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.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
I am sorry, but the member's time is up. I will permit the hon. member for Brandon—Souris to give us a short answer.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Madam Speaker, my answer will be very short because I cannot speak for the Alliance. I do know that it has had some changes in policy and some changes in thinking on any number of issues in the House, regardless of whether it be Stornoway, pensions or whatever. It seems to change its mind on a number of issues. This is just another one where it seems to have finally seen the light. It has come to the issue a bit late but we certainly thank the Alliance for that.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak today to the motion moved by the official opposition leader, the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. The motion reads as follows:
That this House call on the government to authorize an additional $400 million in emergency assistance for Canadian farm families (over and above all agriculture programs announced or in place to date), to be paid out in 2001, and that the confidence convention need not apply to this motion.
As is customary, the motion was amended by adding the word “immediately”. The government is therefore now being asked to pay out this additional $400 million immediately.
I am gradually becoming familiar with the world of agriculture which is a completely new portfolio for me, but one thing I have understood. Recently I attended a meeting of leading agricultural stakeholders in a room here and I heard the minister of agriculture say “In Canada, there is always someone somewhere saying that it is too little, too late. There is always too much rain, or it is too dry, there is too much of one thing or not enough of another. It is never possible, in the world of agriculture, from coast to coast, to please everyone”. Fine, but what is amazing is that the minister of agriculture manages to displease everyone at the same time. This is amazing.
People are unanimous in saying that the half a billion dollar effort—and I do recognize the effort—announced by the Canadian government two weeks ago is totally inadequate. On this, people are unanimous from coast to coast. Some have their own way of putting it but, generally speaking, people agree on that. For example, the Quebec minister of agriculture said that it is a good initiative—he is being positive—but that there is still two-thirds of the way left to go. It is not enough and everyone agrees on that.
The minister should have announced an investment of $1.5 billion, not half a billion dollars. With regard to that announcement, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture also confirmed that this amount is far from the minimum of $1.5 billion a year that would be required over the next three years to help farmers.
There is no need to look at all the releases issued on that occasion. Each stakeholder has its own style of communication. For example, in Quebec the UPA says that the amount is barely enough to keep one's head above the water.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris rightly pointed out that the fact that the government wasted $1.4 billion in January 2001 to fulfil an election promise was rather shameful. He said $1.3 billion, but I have always known the amount to be $1.4 billion. We will not argue over $100 million. After all, it is peanuts considering how the government seems to be throwing money out the window. We know that money was very badly spent.
If the government could find close to $1.5 billion quickly in order to keep a campaign promise, one might well wonder how it can be that the ministers were incapable of sitting down for discussions in order to acknowledge that Canadian agriculture was in urgent need.
This past weekend I met a number of my constituents and many of them told me “Being made responsible for agriculture may be interesting for you, but it will not be easy. It is a difficult area, because farmers are rarely content”.
Since I got involved with agriculture especially I have an understanding of why farmers are never content. They are constantly having to beg for help, and when they do get any it is always out of synch with their needs. When they get half a billion, they have to continue to demand the full billion they really need.
It is hard to understand why the government is not capable of giving them what they are calling for. We ought to be able to sit down for once and for all and say that crisis management is over, that now there will be long term planning and find out what the needs of agriculture are.
It is time to stop seeing agriculture as a holdover from the past. Obviously it is a style of life that must be maintained, but agriculture is also a vital industry contributing nearly 10% of the gross domestic product. It provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of people across Canada.
Therefore, it is not just the lifestyle that must be maintained so we can go for a drive in the country and say there are farms around still, we will go camping on a farm or stop over there or do all sorts of things on the farm to keep it traditional. No, we have to do something and find a way to provide the millions of dollars families need to resolve their problems.
To be more specific about the contribution agriculture makes to our economy, in 2000, 46% of net farm income in the United States came from government subsidies. Canadian support for the agri-food sector has been cut by half over the past ten years, shrinking from $5.1 billion dollars in 1991 to $2.6 billion in 2001. In 10 years, spending on agriculture has decreased from 3.6% of the federal budget to 1.7% of it.
We can see from these reductions that since the Liberal government has been in office, the surpluses it now has coming out of its ears it found in employment insurance—as we have said—the former unemployment insurance. According to the auditor general, it helped itself to at least $28 billion, mostly in worker contributions. But there are also billions of dollars in subsidies and assistance that our farmers used to receive.
Today, Canada has become one of the OECD countries providing the least support for agriculture, $163 per capita, as opposed to $336 per capita in Europe and $350 per capita in the United States.
With figures such as these, it is not hard to understand why the farmers of Quebec and of Canada cannot go up alone against the competition from the U.S. and European countries which provide generous subsidies for farming.
Our WTO agreements are being held up as an excuse for being over zealous and cutting our support to farmers.
In addition to the disasters so eloquently described by the members who spoke before me, our farmers have had to face many difficulties with much less assistance from the government.
They have another problem as well: the increase in production costs, which is largely the result of the increase in fuel costs. This is exacerbating the structural crisis in the agricultural sector. On the whole, producers have seen their fuel costs alone go up $400 million since 1998. This in turn means that it will also cost more to produce fertilizers. There goes another $400 million.
So while the motion is asking to immediately give farm families an additional $400 million, the total amount would still be $600 million less than what is needed by farmers. But it goes without saying that an additional $400 million would be helpful and might enable farmers to keep a little more than their heads above water.
Quebec and Canadian farmers are confronted with soaring production costs and a reduction in prices on the market. They are suffering a shortfall that is now in excess of $1 billion. In a period of budget surpluses, Canada refuses to provide fair assistance to its agriculture industry and is letting the situation deteriorate.
As I said earlier, the agricultural sector currently accounts for 10% of the gross domestic product. It also accounts for about 10% of the jobs in the country and provides Canadians—and this is worth noting—with the world's least expensive grocery basket.
Again, we are number one in the world. In spite of the fact that the government does not look after them, our farmers continue to produce food items at a reasonable price after all since our grocery basket is the least expensive in the world.
In order to solve the crisis, the government must implement long term structuring measures based on the actual costs of production. The Canadian agri-food sector includes not just farmers but suppliers, processors, shippers, grocers, and restaurant workers. This entire industry is the third ranking employer in Canada. It is far from insignificant.
We must therefore ensure that an industry that generated in the year 2000 more than $95 billion worth of business is worthy of our taking the time to reflect on how best we can give it a hand up out of the mess it is in, and enable it to at least move onward and upward like any other industry.
For instance, there was no hesitation when it came to giving a tiny little business like Bombardier a $87 million hand up. With it, Bombardier was able to finance the development necessary to make it into a company that is now flourishing both in Canada and in the rest of the world. If we want our agricultural sector to develop a degree of self-sufficiency and if we want to see it develop further, it needs to be given the required assistance for that forward move.
Since the federation has said that the requirement was $1.5 billion over three years, I asked the farmers of my region—the lower St. Lawrence, a tiny region when compared to the whole of Canada—to give me some idea what amount of money I would have to give them if I had the means of meeting their needs.
The means are there, the needs corresponding to catastrophes they have lived through, but there are also needs that relate to development of what I call planning of medium and long term visions. For example, another $750,000 would be required to compensate producers who have lost their herds as a result of scrapie.
In this case, the government decided to provide compensation. However, it sat down with business people, not with producers. They used that and said “Fine, that will be a good thing. We have to develop traceability. We will therefore use this opportunity to spend $1 million of the money we are giving you in order to produce, in the field of informatics, everything necessary to keep track of your sheep production from the farm to the table”.
During this time while they were taking the means to set up this system, which I consider praiseworthy, it would for example, make it possible to take $750,000 away from producers, money they could have applied to the purchase of animals to rebuild their flocks.
In my region agricultural lime production is being developed. It would require $400,000. There is a plan to develop cattle farming over a five year period which would require $2.5 million. A potato marketing project—because my region produces potatoes—would require $30,000.
In order to establish the standards so dear to the Food Inspection Agency for the abattoir located in my riding just to put the standards into effect it will take $150,000. If it does not get $150,000 to implement the standards, I wonder what sort of job the Food Inspection Agency will do if the money is not available to put the standards into practice.
Since the lower St. Lawrence region is a farming region we have tried to develop quality products. The humus in the region is excellent and we must therefore develop quality products. We are very advanced in the development of organic farming.
One brand name, Les saveurs du Bas Saint-Laurent, has been put on the market. Expanding this line would require $175,000.
Since our region also produces maple syrup and honey an investment of $60,000 would be necessary to develop a shared brand name for these two products.
There are also large sheep production operations in our region. Since we have no wool processing plant $500,000 would be necessary to set one up. Otherwise, we can do nothing with the wool and this entire sector of the economy will be unproductive.
We would need $500,000 for a meat processing centre in addition to $100,000 to build a cheese factory to process the goat's milk produced in our region.
An investment of $150,000 is needed to rebuild the Centre Avibier. Finally, $60,000 is needed to develop farm tourism so that we can keep our rural way of life alive, just to mention this aspect in passing.
So a small region like mine needs $5.375 million to meet urgent and real needs that relate to sustainable development and that require long term policies.
The region could be further developed which would create jobs and allow most people to leave the employment insurance program. Jobs would be created in primary and secondary processing plants if only the government showed some vision and stopped relying on crisis management.
The government thinks that people will be happy with half a billion dollars. We do not even really know how all the issues will be solved.
I thank my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance for bringing forward this motion today. This is an extremely important issue.
Since the Minister of Finance said that he is leaning toward fall budgets, we should not expect too much this spring. Yet today is a beautiful day.
It would be important for the minister of agriculture and all his colleagues to understand that action is urgently required in agriculture since it is a leading industry in Canada. It is an industry we should be proud of because we will be increasingly dependent on what is produced worldwide if we cannot become increasingly self-sufficient in the agricultural industry.
David Anderson Canadian Alliance Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
I will quickly deal with three questions today: Why are we here, where are we going with agriculture, and what are we doing with it? We are faced with a desperate situation in agriculture today. This morning I heard people criticize the Alliance for its agriculture policy. I want to read it to them to assure them it has not changed.
Our agriculture policy reads:
To ensure a self-reliant and economically viable agricultural sector, we will vigorously seek free entry of Canadian products into foreign markets. We support and will advocate the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies, support programs and trade restrictions in conjunction with other countries.
We further go on to state:
We believe it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of Supply Management remain viable.
Our agriculture policy has not changed. It continues to be compassionate and based on common sense. We are in a situation now that requires some common sense and we do not seem to be getting any direction from the government. We are stuck in a subsidy war with the European Union and the United States, and Canada is the third and smallest partner in those trade wars.
Our grain and oilseed prices have crumbled to the point where farmers cannot compete. Why do we need to help? When incomes have fallen to 20% of the five year averages, something needs to be done. We either let our farmers go down the drain or we help out. We are not prepared to let them go down the drain.
We must expect changes in agriculture as the industry goes along, but seeing 23,000 people per year leaving the industry is far too many. We have a problem.
The second question is this: Where are we with agriculture and what are the specific problems?
The first problem to which I have already referred is financial viability. People put many years into their farms. We heard the member for Brandon—Souris talk about that. At a young age they begin trying to build equity in an operation. They make the best decisions they can. They try to raise their families on the farms.
Farming is not just a living. It is a way of life that contributes $95 billion to the Canadian economy. A farmer's decisions can be absolutely right but in the end the results can be wrong. They must make their crop selections and guess their incomes far ahead of production. When incomes go down and costs go up, as we have seen with the price of diesel and fertilizer, grains and oilseeds are no longer viable.
We have other problems in our agricultural sector, one of which is political interference. I have talked a little about subsidization. According to reports, U.S. farmers are asking for $14 billion more in subsidies on top of the approximately $28 billion they already get.
Farmers cannot afford to be involved in trade wars. Last week we had a discussion on softwood lumber. It is the small people who are affected by trade wars and disputes. Wheat and cattle have begun to get dragged into the softwood lumber dispute. Farmers cannot afford that.
We see trade problems in the area of P.E.I. potatoes. We feel for the people who have produced their product and then are not allowed to take it to market.
Another concern for farmers is transportation. Our system continues to be very expensive, particularly in western Canada, and not all that efficient.
Producers are separated from legislation which seems to be made far away from them and into which they have no input. Two examples are the firearms legislation in western Canada, which is still a big issue, and the endangered species act that producers look at with suspicion because they realize they do not have a big say in how it is being put together.
Farmers have concerns over GMOs. Many have grown them. They are unsure whether they can continue to grow them or even whether they should. The government needs to give some direction and regulation in that area.
There are food safety issues. Producers are concerned about food safety but they also need to be protected from overreaction. Producers have issues over seed patents. We put public money into seed research and then turn around and sell the new varieties to private companies, and farmers in turn must deal with those companies. It is one more expense for the farmer and for the taxpayer. Those kinds of things make farmers and producers feel marginalized.
Perhaps my biggest long term concern, and the concern of many people to whom I have talked, is that there seems to be no leadership or coherent direction in Canadian agriculture. I have farmed for 25 years. For decades we have seen ad hoc programs. I would sum up what I have seen over the years by saying that policies are often too little, too late.
The federal and provincial governments need to sit down and accept responsibility for the sector, negotiate what they will do and begin to develop long term plans. Uncertainty in this business kills. We have enough of it without the government providing more.
I talked a little about why we are here and where we are with agriculture. I will now talk about where we are going. I have some suggestions.
I suggest we begin by building on the positives. Specialty crops have been a real success story in Canada in the last few years. Organic crops like kamut and the chick pea industry which has developed out of nowhere in western Canada are examples of this.
The second success story is the development of the pulse industry. It has seen a 2,500% increase in productivity in the past 20 years. It is now a $1 billion industry and within the next five years it is expected to be a $2 billion industry. That is a success story.
A third success story has been our livestock industry. Infrastructure is being developed and has been developed to support that industry. We need to protect it.
These are three sectors where we have had limited government involvement and have had success. We need to give the Food Inspection Agency the power to keep our cattle industry safe.
I suggest that we need emergency aid at this point. People have been criticizing the Alliance for what they see as a change in policy. As I have explained, it is not a change in policy at all. Farmers need compensation. We are prepared to deal with that and we want to deal with it.
We need an emergency structure for natural disasters. People come into our offices on a fairly regular basis who have not had satisfaction in dealing with natural disasters such as floods. We need long term planning for those kinds of situations.
We need to strengthen our insurance programs. Those programs have worked for the most part. Producers and the government contribute to them, and with adjustments as we go along they seem to be working not too badly. It was mentioned earlier that we need transition programs. I would echo that as well.
We need a long term safety net program with producer participation that works better than AIDA. We also need good trade negotiations to reduce foreign subsidization. We need to reduce our involvement in that regard. We need our trade negotiators to sit down and do serious business in that area.
As our motion says, we need $400 million of short term aid to farmers. I would call on the government to do more than just criticize the opposition. In the last two weeks it has changed its tactics. Last week members such as the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey expressed the opinion that it is the opposition's fault the government has not responded to the crisis. I reject that.
This week there has been a very expensive Canada-wide media campaign to convince Canadians that farmers are well off as it is now. The government still does not understand that driving a wedge between people is not good agricultural policy. Perhaps again its agriculture policy is being driven by poll.
I cannot believe the lack of planning and commitment we see in the government. Liberal backbenchers today need to stand and show their influence. The opposition has done its work. We have tried to bring the issue to the forefront and we have done so today.
Many opposition members agree with the Liberal member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who said, in response to the government's last announcement of new agricultural funding:
It was one of my darkest days in politics so far. I had really honestly thought the Prime Minister understood the plight of the grain and oilseed farmers...I just really felt my knees were cut out.
We call on members opposite to support our motion today to get involved, take care and do their part in correcting the emergency situation we have on the farm.
Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate to support the motion to immediately authorize an additional $400 million in emergency assistance for Canadian farm families. It is clear that the concerns of Ontario farmers have been falling on deaf ears with the government. Farmers have been facing their worst income crisis since the great depression. It is also clear that only a Canadian Alliance government would listen to the problems facing rural Canada.
In my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing—Pembroke, farmers are experiencing the same income crisis that is being experienced elsewhere.
Considering that a large portion of the terrain in my riding is the Canadian Shield, which has poor, rocky soils where there is soil, production is substantial. Beef farms account for over 50% of all farms in Renfrew county. Dairy, field crop and miscellaneous specialty farms account for most of the remaining farms. Renfrew is a leader in hay, maple syrup and Christmas tree production.
However, the profile of farming in my riding is changing. The number of beef farms is steadily declining and field crop and miscellaneous operations are on the increase. That is happening because our farmers are searching for ways to make a living in light of the problem of low commodity prices. Here in Ontario the federal government has developed a reputation of being anti-farmer.
This past year Ontario farmers have been faced with bad weather, reduced yields and declining prices due to the international agreement the Liberals signed that created the World Trade Organization. Not only did the new agreement end the provision which protected supply management from imports, it exposed Canadian farmers to penalties which the Liberals claimed would not occur.
In September 1999 the WTO ruled that Canada was dumping milk on to the world market and it ordered Canada to change or to stop exporting. This exposed the lie told to farmers when they were advised that supply management would not be affected by the Mulroney-Liberal trade agreements, and that there would be no effect on domestic supply management.
The Liberals then tried to cover their tracks by incorrectly stating that a Canadian Alliance government would unilaterally end domestic supply management. That is false and the worst form of negative politics from a federal government that thrives on negative politics. The Canadian Alliance knows that farmers want straight talk from Ottawa about what is happening in agriculture here at home and abroad.
The Canadian Alliance believes it is in the best interest of farmers, Canada and agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. While the Canadian Alliance supports greater international trade, our farmers will only benefit from increased trade if it is rules based fair trade. We will continue to support supply managed farmers. Tariffs will only be reduced and my party and I will only consider changes to domestic policies if other countries match our existing commitments.
It is clear that a significant segment of the Ontario farming community did not support the Mulroney-Liberal trade agreements because it feared the deal would mean the end of the family farm. The Mulroney-Liberal trade agreements are a direct assault on rural Canada.
In Ontario since the current government took power, according to Statistics Canada the number of farmers for whom farming is their principle means of livelihood have declined from 121,200 to 88,200, or a loss of 33,000 farmers. Farmers' worst fears are being realized with the government.
According to the Ontario Corn Producers Association, federal statistics on farm income data for all provinces show that the total net farm income was substantially lower in Ontario than in Saskatchewan in both 1998 and 1999, even though the scale of agricultural output was larger in Ontario. Total net farm income was $484 million in 1998 and $281 million in 1999 in Ontario. For Saskatchewan the figures were $603 million in 1998 and $531 million in 1999.
During the past federal election in rural Ontario, some elected politicians had big words of encouragement but the sad fact is that it was just another last minute vote ploy. With two days before an election call, when this cynical government thought it might need the votes from farmers, it promised bigger and more flexible AIDA program payments. The AIDA funding, offered two years ago, is for the most part still in Ottawa. Funding programs are meaningless unless they reach those who need them.
The Canadian Alliance believes Ontario's market revenue program must be maintained or it will be lost for good. We believe the program has served Ontario producers well. We will not allow the program to run out of money or be scrapped because if it does the Mulroney-Liberal trade agreements will not allow us to start it up again.
The Ontario farmer in rural Ontario is an endangered species. The Prime Minister and his contemptuous advisers knew that they did not have to make commitments to farmers but were quick to throw money at rich urbanites, including $500 million for the Toronto waterfront and $380 million for new four lane highways and bridges for Quebec.
Farmers in Ontario have long feared that the Liberal government policy of driving them off the land would mean a loss in political influence. That grim realization has come with the November 27 election results.
Ontario farmers are asking for a level playing field. Agriculture is important. I say that to all members of the House but I particularly direct my comments to the Liberal MPs in Ontario who have rural constituencies but cannot seem to convince their leader that agriculture is important.
This is not just a western Canada issue to ignore, as the Liberal Party tends to ignore the west.
As the only unbiased voice of rural Ontario since 1993, I can say that farmers are talking to me. Members opposite may think that four years is a long time and that they will forget how they have pushed away their concerns, but I am saying that they will not forget because as their voice on Parliament Hill I will remind them of how their trust was betrayed. Excuses can be made but the facts are there.
We in the official opposition are asking the government to support the needs of Canadian farmers so that they will be here tomorrow to put quality home grown food on the tables of consumers.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I have a copy of two statements from the Reform Party policy platform and statement of principles. One is dated August 14, 1988, and reads:
We support the shift from a government dominated and supported agricultural industry to an industry shaped by market forces.
The other statement is also from the policy declaration of the Canadian Alliance dated January 2000 and reads:
We will support and we will advocate the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies, support programs and trade restrictions in conjunction with other countries.
Would my colleague not agree that these two statements, one that is twelve years old and the other one which is nearly one year old, are very contradictory to the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition which is calling for the exact opposite?
I know my colleague is a straight shooter. I would like to know whether or not she agrees that there is a contradiction in the two statements and which one she supports.
Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, I was not aware that my rifleman talents were known that widely. The Canadian Alliance will reduce subsidies only in conjunction with other countries. It is the Liberal government that unilaterally took away subsidies from Canadian farmers.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue. I represent an urban riding in Ottawa Centre, the riding in which the House of Commons is situated. I am a bit at a loss when I see the official opposition come forward with motions such as the one before us today.
As I indicated in an earlier question to the member of the Reform Party, her party policies call for the exact—
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know what the member is talking about. I thought the Reform Party of Canada was demised.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
I would caution the hon. member to use the official name of the official opposition which is the Canadian Alliance.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, my deepest apologies. It was an honest oversight on my part. It is difficult for a government member to differentiate between the old party and the new party.
The policy of the Canadian Alliance Party speaks very much to the opposite of what the motion is speaking to today. As I told a colleague on the other side earlier, it is quite clear and quite unequivocal that in essence it contradicts what is in the motion. I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.
It is fair game when we have consistency before us, but when we see situations like this one it is quite frustrating because we do not know where that party sits on the issue. At the end of the day the issue before us is an issue of fairness. It really has nothing to do with partisanship. It has nothing to do with the political affiliation of one member or another. It has to do with the issue of fairness.
We have a situation where the farming communities across Canada are telling us that they are faced with a situation where farmers in other countries, in particular south of the border, are getting unfair subsidies. As a result they are putting our farming communities at a disadvantage.
This is an absolutely fair statement and fair game. Ultimately at the end of the day it is imperative that those in the farming community are playing with the same rules. Therefore, if subsidies are being put on the table by other countries, it does not necessarily mean that we will have to bring in more subsidies. It means, though, that we will have to do our utmost to ensure a level playing field.
In the meantime what should we do? Should we let our farmers leave? Should we let our farmers suffer the inequity that exists while we are fighting the injustice that is taking place elsewhere, or should we fight for them and at the same time do something to support them?
That is exactly what the government has done. Every business venture and every trading nation has to play by the rules set out by the World Trade Organization and by the rules set out previously under the free trade agreement and eventually under NAFTA. We all have to abide by and to follow the same rules. We have to subscribe to those rules and we have to ensure that our industry subscribes to those rules.
When we see situations such as we are seeing now in the farming communities, or when we see situations such as we will see at the end of this month with the softwood lumber issue, we get frustrated. We as elected officials feel that we have an obligation to do what is right and not just to correct what is wrong. This is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and what the Minister for International Trade have been doing consistently over the past few months to address the whole issue of inequities.
What is enough? The minister just announced a support package for farming communities to balance the imbalance that exists. What is enough? Frankly I would say that $500 million may not solve the problems of the farming communities for good. Even $1 billion will probably not be enough to solve the problems of the farming community for good. What will solve those problems is the removal of unfair subsidies from anywhere in the globe where farming products and farming services are provided. That is the only way for us to ensure fairness.
In the absence of that we have to be exceptionally careful not to create the impression that we have a well with an endless amount of resources into which we dip every time there is a problem and wait for the problem to go away.
We have to be consistently persistent in trying to speak out on behalf of farming communities, as the minister and the government have done. We have to consistently seek justice when it comes to the World Trade Organization and NAFTA to ensure a level playing field.
I am not saying that we have to eliminate subsidies all at once and for good. However there are others who have already embarked on eliminating subsidies altogether. That has happened in New Zealand. Others may also follow suit and eliminate subsidies altogether so the market can decide.
If I were asked as an elected official from an urban riding whether or not I am calling for the removal of subsidies, I would say no.
That cannot be done unilaterally and cannot be done by one country in the absence of action by others. We must do it collectively. As nations we must collectively set the rules of law and ensure those rules are respected by member countries.
It is fairly hurtful when we see situations like the one the farming community is faced with now. To a large extent it is being discriminated against. I commend the minister of agriculture who is very knowledgeable about the file. I also commend the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade for speaking out on behalf of farmers. That is responsible action on the part of the government.
When the official opposition says if we throw another $400 million at the problem it will go away, I challenge it to tell me the exact amount the government must put on the table to make the problem go away. No sum of money will make the problem go away as long as other nations outbid us and subsidize more than us.
At the end of the day what is required is corrective action like the government has done: work with farm communities and leaders and speak out on the international scene. We must bring sanity to the system so that farmers around the world will play by the same rules. When they play by the rules, they know that all other farmers in every other country are also playing by the same rules.
We have an unjust situation that is made worse by the fact that some member countries of the World Trade Organization are not playing by the rules. That is the issue before us. Rather than telling the government it is onside in the fight to ensure equity and a rule of law that is fair across the board, the official opposition says that if we throw more money at the problem it will go away. That will not work in the long run. It might be a bit of a band-aid solution in the short term, but ultimately it is not the answer.
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member has put his finger on it. What will solve the problem? Successive governments in the past have failed to respond with a long term solution to agricultural problems. The problem before farmers right now is very clearly that their production costs exceed the compensation they get for the sale of their products.
Some may say it is not the government's responsibility, but it is the Liberal government, with its majority, that has mandated that western Canadian farmers must sell their grain to the wheat board. In essence we are back to the Trudeau salute. Trudeau asked western farmers why he should sell their grain for them. It is because the government passed a law that said it would.
I simply comment on the member's speech. We are looking for emergency aid. It is needed. It is absolutely necessary for farmers this instant so that they can stay out of bankruptcy and not lose their businesses, their farms and their homes. That is the immediate measure. How we wish the previous Conservative government had signed agreements with the Americans and other trading partners in the world that they were willing to live by.
Will the hon. member comment on the fact that he is part of a government that has failed in the very area he is talking about: the lack of a long term policy to meet the needs of Canadians for a secure food supply through our agriculture industry?
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, we do have a long term policy. Negotiations have been going on for years. We had the GATT, under which the rules of law were set up for member countries. That was followed by the World Trade Organization, the free trade agreement and then by NAFTA. These organizations represent hundreds of countries around the world. The rules of law are there for everyone to follow.
What we are saying on this side of the House is that at the end of the day the long term solution my colleague has called for is for everyone to respect the law of the land.
We have a situation now where some member countries are not respecting the law of the land. The policy of the government is to ensure that member countries respect the rules of law and do not create unfair subsidies that put our farmers at a disadvantage. We must fight and continue to fight on their behalf and we must provide them with the support they need, which is exactly what we are doing.
However, at the end of the day, and I repeat this one more time, there is no amount of money that will solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem is for everyone to play by the same rules. As long as people from other corners, doors or windows do not play by the rules, the situation of inequity will repeat itself. We will see our farmers in front of the House of Commons and elsewhere protesting and asking for assistance.
I will mention another point to my colleague. In any operation or business, every time there is a crisis, whether it is financial or otherwise, inefficient operations will fall victim to it. What we must do is ensure we have a support mechanism to assist those who are in need.
That is exactly what the government has done on a number of occasions. I will not repeat this for the record, but speakers before me have, and speakers after me will, put on the record specific programs the government has put in place to support farming communities. Through such programs we will continue to work with farmers to ensure they can support themselves and their families.
However for my colleague to say that we do not have a long term policy is grossly unfair because we do in fact have long term policies.
Gar Knutson Liberal Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to discuss the very serious issue of the agricultural crisis. Let me begin by commending the opposition for bringing it to the attention of the House and for using one of its opposition days to discuss the issue.
As hon. members know, my riding in southwestern Ontario is one of the richest farm areas in the country. The counties of Elgin and Middlesex have a vast array of agricultural producers, whether in wheat, corn, soybeans, livestock or supply management. The health of the agricultural industry and its livelihood is a very critical issue to my riding, to my community and, as such, to me as well.
It is important when we define the problem, and it is a very real and serious problem, that we acknowledge that not all of agriculture is suffering. Certainly areas involved with supply management, whether dairy production, the feather industry or the production of eggs, continue to do reasonably well. That is because they are protected from the games foreign countries play in terms of increasing subsidies at a rapid rate. They know when they go to the marketplace that they will get a reasonable return for their production and one that will cover their production costs and allow them to feed their families and make a good living.
The other part of the farm sector that is doing well right now is the whole area of cattle. Hog production is also doing well because the prices those producers are enjoying are reasonably high.
Again, not all parts of the farm economy are in a crisis. It is a particular part of the farm economy. If we look at the numbers in Ontario we see that farm incomes went up last year, which is not what one would expect given world prices for grains and oilseeds and the awful weather we had in terms of a very wet spring.
Let me turn my comments to the issue at hand, which is the farm income crisis in the grains and oilseeds business. I will provide some statistics.
The Ontario average for the price of grain corn has dropped from $4.65 a bushel in 1995-96 to $2.85 a bushel. That is a huge drop in a very short period of time and farmers cannot make money at that price.
The Ontario average for the cash price of soybeans has dropped from $9.66 in 1995-96 to $6.90, which is more than a 30% drop in the space of about four to five years. At the same time, the cost of production has risen through the roof. Farmers are facing the lowest prices for their product, in nominal terms, for the last 27 years while incurring an increase in the cost of fertilizer. Fertilizer costs have gone up primarily due to the cost of oil that goes into making it.
Costs have increased for things like drying expenses. When harvest corn is taken from the field and shipped to market, it must be dried to prevent it from moulding on the way to market. Because of the high input costs involved in that and the low revenue, the farmers are suffering and going broke. They incur high costs for the rental of land and a variety of other costs.
The average cost of production for corn is estimated in Ontario at $3.50 per bushel. If one compares that with the number I gave previously, we see that the price farmers get for corn is $2.85 per bushel. The breakeven for soybeans is estimated to be $8 per bushel compared to the $6.90 per bushel. These numbers, as well as any, highlight the difficult times farmers are having. The worst part is the source of the problem: The Americans have increased subsidies to farmers fourfold over the last few years. They are paying their farmers to produce at a level that distorts the marketplace both in Canada and abroad.
The Americans have a policy of not giving up market share around the world, and they have gotten into the business of paying their farmers to produce without getting a normal price from the marketplace. For example, when Ontario corn farmers go to the marketplace they sell corn at a certain price. When American farmers go to the same marketplace they get a certain price plus a very high subsidy.
The market is not signalling to U.S. farmers or to European farmers that they should cut back production because the market is being distorted by high subsidies. Ontario farmers are extremely frustrated by this and by the fact that they have no hope or optimism that it will change.
A number of people have talked about signing new trade agreements that would bring in new rules so that subsidies would go down. Even if we did that, farmers in Europe or the U.S. would go through a period of adjustment, some say from five to ten years, but the Ontario corn and soybean farmers would get no immediate relief.
That highlights the level of frustration and how difficult the situation is. It indicates that the federal and provincial governments need to be cognizant that the situation has changed dramatically since 1993-94 when the Liberals first came into office. Our support for agriculture at the time, in terms of safety nets, was roughly $600 million. We did not hear squawking or complaints that it was too little money because the price farmers got from the marketplace compensated for the fact that they did not get subsidies.
They now find that when they go to the marketplace they cannot get a fair price so they are looking to the federal and provincial governments for help, as is their right.
I am happy to say that the federal government has responded. It may not have responded as aggressively or as generously as some farmers and farm organizations would have liked, but it moved the $600 million in safety net programs from the 1994-95 budget year and increased it by $500 million to what was then called AIDA.
AIDA was designed to deal with sudden and quick dramatic drops in price. It played an important role two or three years ago in maintaining a hog industry in my riding when the price of hogs fell through the floor and a number of livestock farmers were facing very difficult times. They made good use of AIDA, and I was pleased to see a government safety net program come into play. It was virtually put in as a permanent program. It is now a multi-year commitment that farmers can rely on for the next few years.
The minister just announced an increase of $500 million. One of the two debates surrounding that $500 million is whether it should be higher. As someone who represents a farm riding, I would have liked to have seen it higher, but I understand the government has a lot of competing calls on resources and it came up with $500 million.
However, if we go back to 1994-95, when we went from $600 million of total safety net programs, we added roughly $500 million to AIDA. We also increased our $600 million bottom line safety net programs by another $85 million. We have now increased it by another $500 million. In my view, that is not bad. We have almost tripled the support for agriculture and the safety net since I have been in office.
Other than the amount of money that we should be putting into agriculture, we also need to call on the government to make a multi-year commitment. The $500 million we have is a one year commitment. I will have an opportunity in a take note budget debate to talk about this, but if the Minister of Finance is taking note tonight I would tell him privately or publicly that we need to be more generous in our multi-year commitment to agriculture.
I understand the difficulties in making a decision now. We do not know where the economy is going. We do not know what resources the government will have in six, eight or nine months from now. However, I call on the government to be as generous as possible.
While I commend the opposition for what it has brought forward today, I should point out that it did not mention a word about increasing support to farmers during the campaign. The only party that had a coherent platform in terms of increasing cash support for farmers during the campaign was the Progressive Conservative Party. Its leader came down to my area in Woodstock and spoke about how we need to do more to support our farmers and he talked about increasing the budget. I never heard—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
The hon. member for Lethbridge has the floor to ask a question.
Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, we have to get past the rhetoric of who did what when and who asked for what.
The other day there was a comment from across the floor that I did not ask an agriculture question until the fifth spot. What is that all about? The fact is that our agricultural community is in trouble and needs some help. Let us get past all the rhetoric.
I just received a letter today from a couple who live on Heritage Road in Georgetown, Ontario. They have asked me if I would ask the Liberal government some questions. The letter reads:
In doing so, please be sure to ask the government, who is having difficulty finding the moneys desperately needed to sustain our food system and ensure food sovereignty the following question: Why did they spend valuable consumer tax dollars on an anti-farmer campaign that ran in Canadian newspapers on March 15th?
It goes on to explain how much money the government proposed to have spent. It ran in all the big city newspapers, although I am not sure what that was all about. The couple wants to know why the government did that? They also want to know how much that cost and why the money was spent on something like that instead of going directly to farm families?
Gar Knutson Liberal Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know that I have no idea how much the advertising campaign cost.
As question period will start in about 25 minutes, that question would probably be better put directly to the minister who, I am sure, would be happy to answer it.
As for the comment about it being an anti-farmer campaign, the opposition likes to make the point that Canadians have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that because the government is explaining how we spend roughly $1.7 billion in terms of annual farm support programs to Canadians that it is somehow anti-farmer.
We are telling Canadians how we spend the money. Is it not implicit in that argument that we need to spend the money and that our farm sector is important?
Brian Fitzpatrick Canadian Alliance Prince Albert, SK
Madam Speaker, I will preface my question with a statement. There was once an American president who defined liberal economic policy. The policy was very clear and concise. It stated “If it's alive and it's moving, tax it. That will slow it down. If it doesn't slow it down enough, regulate it. And when the thing is almost dead, subsidize it.”
I believe we have an industry in Canada that is in the third stage through that type of policy. When the government starts subsidizing using the Liberal way, it does not want to make the subsidies too big because it might get healthy again. Keep it down.
There was some mention made in the throne speech about helping agriculture move to become a value added industry. We have a good example of what the president of the United States was talking about with liberal economic policy in Saskatchewan. The Americans blocked or restricted Canadian durum, the best durum in the world, from the U.S. market. For people who do not know what durum is used for, it is used to make spaghetti, pasta and those types of products.
A group of farmers trying to help themselves, tried to form an organization that would grow its own durum, build its own pasta plant, crank out its own pasta and export it directly into the U.S. market so it could get away from government regulations and subsidies. These farmers wanted to empower themselves to help themselves. Unfortunately, Canadian Wheat Board regulations prevented those farmers from going ahead with that very worthwhile venture.
Would the member comment on how we could get our regulations simplified so that farmers could empower themselves rather than being at the mercy of subsidies and governments for their support?
Gar Knutson Liberal Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Madam Speaker, I do not have a detailed understanding of the pasta plant in southern Saskatchewan, but off the top, if in fact the wheat board prevented that plant from developing, that was a mistake in policy. We need more pasta plants and food processing plants and any regulation that gets in the way of that should be abolished.
However, it comes as no surprise to hear the member quoting a U.S. president. That party is trying to make an argument for more subsidies—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
THe hon. member for Lethbridge has the floor on debate.
Rick Casson Canadian Alliance Lethbridge, AB
Madam Speaker, we are here today to speak in support of the opposition motion to get an additional $400 million into the pockets of our farmers this spring before seedings starts. We want to do it in a way that is quick and efficient, not like some of the programs that have been developed in the past by this government. We need to do something that responds quickly to the situation.
I just spoke to a gentleman a couple of minutes ago to ask if it would be all right to read a letter that I received last week when I was at home. It is from a company with which I did business while running my farm operation. Last year this organization won one of the awards given out by the Lethbridge chamber of commerce for businesses that excel in what they do and how they promote their business. I read the letter even though it is a form letter. It states:
I want to begin this letter by saying thank you for giving us an opportunity to serve you and allowing us to work with you. We have dealt with some of you since 1977 and through that time we have come to know you very well and it has been a very rewarding experience.
My son, Tim, made an interesting comment a few years back after he returned to work with us following his legal training in B.C. We were sitting talking about our business and he remarked that one of the things that he liked about agriculture was the kind of people with whom he dealt. I agreed with his feelings.
We have had an opportunity to work with some very fine people. We have found that the small size of our company was continually a limitation on what we hoped to achieve. In recent years it has been very difficult to run a profitable business. I know you face that same struggle. Getting financing continued to grow to be a larger and larger challenge. The competitive environment also became tougher as the grain companies battled for a market share and used ag inputs as part of their marketing levers.
The drought last year was the final straw. It was financially very damaging and even though we improved in every aspect of our business we cannot overcome the impact of the drought and the resultant drop in sales. The prospect of another such year was a factor that convinced us. We no longer were strong enough to survive in this market so on January 6 of this year we began the plan to shut down the fertilizer, pesticide and seed sector of our business, and the related services.
It was with considerable sadness that we realized that the close working relationship we had with you would not continue in the same manner. It was also very painful to have to lay off our crew, 12 full time people and 20 part time people after working with them and watching their skills develop. Some of them had also been with us for a very long time and we had been watching with much interest hoping that some good opportunities would come to them.
This was a small business in southern Alberta that has gone out of business because of the farm crisis. This goes further than farmgate. We are not only talking about primary producers, we are also talking about the entire industry of agriculture when we talk about the seriousness of the situation.
The dramatic increase in input costs is one of the things that caught farmers in a real vice in the last few years. Commodity prices, as we know, are low in the grains and oilseeds sector, and to compound that with the increase in inputs, plus, in our area, a very severe drought that has not relinquished yet, could really send us into a crisis situation this year.
With a combination of all those things, as this gentleman has indicated, it has put a well run family business that had been in place since 1977 out of business. They were award recipients for the way they ran their business. They had to lay off 32 people. That is just a part of what is happening.
In the misplaced and misguided policies of the government, it went ahead of the rest of the world and took away the subsidies or any support that our farmers had. It did that before anybody else did, before any other countries with which we deal. We have now placed our people at a competitive disadvantage. It is not because of the marketplace or low commodity prices, which are all part of this, it is because of misplaced government policy.
Government policy has more to do with the price of goods than the marketplace does. We have done that through very ill-advised policies, whether it is trade, foreign or domestic policies, that affect our farmers. We now have a situation that some feel is irreversible.
We have to do something in the interim while we decide what we will do in the long term for our agricultural community. We have to do some things in the short term and that is what we are talking about today. Let us get this out. Let us put some of the crisis decisions that are being made on farming on hold until we can have a long term plan.
David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, earlier today I joined with colleagues from the House, including you, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister, to provide a send off to a remarkable, courageous and tenacious individual, Mr. Mike Nemesvary.
Today at noon, Mr. Nemesvary set off from Parliament Hill with the goal of becoming the first quadriplegic to drive around the world. The goal of Mike's 40,000 kilometre Round the World Challenge is to raise $10 million for spinal cord research and rehabilitation. I am sure that Mike's determination and bravery remind us of a couple of other Canadians, namely, Terry Fox and Rick Hansen.
I urge all Canadians to visit Mike's website at www.roundtheworldchallenge.org and to follow his progress on this incredible journey. I hope that all Canadians will join Mike in helping to work toward a cure for spinal cord injuries.
James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, Islam encourages man to live a life blessed with honesty, mercy, courage, patience and politeness.
The Taliban government in Afghanistan, twisting and torturing the Quran, has embarked on a demolition campaign to destroy two monumental Buddha statues that date back to the second and fifth centuries.
The use of instruments of war to extinguish diversity, in this case that of Buddhism, is an affront to the best interests of all who believe that the best interest of man is served in a world tolerant of religious plurality and compassion.
Tolerance and religious freedom are virtues on which the future of a safe and secure world will be built. The military assault on these virtues by the government of Afghanistan is an action we should all deplore.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, the X-Men are kings of the court. This past Sunday at Halifax's Metro Centre, St. Francis Xavier University men's basketball team repeated as the CIAU men's basketball champions with an 83 to 76 overtime win against the Brandon Bobcats.
This is the third national title for the X-Men since 1993 and the third straight win for the Atlantic conference. This championship game caps off a remarkable season during which St. F-X held a 31 and 1 record and marked its 29th straight win on the court. As coach Steve Konchalski put it, his team refused to lose all year long.
I congratulate Coach K., tournament MVP Randy Nohr, and the entire team and staff of St. F-X, home of the top CIAU men's basketball team in Canada..
Joe McGuire Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Speaker, the number one industry in Prince Edward Island has fallen victim to unfair trade restrictions from the United States.
The potato industry almost ground to a complete halt last fall when the discovery of potato wart prompted the U.S. to close its borders. Even though science is on our side, the U.S. still bullheadedly continues with ridiculous and unjustified restrictions which could essentially result in the destruction of an entire industry of a Canadian province.
Free trade agreements are useless when only one partner abides by the rules. Our province is part of Confederation and should benefit from nationwide support. The U.S. has demonstrated a patent disrespect for P.E.I, for Canada and for an entire system set up to protect the industries of our two countries.
I call upon our government and our nation to unite and send a clear message to the United States. If it can shut the border without just cause then Canada can too. Next week let us target Idaho, then California, then Florida.