livelihood, that fishing will enable the native bands to enjoy a moderate livelihood.

The supreme court does not define this expression. The report of the Erasmus-Dussault commission suggests some possible directions for the self-government so sought after by the first nations. Seeing the Canadian government's failure to govern when it comes to native affairs, the supreme court is giving it a little push from behind, so to speak, saying “You must ensure that native peoples have a decent livelihood, as seen through modern lenses”. This is a new management expression.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been tasked with forming a committee to look into the matter. The committee's long-term mandate contains no clues as to the nature of the short-term agreements to be worked out right now for the fishery.

For example, concerning the three things mentioned in the treaty, hunting, fishing and gathering, are we to understand that a decent livelihood, which remains to be defined by the committee led by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will represent about 30%? Will it be 25%? What will it be?

Second, will the Canadian government attempt to resolve native concerns as much as possible insofar as the fishery is concerned? Since we have no information on the progress that has been made by the other committee, it is likely that the fishing community will be asked to do a bit more.

When I refer to being asked to do more, the aboriginal people started with what are called riparian fisheries, which require less equipment. I am referring to lobster fishing, although that is not the only catch in Canadian waters.

Are we to understand that other fisheries will also be invited to help by suggesting a quantity of fish or a financial value to determine what is a moderate livelihood?

All of these questions leave me highly perplexed. Does a moderate livelihood refer to the financial aspect or to the work? It must be very difficult to not have anything to occupy one's time, to have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week free. If it is only the financial aspect, what could be done within the existing management agreements with the fishermen?

Here again, I am sceptical. Is it up to one category of individuals, the fishers, to make reparation for all the historical mistakes made by Canada? The only way to do so would be through taxes, so that if ever licences were to be withdrawn on a voluntary basis, the Canadian taxpayers would know that they had to pay for part of the mistake, because Canadian and Quebec fishers will have to be compensated for having to withdraw in favour of the new players, the aboriginal fishers.

It is unfortunate that we have so little time this morning to address this subject. These few questions I have raised suggest to us a lack of preparedness on the part of the Canadian government. In my opinion, it is moving at a snail's pace in resolving this problem, when the aboriginal people have been knocking at the door for 240 years now. Since my time has run out, I will now accept any questions from the other side.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the Conservative supply day motion. It is an interesting motion which begins as follows: “That this House regrets the failure of the government to recognize the importance of Canada's food industries”. There are several parts to it, all of which bear commenting upon.

First, the motion states that the government has failed to provide leadership, a long term vision and workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agricultural sectors. Second, it states that the government did not adequately prepare for the decision of the supreme court in the Marshall case which acknowledged the fishing, hunting and gathering rights of Canada's aboriginal people. Third, it states what is perhaps most all encompassing and to which I will direct most of my comments, that the government has failed to address the serious problem of Canada's agricultural producers who are suffering from increased subsidized competition, rising input costs, natural and economic disasters and an inadequate long term national safety net, the result of which has contributed greatly to increased financial and mental stresses on family farms and fishing communities.

It is a welcome motion and I compliment my colleagues in the Conservative Party. Although sometimes we have our differences, on this motion it is interesting to see that there is some commonality and concern for the farming and fishing communities. The motion goes beyond that because the mover of the motion spoke about the natural resources industries. He talked about the mining industry, the forestry industry and rural communities.

Those are things about which all of us are concerned, in particular those of us who come from rural communities. Because of the crisis in the agricultural industry, my colleague from Palliser attempted to introduce on October 12 an emergency debate in the House to deal with the family farm and the crisis it was facing. He wrote to the Speaker requesting permission to have an emergency debate on the issue.

There is a crisis in the farming industry. There is a crisis in the fishing industry and there is a crisis in our rural communities that is simply not being addressed.

I ended my comments yesterday in the debate on the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act by talking about the four carved figures in the lobby of the House of Commons, the four faces which represent the people who built this nation, one of which is a farmer. Today in the prairies farmers are facing the worst crisis since the 1930s. We have said it over and over.

Why are they facing the crisis? Some of it is beyond our control, such as the natural weather conditions. It is certainly not because of a lack of industry. My grandfather was a farmer in Cape Breton. He used to say that even if a farmer intended to loaf the day away, he would get up in time to have an early start because that is the way farmers are. They get up early, they work hard and they plan their day because they have respect for their work. The carved face of the farmer in the lobby of the House of Commons is a testament to the importance that government once attributed to those who farmed in this country, in particular in the prairie provinces, but also in my part of the country, Cape Breton. There was a thriving farming community there not very long ago. My grandfather was a farmer a generation and a half ago.

Today farmers are suffering because of a lack of vision. The Conservative Party is right. For every dollar of wheat sold, the Canadian farmer now receives just 9 cents in subsidies, while American farmers receive 38 cents in subsidies and European farmers receive even more. They collect 56 cents in subsidies. Given that absolutely unlevel playing field, is it any wonder that the family farm is in crisis in this country?

Because of that crisis the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to Ottawa to seek help. Part of what this country is all about is an understanding that as one region in the country faces hard times the other regions of the country assist. It is a community. There is a sense that there is an interdependence, sometimes from the east to the west, sometimes from the west to the east. We give to each other when we can and how we can, like a family. Sadly, the two premiers from the western provinces returned to their provinces saying that they had gone to Ottawa, to the national government, their partner, to seek help and they were told to go home.

Premier Romanow said “We are the voice of moderation. We are the people who come to the government with an understanding of what it is like to have to make tough decisions”. He talked about national unity. Sometimes the government forgets that national unity is tied to many factors. When people in one region or community in the country feel that the national government really does not give a hoot about their problem, it does not bode well for participation in a civil society, which is what we need if we are to enhance and move forward on the issue of national unity. That is why Premier Romanow made those remarks and that is why I echo them today.

In light of the debate we had yesterday, the federal government, centred in Ottawa, has turned its back on the mining communities in Cape Breton. That will not bode well when the federal government comes looking for support for national unity on the east coast.

When the farmers in the west and the east, who once had vibrant, thriving industries, look to the federal government for support and the support is not there, they have to question, when the federal government comes looking for support, whether that support will be there.

In moving his motion the Conservative member from Manitoba talked about life in rural communities. I touched on that a bit yesterday when I spoke about who we are as Cape Bretoners. I do not think there is anything particularly unique about our communities in the sense that we understand and help each other. I believe that is shared by the farmers on the prairies. Those of us who have had to struggle against the forces of nature understand that there is a greater force, and the only way communities survive is to link together and work together shoulder to shoulder. Farmers understand that.

The problem is that when natural disasters and forces that are overwhelming are compounded by a lack of vision on the part of government, it leaves us in an even worse situation. As much as the communities try to come together, policies that divide them will do just that.

Much of the decision making is centred in urban centres, in Toronto or Ottawa, where the importance and the contributions of the rural communities are forgotten. I spent last week, when we were in our ridings during constituency week, travelling the rural parts of my riding. I spent time with farmers. Sadly, I spent a lot of time driving by abandoned farms that were once thriving farms in Cape Breton. I was fortunate enough to have supper in the home of the Peters who have a farm in Margaree. They talked about the kind of farming they were doing and how their neighbour was struggling and looking for help because of the dry weather, but there was no help coming from the government.

I also spent time in the fishing communities. Fishing is addressed in this motion. I congratulate the native leaders and the non-native leaders in my part of the country who have managed, despite the bungling of the federal government, to come to some kind of agreement, or at least a moratorium, where they can work things out.

In June of last year my colleagues from the NDP caucus who represent ridings in Nova Scotia held a press conference. We warned the government at that point that there was going to be a crisis in the fishing industry if the government did not begin to react.

We had the government in court with the native community, which had, prior to that, reached out and said “Let's negotiate”. It is not as if it did not know there was going to be a decision. I used to practise law. One thing I always did when I went to court was I prepared for a win and prepared for a loss. In this case, we see that the government did not prepare adequately at all.

I congratulate the member who introduced the motion. I also thank the Speaker for being indulgent in giving me a little extra time.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member for Sydney—Victoria a question with regard to the government not being prepared for the situation in agriculture.

We just had an agriculture standing committee meeting this morning where we had representatives from the Royal Bank, which is the largest lender in the agricultural field in Canada, and the Farm Credit Corporation as witnesses in our attempt to find out what the underlying causes are of the current crisis, especially in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Their testimony was very surprising in a number of areas. The witness from the Royal Bank said that he had just come back from a North American banking conference in Colorado where at least six American banks held up the NISA program as an example of where the Americans should be going as far as farm safety nets were concerned. Their views on AIDA were described as a program for the times that addressed the situation as it exists today. The Royal Bank representatives said that they have approximately 15,000 farmers dealing with their bank and that there are 350 farmers in arrears, and many of those they are not worried about.

With respect to NISA and AIDA, the people who are lending money to farmers are not experiencing the crisis. They debunk the idea that this is a crisis that could be comparable to the 1930s, the dust bowl and the depression. The people who are lending the money do have concerns but they are not in the crisis mode that a lot of people in the opposition are who are around the prairie provinces holding community meetings.

There are many farmers who will go bankrupt, but as was stated, there are always people in businesses, whether it is farming, the corner garage or whatever, who get into business and go out of business. However, the people who are lending farmers the dollars and who expect the dollars to be repaid are not in the crisis mode that the motion is portraying. How would the member respond to that?

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know that when the Royal Bank speaks the government listens. I do hope that it listens equally to the Farm Credit Corporation. I noticed that there was a great deal of quoting in the question from the Royal Bank of Canada. As I have said, I know that the shareholders in the Royal Bank of Canada carry a fair amount of sway with the Liberal government and that if the Royal Bank is happy with the program, then of course the Liberal government will continue with the program.

I would suggest that perhaps the government might want to listen to some of the elected representatives of the farmers, and instead of listening to the people who are lending the money it listen perhaps to the people who are borrowing the money.

I am going to read what the premier of Saskatchewan had to say about the last federal government announcement. Premier Roy Romanow said:

—federal response to the farm income crisis in Saskatchewan completely misses the mark.

Today's announcement amounts to some technical changes and a very small top-up to AIDA. Our farmers have told us—

It was not the Royal Bank.

—clearly that AIDA does not work. AIDA didn't work before this announcement and won't work after it.

I regret to say I can come to no other conclusion. Ottawa has completely missed the mark.

If it comes to a choice for me of deciding whether I am going to listen to the Royal Bank or the premier of Saskatchewan, I will choose the elected representative any time.