House of Commons Hansard #32 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister has recognized that not all commodities are in trouble. However grain, oilseed, soybean and corn producers are subject to world market prices and in a lot of trouble. That is where the AIDA program has failed to deliver to farmers.

The government has changed the name of the program from AIDA to CFIP, the Canadian farm income program. Does the minister expect this program to serve farmers, those that are being hurt in particular, any better than what AIDA did?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Lyle Vanclief Liberal Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a program that can be designed to do exactly what every individual producer wants it to do for them.

The reality of any program in Canada is that it is based on the amount of production of producers. If, for example, the gross sales of a farm in Canada are $75,000 or $80,000, the program is based on guaranteeing 70% of the gross margin, which is a considerably smaller sum than the gross sales. The program brings the farmer back up to 70% of the gross margin referring to a period of reference years prior to that.

I can tell the member that over the two years of the AIDA program in the province of Saskatchewan a bit shy of $400 million will be put into that province. The $500 million that we announced two weeks ago in Saskatchewan, along with Saskatchewan's 40%, and I trust that it will be there, will put another $200 million into that province for this year.

In co-operation with the Saskatchewan government and the federal folks the estimate is that another $200 million will go into Saskatchewan. That is on top of the $200 million that was connected with the announcement two weeks ago. This means that for this year those two programs with federal and provincial portions will put $400 million into the province of Saskatchewan.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for being here during the debate. I have a couple of comments and a question for the minister.

The minister has indicated that the responsibility is a shared federal-provincial responsibility. We all accept that. The norm now is a 60:40 split. Could that not be adjusted? Is there any reason this could not be an 80:20 split as opposed to a 60:40 split?

The reason I ask that is because in the United States it is a federal responsibility. The U.S., between 1998 and 2000, has put $48 billion of federal money into the pockets of farmers. Our government seems to always say that the provinces are not coming to the table equally and as quickly as what the feds are. Why could that split of 60:40 not be changed?

The minister has said that since 1995 there has never been more money in agriculture. The government took power in 1993. Prior to 1993, $4.3 billion went to agriculture. Today it is $1.6 billion. Forgetting about all the rationales, reasonings, budget deficits and the rest, the fact of the matter is that there were $4.3 billion and it is now down to $1.6 billion.

With the amount of surpluses that are available, does the minister not see that more of those dollars should go back into agriculture?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Lyle Vanclief Liberal Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member keeps bringing this up all the time. He only embarrasses himself and his party. When we took government, the Government of Canada was taking in $120 billion a year. That member's government spent $162 billion a year. Someone had to take hold of the finances of the country because his government had put it into bankruptcy. Someone had to put it back. When we got it back in line, and there is no question that we did, we did it through the contributions of all Canadians.

Over the last five years $7.1 billion has gone into support and safety nets for Canadian farmers.

The member asks why our system is different than the United States. It is because our constitution says that it is a shared jurisdiction. If the hon. member wants to change the proportions, a shared jurisdiction would be 50:50. If he wants to talk to the provinces about a 50:50 split, I am for it. We, as a federal government, have said that we will go to a 60:40 split. It is a shared jurisdiction.

As we strengthen this industry in every way possible, the individual producers, the provincial governments, the consumers of Canada and the federal government will all benefit. The biggest beneficiaries are the consumers because our industry provides them with the safest, highest quality food of any country in the world. We need to work collectively to continue to provide that to our Canadian consumers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was watching part of the debate from my office and became somewhat concerned about aspersions cast on my colleague from Toronto—Danforth. More important, right after that I noted that the member for Selkirk—Interlake introduced an amendment to his party's own motion.

I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment effectively precludes, prevents and, in a very calculated way, denies any opportunity for a member of parliament to expand on the very important and meaningful debate. Specifically, I had intended to put forth a motion that would also consider the impact of the grocery industry concentration in the manufacturing industry. It is a point—

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

With the greatest of respect, I believe the hon. member is engaging in debate. He will certainly have time for that over the rest of the day. For the time being, we will resume debate on the amended motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I will not be supporting the motion. I feel that the debate is serious and that all parties must be involved, but I feel that the approach taken by the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, the agriculture critic, is mischievous. He tries to divide the House. When he uses a word like deceive to describe our efforts on this side of the House, he dumbs down the ongoing constructive approach.

I deal with the issue from the perspective of an urban member of parliament. I do most of the shopping in my family. I have tried for many years to understand the complexities surrounding the issue. I will continue with all my energy and intellect to support family farms, but I want to do it in a reasoned and constructive way.

At the outset, all of us in the House have done a mediocre job educating consumers on agriculture. Few consumers or few urban people realize that the average family farm income is under $20,000 a year. Few consumers realize that the average age of a person farming today is close to 60 years old. I am not surprised that more and more younger people living on farms are not inspired to continue in the footsteps of their mothers and fathers and maintain their farms.

To shift the emphasis we have to go back to the consumer. Is it not amazing that in the city of Toronto one in six jobs depends on the food business? When we in the House of Commons press the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister for support and resources in the automotive, aerospace, tourism or any other sector, we always link it to jobs. It seems that most of the debates on agriculture focus on 270,000 farmers. We should start including in the debate and in the rationale the fact that one in six jobs in urban areas depends upon the agri-food business.

If we turn to the business section of any newspaper, we see the massive profits of food retailers and processors. Then, when we come to producers, we see an incredible disparity. I cannot figure out how producers, who are supplying processors and retailers, are getting screwed right in front of us. How is this happening? Why is it not being challenged?

The numbers we are using are wrong. We talk, for example, of the $500 million of new money going to farmers. To someone making $25,000, $30,000 or even $100,000 a year, it seems like a lot of money going to 270,000 farmers. The reality is that consumers, the urbanites, are the net beneficiaries of the work of farmers.

We have the cheapest food policy of any country in the G-7. Over 90% of Canadians probably do not know this fact. We have a cheap food policy in Canada. In other words, it is not farmers that are getting the subsidies. When we in urban areas go into Loblaws, Sobey's, Dominion, or whatever, we get access to high quality food at very cheap prices. We are the ones who in the end are the net beneficiaries of any moneys going to farmers.

The motion today is asking for another large sum of money. By the way, I support the principle and the spirit of the motion, whatever the amount of money, whether it is $400 million or $600 million.

However we have to start educating urban people. The issue is about food sovereignty. Would an average family of four be willing to spend $1 per person per week, or $4 a week, for a year to maintain the family farm system of Canada? Would that average family spend $200 a year to have a safe and secure supply of food and to maintain food sovereignty?

Canadians should understand that this is the cost to them on an individual basis, approximately $50 per person per year. They should link to the issue on a personal basis and understand what it means to them in terms of added cost. If so, the energy and the reason behind rebuilding the agriculture and agri-food sector would be greatly enhanced.

Let me say to all farmers listening that I have no doubt about their need for the dollars put on the table. In fact, as a city MP I could never understand how this number was arrived at.

On March 13 I received a fantastic letter from Mr. Brian Doidge from Ridgetown College, University of Guelph. I would be happy to share it with anyone who is interested. He did the calculation of gap in income support payments from government for grain and oilseed farms in Ontario versus those in the U.S. He did a brilliant calculation.

Essentially the calculation showed that if we gave Canadian farmers the $63 per acre over the 4.83 billion acres planted in grain and oilseed crops, we would arrive at the $1.5 billion and the 60:40 split. However, it would only be half the subsidy American farmers would receive. Even at half we are not totally in the game with our American friends.

We have to bring the debate to city people. We have to ask city people if they want a food sovereign country. We never seem to challenge the profits of retailers, restaurants, food services, food processors and hospitality industry. We never challenge those sectors because we understand the number of jobs they create.

I say humbly that if the Minister of Finance took a look at all the revenue through personal income taxes which those jobs and those corporations created, maybe he has to take a little less from the food processing and food retailing sector. He may have to distribute some of what he is taking from those sectors to farmers who make sure the quality and secure supply of food ultimately serves all Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague on doing a commendable job on education, which is the term he used.

All provincial governments, all local governments and all parties in the House, I say without fear, have not done a good enough job educating the public on this issue.

The previous speaker, the hon. minister of agriculture, used some figures for Saskatchewan. I direct this question to him concerning the federal-provincial cost sharing.

Saskatchewan, as we know, has the largest number of farmers, the largest number of acres under cultivation and so on. With the 60:40 split, it is extremely difficult for Saskatchewan to match that 40%, more so than for any other province in Canada. We have to be careful in condemning one province for shying back a little because it is in the least financial position. It has the least resources right now to match that 60%.

Does the member think this all or nothing approach, which is meet the 40% or the province does not get the 60%, is perhaps the right approach?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that I have always believed that the essence of being in the House is that the stronger regions look out for those regions which do not have the same financial resources.

I understand that Saskatchewan does not have the financial strength that the provinces of Ontario or Alberta have, but I will give an even better example. I think it is a near scandal that we cannot find $6 million or $7 million for the potato farmers in P.E.I. when we all know that we spend that amount in a year around here on paper clips.

In answer to the question, I have always been a believer and have always supported the fact that the advantaged provinces have a duty to look out for those provinces that go through bad patches.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth is in essence up to his old game of trying to divert this debate away from what the real issue is. The real issue is simply that this motion says that farmers require an additional $400 million.

I am going to ask the hon. member not to try to blame government inaction on the fact that the consumers in Toronto or other cities do not fully understand the agriculture issue. Elected MPs fully understand it. They have been lobbied by every group, such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

Does the member not recognize that the motion is a vote about $400 million and not a vote about educating the consumer?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, the motion belittles the intelligence of government members because essentially the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake is trying to embarrass government members into a money motion.

Anybody in the House realizes that a money motion is a vote of non-confidence. Quite frankly, I think we can do a hell of a lot more to rebuild the family farm sector of this country in here rather than in another election.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Toronto—Danforth. Being a city folk, he has done an awful lot to try to put across the issues of the farm crisis and certainly the issues that affect farmers themselves.

In saying that, I wish everybody in the House would stop playing politics and get to the issue. The issue obviously is trying to find solutions to a very serious problem. It is a non-money issue.

I have a question for the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. There was a non-money issue when the Minister of Finance decided to spend $1.3 billion on an energy rebate, and I am not going to argue that program. Perhaps it was the best program that could have come forward.

Does the member not believe that the same kind of political will in the government could and should come forward with $1 billion, or $900 million or $1.3 billion for an issue that is equally as important, which is agriculture in the country?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, I said in my remarks that I am passionately committed to this issue, as are nearly all of my colleagues in the House.

Members of parliament on this side of the House were in a state of absolute shock when we did not get the full $900 million a few weeks ago. Does that mean we are going to go back in our corner and hide? We are going to continue to use our reason and use our arguments to press the government to come up with the amount of money that is required to have a proper national agricultural policy in the country. We are all committed to that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate and to indicate at the outset that the New Democratic Party will be voting in support of the resolution put forward.

That is not to say we do not recognize that there is a good deal of double talk going on here today. One of the earlier speakers, in questioning the member for Toronto—Danforth, said that we have not done a good enough job of explaining agriculture to Canadians.

While I would not disagree with that, I point out that one of the reasons that perhaps we have not done a good enough job is because some political parties in the House are johnny-come-latelies to the crisis. I am speaking specifically about the Canadian Alliance, formerly the Reform Party, that introduced the motion today. That party has come to prominence in the country based on a cheap food policy. There are many examples over past years.

The one and only leader of the Reform Party said in Truro, Nova Scotia in the early 1990s that western provinces could not afford all the farmers they had. We have quotes on the record that I alluded to in the past, indicating that Elwin Hermanson, who was the agriculture critic in the House between 1993 and 1997 for the then Reform Party, said that he would not disagree with any of the cuts that were made in agriculture following the arrival of the Liberal Party to power in 1993.

The 1997 election platform of the then Reform Party indicated that it would cut support to agriculture by several hundred million dollars. Less than a week ago there were a number of rallies around the country. The Leader of the Opposition, the person who introduced the motion today, spoke at the rally in Ottawa that a number of us attended. Anyone would have had the impression, as would any one of the 5,000 in attendance, that he was going to rush right back to the House of Commons and demand additional funds for agriculture. He rushed back to the House but he dealt with immigration and not the crisis on the farm.

While I share the sentiments of the member for Brandon—Souris that we should not play politics with this issue, at the same time history teaches us some lessons. It is important to point those out from time to time.

When the history of the problem of agriculture in Canada is written, people will recognize and realize that 1993 was a pivotal year in the process. Not only was it the election of the Liberal government and its preoccupation with eliminating the deficit as quickly as possible, but that year coincided with the conclusion of the lengthy Uruguay and GATT round at which time agriculture and support payments for agriculture, both domestic and external, were dealt with for the very first time in an international setting.

I believe that the government, with its preoccupation on eliminating the deficit, hid behind the GATT resolutions and recommendations that everyone should cut subsidies or support payments by 20% over five years.

We all know, and it is a matter of public record, Canada went much further than 20%. It eliminated it by some 60% over that period of time.

At the same time it is a matter of public record as well that following the 1993 election two parties lost their voices in the House. The former Progressive Conservative government and the New Democratic Party did not have official representation between 1993 and 1997. The government opposite was listening to the fact that the Reform Party was not being critical at all of the cuts that were coming in agriculture. It went at it in a very ruthless way. That was the period of time in which the Crow benefit was lost in western Canada. That was a huge amount of money out of farmers' pockets, more than $600 million per year across the three prairie provinces.

The province of Saskatchewan, as was pointed out by the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, has most of the arable land. It is over $300 million.

The fact of the matter is, the minister of agriculture would have all of us believe that history began in 1997 when he started to put more money back into agriculture. My colleague from Brandon—Souris was absolutely correct when he said there was far more money in agriculture support payments for Canadian farmers prior to 1993. That first mandate of the Liberal government took a lot of money out of agriculture, the Crow benefit being one of them, and it enormously jacked up the costs to farmers. We are still seeing the downside of all of that.

Another point the minister of agriculture raised, and he talked about it again today, was this 60:40 split. He correctly pointed out that there was a joint program for agriculture between the provinces and the federal government. I do not believe it was part of the confederation bargain that agriculture would be split in any kind of a 60:40 arrangement.

To go back about 15 years ago to 1986, I remember very well that the premier of Saskatchewan, Grant Devine, was demanding a billion dollars to help grain and oilseed farmers. This was in the midst of a provincial election campaign in Saskatchewan. I recall as well that the billion dollars was forthcoming from the then Conservative government of Brian Mulroney with absolutely no 40% arrangement having been made by Saskatchewan to pay for that. This is relatively recent history which we are dealing with.

Another point that the minister of agriculture referred to was the AIDA program, which is now morphed into the Canadian farm income program. My recollection goes back to 1998 when the minister of agriculture spoke at the United Grain Growers convention in Regina. It was in the fall of 1998, a few weeks before the AIDA program was announced in December of that year. The minister was very clear in his comments that morning that the real problem in agriculture was in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and by golly he was going to do something about it. The something became the AIDA program.

Despite the numbers the minister has revealed here today, the fact of the matter is, and the statistics bear it out, that the agricultural income disaster assistance plan has worked less well in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba than in any of the other provinces. This has to do with the rules and regulations and the fact that it looks at previous years to sort out their income for this year.

With farming, especially in the grains and oilseeds which is predominantly in western Canada, having been at such a flat plateau over the last number of years, there were no dips. With few exceptions, many farmers have not qualified for the AIDA program, nor do I predict will they be able to qualify in those two provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba for the CFIP.

That leads me to comment on the fact that now we are getting signals from the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food saying that it will not be putting money into the CFIP plan in the province of Saskatchewan unless that province puts up its 40% of the money for CFIP. I think that is a very wrong way to go.

I think the government of Saskatchewan has looked at agriculture support plans in the country and has concluded—and I agree very much with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain on this point—that this program and its predecessor, the AIDA program, simply do not work for Saskatchewan farmers. What the government of Saskatchewan is saying is that it will put the equivalent money into agriculture to help farmers in its own province, but it does not want to contribute specifically to this program because it has demonstrably failed over the last number of years. I do not think there should be any demur on the part of the Government of Canada in regard to that approach.

As long as the government of Saskatchewan can demonstrate clearly that it is putting in new and equivalent money but is not putting it into a flawed program that does not work for its farmers, surely that should not be a reason to tell Saskatchewan that if it is not going to comply, it will not get its share of this $500 million that was announced a couple of weeks ago.

Just as an aside on the $500 million, it was very revealing to me to hear the member for Toronto—Danforth say essentially how shocked and appalled he was, although those were not his exact words, that it was only $500 million, not $900 million, when the announcement was made two or three weeks ago. Yet I well remember every one of those members standing up to vigorously applaud the minister of agriculture when he said that he had just come from meeting with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and that the government had put in $500 million.

I note again the duplicity in all of this and the theatrics that go on around here, with the member for Toronto—Danforth now saying how disappointed he is that there was not more money, although doubtless he was one of the people who was up and applauding the $500 million. There were certainly a number of others who did so at that time.

After 1997, when the New Democrats and the Progressive Conservatives were once again represented in the House in sufficient numbers, the early arguments we heard when we started talking about the need for federal assistance for agriculture were that our pockets were not as deep as those of Washington or Brussels. Those were the arguments at the time and to some extent they were correct, because the deficit had not yet been eliminated but the government was bent in that direction.

Now that argument, I submit, no longer applies. The budget has been balanced. There is a healthy surplus of some $21 billion this year, I think, and for the next four years thereafter it rolls out to about $100 billion, so there is no argument that our pockets are not as deep as those of Washington and Brussels or that we cannot compete with them. The fact of the matter is that the government can compete. The reality is that it chooses not to do so.

It was not lost on farmers when just before Christmas an announcement was rolled out by the government about a $1.7 billion loan guarantee for Bombardier. There was no hint of any problem whatsoever in that aerospace industry. There is $1.7 billion in loan guarantees for Bombardier while farmers are fighting for any financial scrap they can get in their area.

If we do not put money into agriculture, I do not think there is any question that we are going to risk losing the food security we all want to retain. I think the Europeans understand that. They have survived two famines over the past century and that is why they support their farmers. They have simply determined that they are not going to accept a third famine and they are prepared to put some money into farming to ensure that it does not happen.

The Americans have responded and are saying that they will not put their farmers at a disadvantage in regard to what is happening in Europe. The numbers have been bandied about this morning; they have put a lot of money into supporting their farmers in recent years. We in Canada have not done so and I think that if we do not, we risk losing our security over food and agriculture.

In his remarks, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in answer to some questions, I think, talked about the need for transition and about farms perhaps continuing to get larger, like they have over the last many decades. That is all well and good, but if we are to have some transition programs, we are talking about an aging farm population. The average age of farmers in Saskatchewan is 58 and I suspect it does not differ very much in that province from many other provinces. If the government is planning to do that, it will have to look at putting some transition programs in place to help ease the adjustment of farmers who will be leaving the farm and going on to other types of work.

The member for Toronto—Danforth talked about the disparity between producers and the food business, the retail sector. He is absolutely right. I think the National Farmers Union has indicated that for the last 30 years food production across Canada has basically held steady at something less than $5 billion, while the retail sector has increased sixfold to $30 billion or $31 billion.

The point is well made, but we also now have people like Larry Solomon, who was recently quoted in the paper as saying that we cannot afford to continue to subsidize farmers and that if only we had small farms around big cities all our problems would be over. It would be interesting for Mr. Solomon to visit Saskatchewan and see the reality of 47% of the arable land and figure out how everybody would be able to cluster around some large cities.

The point I am trying to make is that we really do not have an oversupply in the country as long as we have people around the world who cannot feed themselves. What we have is a difficulty in getting the food to the people who need it most. It would be short term pain if we were to reduce our food supply and not be able to get back into that business.

I will conclude my remarks with that point and just emphasize again that with a $100 billion surplus, there is a need to put some of that money into farming. I have never been persuaded that the $900 million was enough. There were a lot of farmers in western Canada saying not to go down that road, that they needed more than that. It is probably important and it is probably high time that provincial ministers of agriculture, farmers and, to pick up on the point from the member for Toronto—Danforth, consumers as well try to have some kind of a discussion and debate about the future of agriculture in the country and where it is that we think we are going.

Rather than the top down approach, where lobbies happen, a rally happens and the government comes out with a dollar amount, I think we should turn the process on its head. Let us have some discussion with the farm community, consumers and the agriculture ministers across the country. Let us deal with it in that way to see if we can finally come up with a program that works for farmers.

It may be that we need a long term safety net program where, on one occasion in one year, there will be a certain group of farmers accessing the money, perhaps in southeast Saskatchewan or southwestern Manitoba, for example, because of the flooding there which wreaked havoc. That might be for this year, and then next year there would be another. There will always be uneven results in farming. In those happy years where there are not, it may very well be that we could set aside some money and have a larger pool on which to draw in future years.

That is the position of the New Democratic Party and I appreciate the opportunity to speak about it this afternoon.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the Leader of the Opposition for moving this motion on a matter of real urgency, not simply to people who live in rural Canada, as the member across the way indicated earlier, but to Canadians as a whole.

Let me serve notice that I will be splitting my time in this debate with my colleague from Brandon—Souris who, as the House will know, moved the first emergency debate on this issue when the House resumed after the election.

Just last night Statistics Canada reported that 63,000 Canadians have left agriculture in the last year. They are farmers, farm workers and farm families. What is most concerning is that of those who remain, the average age is steadily increasing. People do not see a future in farming in this country.

Let me be clear about what that means. There is a financial crisis now in agriculture. There could be a food crisis tomorrow in Canada. Consider for a moment a related field, that of energy. Whether the Bush administration in the United States is right or wrong, it has now embarked on an energy policy to reduce the reliance of its consumers on foreign energy producers.

In agriculture, the Liberal Government of Canada is embarked on a program to increase the reliance of Canadian consumers on foreign food, because that is the natural consequence of driving Canadian farmers off the farms. That would be food that could cost more than households in urban Canada are paying today. It would be food that might be of a lower quality. It would be food that could go to families in other countries if they were prepared to pay more.

We have taken for granted Canada's ability to produce large quantities of high quality food. We will lose that ability if we continue to drive farmers off our farms, and driving farmers off the farm has been a consistent result of the Liberal government, which has cut the federal budget for agricultural support by nearly $3 billion since it came to office in 1993.

How does this happen? One way it happens is that governments too long in power or too easily in power become so arrogant that they ignore what the public is saying. Indeed, in this House on this question, without any doubt at all, the government ignores what its caucus is saying. That is why the proposal by the Leader of the Opposition to have this as a vote that is not construed as a question of confidence is of such great importance.

The Liberal government governs by public opinion poll. When it does that it runs the risk of enormous harm. The Liberal government has done that before. This is the government, after all, that let Canada drift to the brink of losing the last sovereignty referendum. Do members remember the arguments? The Prime Minister claimed there was no crisis. He ignored the people on the ground. He said that public opinion polls showed there was no crisis. He nearly lost Canada.

Now, again, he claims that there is no crisis in agriculture. He took a poll on the farm crisis in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The people his pollster questioned have not seen much of a farm crisis, not in Scarborough, not in Etobicoke, not in Ville Laval. Therefore, since they did not see it, the pollster did not report it and reality cannot exist. The Prime Minister puts rural Canada at risk because he has let urban Canadians believe that a cheap food policy is their natural right and there is nothing that would threaten it in Canada.

What the Prime Minister who nearly lost Canada in a referendum is in danger of losing now is rural Canada and, in doing that, losing the capacity to provide quality food grown here at home for Canadian families.

If farmers keep leaving the land, more Canadian supermarkets will have to look abroad for their supplies. They will have to look to Europe for their beef and their lamb. They will have to pay higher international prices that consumers are spared from today because past governments have protected a strong agricultural industry at home.

This government does not look after rural Canadians. It changed the employment insurance program, thus penalizing workers in seasonal communities in Canada, communities that live primarily off fishing, forestry, tourism and other industries that are inactive during the winter.

Most of these communities are located in rural settings and the Liberal government continues to pick on them.

Reductions in federal funding for health care have hurt all Canadians, but nowhere more than in rural communities where the quality of health care has largely diminished. It is impossible to attract doctors and nurses to many rural communities and to encourage them to stay there.

The federal government is not helping the situation at all. And so now, the government is turning its back on the Canadian agricultural industry and driving our farmers to bankruptcy. The Prime Minister, however, is saying that the polls reveal no crisis in agriculture. Why? Because the majority of the people polled live in large cities. They take agriculture for granted. That is unfair and dangerous.

If we lose our farming capability, the cost of food will shoot up in Canada. Our country can do better. We have done better in the past. It was my privilege to be part of a Canadian government that was familiar with agriculture and concerned about the sector.

However, the Liberal Party has cut substantially the programs we had put in place to help farmers. Federal aid paid out to the farm sector today amounts to nearly $3 billion less than in the time of the Conservatives. Agriculture is not a priority for the Liberal government. Rural communities are not either. This has to change.

This is not about fiscal restraint or fiscal prudence. This is about priorities. The government is quite prepared to spend public money. Let us look at the fountain in Shawinigan or the $1.3 million given yesterday to book publishers because Heather Reisman's company is paying publishers with returned books rather than cash.

When there is new money to spend, why is the heritage minister so much more influential in the government than the minister of agriculture?

More damningly, let us look at the spending estimates for the government's own propaganda. What is euphemistically called communications co-ordination services in the department of public works translates into government advertising. It has a budget of more than $75 million this year. That does not cover crown corporation advertising. It does not cover what the Prime Minister will spend in Quebec. The figure does not cover the cost of the polls which tell the Prime Minister there is no crisis in agriculture.

As Canadian farmers leave the land and Canada's food security is put in jeopardy, what is the government spending its money on? Perhaps the House has seen the expensive television ad for the Royal Canadian Mint featuring a little girl dancing over her birthday cake, lip-synching to the tune of All I Want Is Money . Now there is a celebration of Canadian values and a model to which young Canadians can aspire.

Let us assume the little girl in the expensive Liberal ad also wants her cake. Because the government is driving farmers off the land, the odds grow every day that the grain and flour in the cakes that Canadians eat will come from foreign fields and will be grown by farmers whose governments make agriculture a priority, as is not the case in Canada.

I wholeheartedly support the idea that there needs to be broad public debate about the future of agriculture. We have serious issues to face: the real nature of the viable family farm; what to do about international corporations and competition; what to do about vertical integration; what to do to ensure we are competitive around the world; and how do we sustain rural communities.

Those issues are critically important to the future of the country but they are being ignored. The House has a duty to play a leadership role in ensuring they are discussed. We must face them. We cannot simply let the future of farming drift away.

The urgent issue now is money. If it is urgent for us as a group, it is particularly urgent for Canadian farmers who want to continue to produce quality food for Canada, but who must go to their bankers and must put seed in the ground in the very next few weeks and have no help in doing that.

We strongly support the motion, but we also strongly support the need for a very real, thorough debate on agriculture, the place of food security in Canada and the importance of a food policy that will not only keep our rural areas active but ensure the security and quality of the food eaten by our urban populations.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I thank the right hon. member for Calgary Centre for his most eloquent speech as well as his understanding of the issue. As most members of the House recognize, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre has been in the House a long time and has experience in the House that I and others do not have.

I would like to ask the member a question. Looking at agriculture over the years, particularly in western Canada, has he ever seen the type of desperation that is now etched on the faces of producers he meets on a constant basis? Has he ever seen such a lack of the political will necessary to give those producers hope, not only for this spring but for springs to come, with respect to their livelihoods in farming? Has the right hon. member ever seen anything so desperate as what is now before the House with respect to agriculture?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I have not before, in my career in public life, seen this level of despair. This despair is not simply among farmers one might consider as business people, but also among families.

I will never in my life forget a conversation I had with a kindergarten teacher in rural Saskatchewan near Carnduff a little over a year ago. She told me the story of a five year old who had been missing classes because he had to go home and walk around to restore the confidence of his father who was on the verge of losing his farm. That is a terrible reversal of the roles that should exist in families.

What happened that night in Carnduff is happening across the country in agriculture. It is a human crisis, it is an economic crisis and it is a security crisis for Canada.

As to the government, my only explanation is that, try as he might, the minister of agriculture has no influence in the government. I have never before seen a government in which a minister of agriculture had so little influence. It makes me long for the days of Eugene Whelan.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Madam Speaker, the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has had experience as prime minister. He has had experience as a minister at the cabinet table. He made remarks about priorities. I would ask him a very specific question. Where would he suggest the cuts come from to find the $500 million?

I would say respectfully that a $200,000 fountain in Shawinigan or a portion of government advertising would really not make up the critical mass necessary to do the job here. What will need to happen eventually are deep and profound sectoral cuts because, as the member would understand, there is a limited amount of cash available.

My question for the right hon. member is: Where would he find that $500 million?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, that is a serious question and it emphasizes the point that we are dealing here with a question of priorities.

I personally would not spend the $500 million, or whatever it is we are spending, on the gun registry. It is a waste of money and a mistake.

I talked about government advertising. The government is spending excessively on advertising; $75 million, that we can trace in one piece of the estimates, for ads that need not run and serve no public purpose.

How much money can we gain here? We can gain millions of dollars here. There is money in the EI account that could be directed toward this.

I take the member's point. This is a difficult question of priorities. We must, when considering it, consider not only the moneys we might need to take from other expenditures or from government services, but we must also consider the cost of doing nothing.

What will be the cost in the future if our farm population continues to age and no young people are prepared to go into the production of secure, high quality food? What will we do in the future if we continue to downgrade the infrastructure that is available in rural communities, communities that contribute significantly to the quality and distinctiveness of Canadian life?

What do we do in the future if Canadian consumers are forced to pay for foreign food because we have made it less and less possible for Canadians to produce high quality, secure food at home?

The questions are serious but when they are considered by the Liberal government agriculture always comes out last. That is not acceptable.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Madam Speaker, I commend the right hon. member for his remarks. I also commend the member opposite, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who has a great personal interest in the issue and has taken initiatives that have furthered the cause of those in crisis in agriculture.

My question for the right hon. member focuses on remarks he made about priorities. I would also put to him that this is an issue of leadership. With respect to the department of agriculture, I have a quote from one of the Liberal members from Prince Edward Island. An article that was in the Guardian newspaper quotes the hon. member for Malpeque as saying:

The underlying problem from the start has been that the very department (Ag Canada) supposed to be working in the interest of the farmers has been the greatest obstacle.

He goes on to say:

—but to be honest, it's virtually useless talking to Ag Canada—

That was a quote from a Liberal member.

The situation in Prince Edward Island is outside the normal circumstances of federal-provincial problems. The P.E.I. industry has made large sacrifices to protect the rest of Canada and there is no certainty that the U.S. border will even be open for the remainder of the year.

I wonder if the right hon. member could focus a little bit on that situation, on the lack of leadership shown there, and on the fact that the federal government has come up with less than half of what P.E.I. potato farmers were looking for to address their problem.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I think we sometimes forget that P.E.I. potato farmers have made sacrifices at the behest of the federal government to ensure their sales were within Canada. The sacrifice they made on Canada's behalf should surely be reflected in the aid the Canadian government gives them at a time of exceptional crisis, a crisis that grows from one field, not from several fields. The support that has been given so far is not only inadequate, it puts at risk an industry that is fundamental to the future of that province.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, as always, it is difficult to follow the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. He speaks so eloquently and knowledgeably about the issue.

I am sorry that I must once again stand in the House to speak to an issue I thought the minister of agriculture and the Prime Minister would have by now realized is of such a serious nature. I am sorry that the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake had to put forward a motion on his own supply day to once again profile what is a very serious crisis in our communities and in our country. Unfortunately that is what has happened.

It is necessary to continue to profile the issue because unfortunately the government has not seen the seriousness of the crisis. It is serious. It is extremely serious. I am talking of farmers whose livelihood comes from the land, farmers, whom I deal with on a daily basis by telephone and in my constituency office, who are absolutely desperate.

This is a way of life. It is their livelihood. It is all they know. Their families before them and their families before them came from the land and they are now in my office and on my phone saying that they do not know what to do. They want to grow products for the rest of the country and the rest of the world but they have found themselves in a position where they may not be able to.

This is spring today, March 20. One month from now a lot of them should be on the land. Unfortunately the government, without the necessary supports, has thrown them onto the garbage heap of our society. That is sad.

This is not just about farmers. It is about their families. It is about their children who go to schools in the communities.

It is about the wives who work off farm and have always worked off farm to provide a livelihood for those families. It is about the same children the hon. member for Calgary Centre spoke of who are concerned about the welfare of their parents. This is extremely serious. It is about the communities that surround my community and the communities of the member for Palliser and of the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

In my community the backbone of our economy is agriculture. It is desperate when we walk into a small rural community and we see boarded up businesses, schools being closed down, and elevators being ripped out. We see the way of life being destroyed in those communities. That is what this is about.

It is not about the ego of a prime minister. It is about families, communities and farmers. It is about businesses that have tried to develop in communities and because of lack of support are closing their doors. When those businesses close their doors, they close the doors on employment. The people employed in those businesses then leave their communities. Where do they go? They go to Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. They go to urban centres.

We have a rural way of life that we want to preserve, not only in western Canada but across Canada. That rural way of life that should and must be preserved is not even on the government's radar screen. Why has this happened?

It is not happening because farm families, communities and businesses said that they were making mistakes and therefore they had to live by them. That would be easy to fix. The reason they find themselves in this position is unfair competition with the Americans and with the Europeans. They are eating our lunch and the minister of agriculture is allowing it to happen.

What is happening right now with unfair subsidies is that the Americans, between 1998 and 2000, provided $48 billion of support for agriculture. In that same timeframe in Canada it was less than $3 billion. That is despicable. The government is allowing the Americans to put us out of business through no fault of our own.

Another problem we have right now is increased costs. In most cases when people are in the business of making things they can pass on costs to consumers. In our particular case the costs are going up quite dramatically because the fertilizers being utilized on the land are natural gas based. We know what is happening in the natural gas industry right now. Costs are going up by 100% over last year's costs. Fuel being put into a tractor, a swather or a combine has gone up again about 100%, or 45% coming back in the other direction.

These costs cannot be passed on because the commodity price that is being driven down by these unfair subsidies is now less than what it was in 1995-96. It does not take a very long time to realize that when it costs more money to make a product than to sell it one cannot stay in business very long.

We are not only finding ourselves in this position because of unfair competition and increased costs. It is also because, as was mentioned earlier, we have a government and particularly a Prime Minister who have lost the priority and the profile of this industry.

It was also mentioned earlier that the government wants to govern by polls. I was told by a member of the backbench that the Prime Minister said that they had done plenty for agriculture and that nobody out there was making any noise as to what the problems are.

Over the last four weeks we have had a minister of agriculture burnt in effigy in Saskatchewan. We have had a rally here in Lansdowne Park, at which I, the member for Palliser and others spoke in front of thousands of farmers. We have had people in the Manitoba legislature sleeping overnight with their families, without sleeping bags because they were not allowed to take them in. Why did they do this? It was because they were desperate.

Was there a profile given to the seriousness of the industry? Of course there was. Where has the Prime Minister been when he cannot see what is going on around him? We had members of his own party, his own backbenchers stand to say very effectively that there must be more support now.

There are three issues with respect to support. The first one is support now. The motion is very specific. It asks for an additional $400 million. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth said that $400 million was an awful lot of money above the $500 million that has already been expended. On a per acre basis, that probably, in most cases in Saskatchewan and Manitoba alone, would mean less than $5 per acre. That does not even take into consideration the cost of what the inputs are that are going into the land for the coming year. Four hundred million dollars above the $500 million is the minimum amount that is necessary to make sure our producers can get onto the land. That is an ad hoc program.

I remember listening to the minister in the House saying many times that the government does not like ad hoc programs in agriculture. He said that the government would like a long term, well thought out safety net program that will solve the problem. I see no evidence that the government is leading in that direction. Everything that has been dealt with, in my experience in the House, in agriculture, has been totally ad hoc.

We all know about the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec back in 1998. It was ad hoc. The government gave money to Quebec and to Ontario for issues that have never been dealt with before on an ad hoc basis. I remember the 1998 flood in the Red River Valley. What was the program for agriculture? It was an ad hoc program. They received lost inputs, seeding requirements and a lot of programs that were kind of made up on the go and put into place ad hoc.

In 1999, when the hon. member for Palliser's area and my area in southwestern Manitoba were affected by extreme rain conditions, to the point where 1.1 million acres were not planted, we asked the minister for some programs. He told us that he could not do ad hoc programs. He said that we had a wonderful program called AIDA that would take into consideration all the losses suffered in the area and that AIDA would fix everything.

Half of what my office handles in my constituency are complaints about the AIDA program. The program has not solved the problems. In fact maybe the minister was getting off track. Maybe he should have gone to an ad hoc program. I would have been much happier, believe me, because I would have had some compensation for people who required it.

We heard the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough say that there is no program right now in P.E.I. The government came along, pulled $14.6 million out of the air and it is an ad hoc program.

We desperately need money now. All members in the House must vote in favour of the $400 million. We need long term programs that will put some hope back into agriculture. We need a government and a Prime Minister who will say publicly that there is a problem in agriculture and that, yes, they are prepared to fix it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, I might say, without telling my age, that I have been directly or indirectly involved with this industry probably longer than anyone in the House, but I have never seen people so absolutely at a dead end as they are now. This is no longer a question about agriculture. It is now a question of human tragedy.

I would like to direct a question to the hon. member. Would he not agree that there is a lack of funding right now to see that the crops in my area and his area get into the ground? If the money is not there, is the government saying that it will let this human tragedy play its full course and maybe it will die out and go away?

I believe that if the government had the will it would come to the rescue. Obviously it does not have the will so it cannot find a way.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. I said that earlier.

There always seems to be demonstrated a lack of political will, to the point where the Prime Minister says that there is no problem. He does not talk to the same people we talk to on a daily basis, because then he would recognize that there is a problem. He received thousands of phone calls from producers in my area and the hon. member's area. We know because the his office returned the calls. Why is he not getting the message?

If there were political will, could it be fixed? Absolutely, and let me give an example. Prior to the election we sat in the House when the Minister of Finance stood and announced a $1.3 billion program for an energy rebate. There was no protest. There were no ministers burned in effigy. There were no phone calls made. There were no people protesting in legislatures. All of a sudden this was the major issue of the day. The government's political will was to do something, so it put in $1.3 billion.

What do we have to do to tell the government that it is also an issue in agriculture and that if it comes up with the same amount of dollars we will be able to fix the problem in a very short period of time? There is no political will and that is the problem. That is why it is necessary that the motion stays in the House and that the government listens to us regarding the agriculture industry.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Brandon—Souris on his great speech. I also congratulate him on his basketball club that played St. Francis Xavier in Halifax. They were great ambassadors of the Manitoba people. They should be congratulated on a great effort.

Now Canadian farmers know what east and west coast fishermen have been going through for many years. It is sad for me as a member of the New Democratic Party representing Nova Scotia to stand in the House to make that comparison. That is exactly what has happened.

The government and previous governments have basically said to the family fishermen that they are finished. It does not even have the stamina or the wherewithal to tell the truth. It says quite clearly that the family farm is finished. If that is the direction of the government, it should stand up on its hind heels and tell the people of the farming community throughout the country that is the game plan. That is exactly what it is doing.

That is a tragic policy on behalf of the large corporate sector which will gobble up these farms and destroy the hopes and aspirations of many young people who wish to pursue agriculture as a proud and noble career.

I thank the Alliance for bringing forward the motion today. It is very important as the member and others have indicated. We only hope the government will honour this commitment.

The leader of the Saskatchewan party, Elwin Hermanson, a previous member of the House, said in the House:

There should be no guarantees to small business. There should be no loan guarantees to farms. We should not treat farmers differently.

Also the leader of the Reform Party said:

The brute truth is the prairie provinces cannot support the number of farmers they have been supporting.

I am very proud and would like the Conservative Party member to elaborate on why there is a change of policy in the Reform Party. We are glad it is doing it, but it may be a little too late. All the government is doing is honouring the Alliance policy—