Debates of March 20th, 2001

Business Of The House

[The Speaker]

I wish to inform the House of a translation error in today's opposition motion. A revised copy is available at the table.

Supply

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

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. Debate arose thereon.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to raise an issue before the House on the acceptability and admissibility of the motion.

The motion reads:

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—

It is noteworthy, from a procedural point of view, that the motion does not urge the government. It directs the government to do the action in question. The motion does not say that the House ask the government to consider the advisability of spending $400 million. It calls on the government to authorize such an expenditure. I will get to both of those terms in a moment.

In other words, I will argue with the Chair that the motion directs the government to make such an expenditure.

Standing Order 79(1) deals very clearly with this kind of situation. It states:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.

There is no recommendation for the motion from the governor in council which purports to direct the government to make an expenditure. It is, therefore, in my estimation, out of order.

Marleau and Montpetit, at page 901, indicate how such a motion should be worded. It says:

As an alternative to a bill which might require a royal recommendation obtained only by a Minister, a private Member may choose to move a motion proposing the expenditure of public funds, provided that the terms of the motion only suggest this course of action to the government without ordering or requiring it to do so.

The motion uses extremely definitive language. It does not suggest something to the government. When one calls upon someone to do something, one is not thinking about it or making a suggestion, one is telling or directing someone to do it.

Beauchesne's 6th edition, at page 186, goes into more detail. Citation 616 states:

Motions purporting to give the Government a direct order to do a thing which requires the expenditure of money are out of order.

Citation 617 states:

Abstract motions should use the words, “that the Government consider the advisability of...”

Number (2) of citation 617 states:

When these words are used, it leaves the Government free, after considering the advisability of doing something, to come to the conclusion that it should not do so. There would not, therefore, necessarily be an expenditure of public money involved.

In other words, if one is ordering the government to do something, it causes the expenditure, and if the government does not have the tools to refuse to do that thing, then it is ordered and therefore it requires royal recommendation.

Number (3) of citation 617 states:

An abstract motion does not finally bind the House to make the grant, and it imposes upon the Government the responsibility of either accepting or rejecting the recommendation.

This motion is not at all abstract. It specifies an amount of money. It specifies the recipient. It specifies what is not to be included in the calculation of the amount. It specifies a time limit by which the payment is to be made. All of those elements, not just one or just some, are there. It does not say to the government to go away and think about it or consider it, it says to do it. This is a direct violation of Standing Order 79.

I would like to draw a couple more things to the attention of the Chair. Page 213 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's, which refers to the royal recommendation, states:

The recommendation precedes every grant of money, the consent may be given at any stage before final passage, and is always necessary in matters involving the rights of the Crown, its patronage, its property or its prerogatives.

This comes from Bourinot , page 413.

You will notice as well, Mr. Speaker, that the motion in question states “That this House call on the government”. I explained extensively why I do not think call satisfies the criteria. However the word authorize is in the motion. That is a word utilized in the estimates, estimates that are tabled in the House pursuant not only to a royal recommendation but signed by the Governor General and we rise in the House to acknowledge the royal recommendation which was made.

Page 1-2 of the main estimates, entitled “The Expenditure Plan Overview”, states:

The 2001-2002 Main Estimates present budgetary spending authorities totalling $163.4 billion.

That is the amount in question. In other words, that language is in the estimate process with which we deal.

Finally, Mr. Speaker might be tempted to say that it has happened on a couple of occasions that the words “call upon the government” have been inserted in a motion put before the House by the opposition. Should the Speaker be tempted to say that that would constitute the precedent on which the Chair might want to rule that the motion is in order, I would suggest that it does no such thing.

First, there may have been two or three such motions in the past. Prior to that they were never accepted. Because no one has challenged him on a point of order in the past, the Chair did not rule on the acceptability of those motions. Therefore, he was not called upon to rule them in order. I believe that this is the first opportunity the Chair has been called upon to do so by a member of the House. I would ask the Chair to consider that particular proposition as well.

Those are points that I wanted to make to the Chair this morning. The motion calls upon the government to authorize an expenditure. It specifies when the expenditure is to be made, who the recipient will be, the timeframe on which to give it and what is to count and not to count as part of that expenditure.

In my opinion, this is not in order.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, to quote the hon. House leader, he knows this is not a point of order. It is a nice try but it is not a point of order and he knows that full well.

It is also cutting into debate time. I hope at the end of this discussion that this time could be added on to the allotted day because farmers want this issue debated, they want it debated in full and they want it debated today.

I point out in Marleau and Montpetit on page 724, under the consideration of opposition motion, it says:

Members in opposition to the government may propose motions for debate on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, as well as on committee reports concerning Estimates.

We could have a debate today about the estimates and how the government has failed to contribute the necessary funds to deal with the farm crisis. Instead we chose a motion which is obviously in order and has been tabled with the required notice ahead of time.

It is also important to note that our motion does not direct the government to a course of action. It does not order the government to do a certain thing. It does not compel it to a certain course of action. However, it does call on the government, as are farmers across the country, to a course of action that will direct the government to help out with the farm crisis. So it is a plea.

It calls on the government to address that concern. I hope it will enter into the debate in such a way that by the end of it the government will understand the severity of the crisis and will vote in favour of the motion.

Under Beauchesne's parliamentary rules, page 256, paragraph 923, with respect to opposition day motions, states:

The Opposition prerogative is very broad in the use of the allotted day and ought not to be interfered with—

The government House leader, while he has an interesting discussion, should perhaps change his late night reading to something more entertaining than the standing orders because he knows full well his is not a point of order.

I did not have notice of this. It would have been interesting to go back to see what the government House leader had in some of his opposition day motions when he sat on this side of the House. He called on the government of the day to spend money freely, widely, indiscriminately and at will, especially his. I am just pointing out again that is not what this is. It is very specific to a particular crisis and is calling on the government.

For clarity, there are two parts to this motion. The second part has to do with the confidence measure. Just to be clear, that is what we call a free vote. That means the government will not rise or fall on this debate. It is a free vote. We can have a debate on this and the House can even decide in favour of this motion without the government falling.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is straying a little off the point. I do not think the government House leader was arguing that the motion was out of order because of anything it said about the confidence convention, words which I know are in the motion I put to the House a minute ago. The hon. member might simply be wading into a morass if he brings that subject up.

Might I suggest we deal with the admissibility of the amendment on the grounds raised by the government House leader, rather than going off. Frankly, the Chair is not concerned beyond anything the government House leader might have raised. That is why I would like to hear on that point and nothing else.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the confidence measure, not to belabour that, is in order as it says in Beauchesne's. The first part is also in order because it does not direct the government or order the government. It would have been out of order if, for example, we had just said that the House authorize or the House direct the government to spend money, or change the budget or any such thing. It does not do that.

It calls on the government to address this serious crisis. It calls on the government to react to this particular proposal, which is very precise. It is completely in order. We look forward to the debate which I suggest should be starting immediately.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, to speak very briefly in support of the submission put forward by my learned friend the House leader for the official opposition, this matter when viewed in the whole does not order the government to do something. It calls upon the government to exercise its discretion and increase spending with respect to farming.

The Speaker has always held, as set out in both Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit, that broad discretion should be used when interpreting these types of motions. It would be unduly unfair for this motion to be ruled out of order.

I suggest that it is very much an attempt by the government House leader to eat into the debate time. This can be interpreted as not only an insult to the official opposition and members of the opposition who support this, but also a swipe at farmers who are very much in need and very much interested in seeing their issue aired in a public way in this House.

I suggest that the submissions of the government House leader do not rule this motion out of order, that we should get on with the debate so we can talk about the real issue today, and that is how the government is underfunding farmers in this country.

[The Speaker]

The Chair thanks all hon. members who have made contributions to this debate, the House leader for the official opposition, the government House leader and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

I start by citing to hon. members page 724 of Marleau and Montpetit:

Members in opposition to the government may propose motions for debate on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, as well as on committee reports concerning Estimates. The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on Supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (e.g., where the procedural aspect is not open to reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene.

Notwithstanding the very able arguments of the government House leader, the Chair has reviewed this motion and I will allow myself to fall into the temptation that the government House leader warned me against by citing to the House past practice in respect of this matter.

On October 25, 1999, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake proposed a motion to the House:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to defend the interest of Canadian farmers from the unfair subsidies and unfair trading practices by foreign countries...accordingly, the government should immediately ensure that emergency compensation is delivered to farmers—

On March 2, 2000, the hon. member for Halifax moved:

That this House calls upon the government to stand up for the Canadian value of universal public health care by announcing within one week of the passage of this motion a substantial and sustained increase in cash transfers for health—

On March 20, 2000, the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill moved:

That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion—

There is ample precedent for these kinds of motions to be moved in the House. The Chair, in considering these motions, admittedly heard no argument on the admissibility of the motions. However, in putting any motion to the House, the Chair reviews its procedural acceptability, and unless the Chair feels that the motion is within the rules and the precedents of the House, the Chair will decline to put the motion and may instruct hon. members that amendments are required, and that consultations are an ongoing feature of submissions of motions and amendments in the House.

As hon. members know, if they submit an amendment that in the opinion of the staff of the House working under the Speaker's direction feel is inappropriate or out of order, suggestions are made to improve the wording or change the wording to bring it within the practices of the House.

While the hon. government House leader feels it might be falling into temptation on my part to rely on these past practices, the fact is they have been allowed in the past because the Chair took the view that they were in order. It might have been urged otherwise, but I suspect the ruling then would have been the same as it is today, and that is, that this motion is in fact in order. Notwithstanding the very able arguments of the hon. government House leader, we will proceed with the debate.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your prudent ruling. I am sure that members of all parties who individually supported your ascendancy to Chair are in fact congratulating themselves for their good judgment and your good judgment. We appreciate that.

Farming is said by some to be a way of life but it is also a business. No one knows better than Canadian farm families today that the price of this business has often been bankruptcy. Over the past year prices have plummeted. Farmers are facing the prospect of not being able to put seed into the ground. They are facing many challenges.

Let me say from the outset and make it very clear that I believe Canadian farmers are as innovative, as hardworking and as entrepreneurial as any in the world. In fact, Canadian farmers can take on the world and feed the world and do it on a competitive basis.

Canadian farmers believe this too, but the fact of the matter is that our farmers are competing in an artificial field, competing against subsidies in the United States and in Europe that are artificially high. Everything is skewed against our farmers. They are asking for the playing field to be levelled. In fact, because of the field not being level and because of the federal government's neglect, it is as if the federal government has tied the hands of our farmers and hobbled their feet. It is as if the government has put a 100 pound weight on their backs, thrown them into the international race and is expecting them to keep up. That is unrealistic and it can and needs to be changed. However, the federal government does not want to change the rules to give our Canadian farmers the level playing field they need and that is what this discussion is all about today.

Add to this weight that farmers already carry because of government inaction an unrealistic tax regime, not just for farmers but for agriculture businesses that would like to expand opportunities for farm products, and add to that Agriculture Canada user fees, and we see the weight that has been unrealistically placed on the backs of our farmers.

Whether we are talking about growing grains, oilseeds, corn and soybeans in Ontario or about wheat in the west or any of the ridings producing farm products across Canada, farm incomes have fallen severely in the last three years. The projection is that they will continue to fall. This is a very serious message and it is a very serious crisis that our farmers face right now.

It has been estimated that farm income for grains and oilseed producers is projected to fall as much as 35% from the five year average in the year 2000. That is a drastic and unbearable drop. It is important to note that the five year average already includes two years of disastrous commodity prices. This level of income is not sufficient to sustain the agriculture industry in Canada. Years of neglect by the federal government has resulted in the need for an immediate emergency compensation package. We will talk about the other things that also need to be done, but this compensation package is the most pressing issue for agriculture today.

We believe the situation is so severe that we have called for an immediate emergency package of at least $1 billion in new federal spending. It is important to point out that this must be additional spending from the federal government, not just a reallocation of spending that has been promised and in fact not delivered. This dollar amount is based on clear estimates of what we calculate to be the hurt Canadian farmers have been carrying and the damage they face, mainly as a result of the unrealistic subsidies from the United States and the European market.

Some of our political opponents would like to say that the Canadian Alliance is not bringing forward a consistent policy because we call for free trade on the one hand yet demand an emergency package for farmers on the other. However, let me be very clear that this is absolutely consistent with the Canadian Alliance position. Our agriculture policy states that “we should only reduce Canadian farm support in conjunction with other countries”. That is a direct quote from our policy.

This is far different from what the Canadian government has done since it signed the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Support for European and U.S. farmers has not changed significantly from the time of the GATT agreements. We saw support for our farmers slashed and drastically reduced. We cannot expect our farmers to fight this, and not just against farmers from the United States and Europe because those farmers are backed by the might of the treasuries of Europe and the United States. This is an unrealistic expectation.

Subsidies provided by our trade competitors to increase their own agriculture production are the principal cause of this current farm income crisis in Canada. A lot of Canadians would be surprised to know that in 1999 European wheat farmers received 58% of their income from government. In 1999, U.S. wheat farmers received 46% of their income from government, while Canadian farmers received only 11% of their income from the government in 1999. This is a very dramatic change in terms of what Canadian farmers face.

In 1997, U.S. support for its oilseed producers amounted to only 4% of income. However, we must look at what happened in just two years. By 1999, that support had ballooned to 25% of U.S. oilseed producers' income. During the same time, support for Canadian oilseed producers remained essentially unchanged. These are drastic comparisons. It should be no surprise that the U.S. is now forecasting a fifth year of record soybean production while the value of Canada's soybean crop continues to fall dramatically.

Before the last GATT round of trade negotiations were completed Canadian farmers were basically at par with U.S. subsidy levels. After the round was completed, the gap between Canadian and U.S. subsidies began to grow and that put added pressure on our farmers. While Canadian farm support has fallen since the accord, support for U.S. farmers has actually returned to pre-GATT levels. Canadian farmers were actually worse off after the last round of trade negotiations.

This gap between support levels for Ontario and those for U.S. grain and oilseed growers is actually equivalent to about $63 an acre for a typical farm growing a mix of corn, soybeans and wheat. This means that the cost of achieving equity with U.S. farmers would be about $300 million per year for Ontario and about $1.5 billion nationwide. These are real costs. These are measurable effects. Our farmers, as I have said, are some of the most efficient producers in the world, but they are competing against European and U.S. treasuries all on their own.

This serious drop in revenues, which has been caused by these increasing foreign subsidies, has also been compounded by skyrocketing costs. It is not as if farmers are just fighting subsidies. Costs are rocketing through the roof.

There are not many people outside the farm community who know the degree to which farmers are impacted by energy costs and the significant increases there. The cost of getting their crops into the ground in the spring and of harvesting in the fall is highly dependent on the cost of diesel fuel, as is the cost of getting their product to market. Then we have the ballooning cost of fertilizer which uses natural gas as a key ingredient. All farmers here today know what has happened to fertilizer costs, but I wonder if Canadians know of the increased cost because of soaring energy costs.

What has the federal government done to assist in those energy costs? It has sent cheques to students and to prisoners in jail. I think it is time that the government looked at the energy costs and the increases being carried by farmers.

The current programs have failed. The 1998 agriculture income disaster assistance program continues to hold back a huge percentage of the money that was promised to farmers, with 8,700 claims from 1999 that have not even been processed. We say it is time to get that money off the cabinet table and onto the kitchen tables of family farms.

Some have said that the $500 million the government has just promised is a lot of money. We can make the analogy of putting 500 litres of fuel into an airplane so it can cross the ocean, but it needs 1,000 litres to make the trip. There is no point in even filling the plane if it is going to crash into the ocean. That is what we are talking about. Farmers cannot even get the crops into the ground if they know they cannot complete the job.

This must be done and it must be done immediately. We are talking about an industry that is 8.5% of the Canadian gross domestic product and employs 1.9 million Canadians. In Ontario, it is the number two industry.

I want to add that we must not leave unattended the other things that must be done. I just want to say in closing that once we get this emergency help we must aggressively attack foreign subsidies, we must remove the 4 cent per litre federal excise tax on farm fuel, we must encourage more value added processing with a realistic tax regime, we must give all grain farmers marketing choice, especially those in western Canada, and we must reduce farmers' costs by modernizing the grain handling and transportation system.

We demand this action. We demand that the government move on this emergency request and that it do so now.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting the balance of my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech from the Leader of the Opposition. I recall that when the member was campaigning in Regina during the election he said that our farmers do not need any more subsidies, that they are the best farmers in the world. I am wondering why he has changed his tune to such an extent in a matter of a few months.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous, because all through the campaign, as a matter of fact, I gave a speech very close to this one. I said that if the U.S. and Europe were not involved in this increased subsidy game, we would not need these subsidies. However, because they are involved in that game, we need these subsidies.

I also distinctly remember a speech in Saskatchewan during the election in which a Liberal candidate said the reason farmers were not getting help was that they were not voting Liberal. Those are the kinds of comments I remember in the campaign in Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Gordon Barnhart, a former clerk of the Saskatchewan legislature, recently published a book on the history of Saskatchewan's first premier, Walter Scott. Throughout that book he made references to agriculture, one which I will quote: “If agriculture prospers, so will this land”. He was referring mainly to the new province of Alberta, but it is also true if we look at the history of Saskatchewan in particular. If agriculture prospers, so does the province.

The hon. member alluded in his speech to the fact that agriculture has been going down. All he has to do is take one journey through my constituency. It is so evident what is happening: agriculture and the people are in a desperate situation. I have received well over 1,000 desperate calls.

I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition could agree with the premise that we must prosper in agriculture if we are going to be a viable community.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain is not only good on history but on the future, because he is looking ahead in a proactive way.

Of course when agriculture as an industry is 8.5% of our GDP, with 1.9 million Canadians directly involved in agriculture or agriculture industry markets, it is vitally important to the entire economy of the country.

If we look back to pre-depression years, we can see that when the agriculture community was affected everything got hit, whether it was implement dealers or producers of various seed products, everything we can imagine in terms of all the products and lines that are being affected today.

I agree 100% and, as a matter of fact, it is not just a premise but a fact that our economy depends on agriculture in a very significant way.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the front page of the National Post today tells us that junior ministers are to get limos as the Prime Minister reverses policy. It will cost the Canadian taxpayer about $50,000 for each one of the secretaries of state who will get a limo courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada, yet farmers are left behind.

As my colleague said: 1,000 desperate phone calls and they have received nothing. How many desperate phone calls did the Prime Minister receive from secretaries of state demanding cars?

I would like to hear the hon. leader's comments regarding the disparity in the ways in which cabinet secretaries and farmers are treated in this country.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It is a penetrating question, Mr. Speaker. I am tempted to move toward some partisan remarks, but I will try to restrain myself because this is very serious. It reflects the priorities of the government, whether it is cars for junior ministers—and reflecting the fact that tractors cannot move into fields—whether it is putting hundreds of millions of dollars into other highly questionable activities, or whether it is to reflect on the comments of the auditor general who has asked the question in terms of the management of hundreds of millions of dollars by the government. The auditor general has asked this question: who is minding the store?

Just on the amount of money the federal Liberal government has spilled and wasted, we could top up this amount and meet what is required for farmers facing disaster today, leaving alone the government's misplaced priorities.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has today brought forward this motion suggesting very clearly and telling the government quite clearly that $900 million is the minimum amount of money required to get our grains, oilseeds, corn and soybean producers through this spring seeding.

Only $500 million of that money was brought forward by the agriculture minister. As a result, I have found it necessary to bring the issue of agriculture and the income situation back to the House and once again put it to the members. We are moving past the cabinet, which produces half measures, to the House as a whole so that individual MPs can stand in their places and say through their votes whether or not they support agriculture.

This is a crisis. This is not some frivolous exercise we are going through in the House. This is a crisis.

However, agriculture is not in total crisis. There are many sectors that are doing fine. The problem the agriculture minister has is that the government has not put forward any long term policies that would help the sectors that are affected when the price cycle hits bottom, which is a normal thing with agriculture commodities around the world and in Canada. The government has no policies that come into play to give those farm sectors and commodity groups not a profit but the ability to continue to farm and to contribute to Canada's national product and to the food supply we all need.

People have been asking if this should even be done. Our food supply is essential to the well-being of our country. It contributes dramatically to the well-being of every Canadian. Having a viable agricultural sector, with the expertise required to be a farmer these days, is in our national interest and our vital interest. We must maintain that infrastructure and ability in Canada so that we can continue to feed ourselves.

I have mentioned the agriculture minister. He has brought programs forward and he will be talking about all the money that has been put out to farmers. However the last statistics I have on the AIDA program, for the years 1998 and 1999, show that only 62% of that money has been given out. That is part of the problem. Not only is the money insufficient but it is not necessarily given out.

I will deal a little more with the politics of this and the responsibility of backbenchers. Ultimately the cabinet has responsibility but we, as individual members of parliament, have one member, one vote. My vote is every bit as good as the minister of agriculture's in that we each have one of 301 votes in the House. If each member represents their constituents, then we will see the motion pass at the end of the day because many MPs in the House know that farming is essential to the country and that the $400 million is essential to farming.

Backbenchers on the government side, including the Ontario rural caucus chair, have indicated that the opposition should be doing more on the issue and that somehow that would translate into more action by the cabinet. We have been doing quite a lot, right back to 1998 when I became chief agriculture critic for the official opposition. We have had motion after motion.

The agriculture minister was giving speeches in Regina and suggested to the agriculture committee that we should go out west and hold hearings for farmers. The chair of the day from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia said that was a good idea and nine meetings were held. I put a motion forward saying that not only should we hold hearings in western Canada to listen to farmers but that we should go into Ontario.

It is not enough to have fancy words and good speeches telling everyone how sincere we are about the issues.

When I was at the agriculture committee there were members who voted against my motion to hold hearings on safety net issues in Ontario. Had those hearings been held I think perhaps the government would have understood from farmers back in 1998-99 that the crisis was real and that it had to do something.

The members who voted against me and against holding hearings in Ontario were the members for Gatineau, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Whitby—Ajax, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Kitchener Centre, Leeds—Grenville and Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

The member for Toronto—Danforth has professed quite loudly that he is a big supporter of farmers. I take him at his word. He held a concert in Toronto and a big dinner here in the Hall of Honour. It was a big public relations exercise, for all apparent purposes. Here at the Hall of Honour dinner farmers believed they and MPs were signing a petition that would result in action being taken by the House. That was not within the rules of the House. It was a deception for the farmers who thought backbench Liberals would do something.

I told them constantly that the only way to get something done in the House was to have a vote—

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take constructively the comments from the member with one exception, and I would ask you to rule on it. The member used the word deception and I believe that is inappropriate language because it would suggest that it was a deception, a lie or a trick. Those words to me are very close, and I would ask him to withdraw.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth for his intervention but, respectfully, I am not satisfied that I would require asking another member to withdraw the word deception in the context in which it was used.

However I take the opportunity early in the debate to ask all members to be generous and, to use a word from previous parliaments, judicious in their choice of words, and particularly to be respectful of one another given the importance of this issue to a large number of Canadians.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was certainly trying to commend the member for what he tried to do in bringing the information to city people around the country, but also for ensuring that the right message is sent to rural dwellers.

After the $500 million was announced, of course, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, following up on what I had already done, sent a letter to the editor “Re: Federal government campaign against farmers”. It was dated March 15, right after the $500 million was announced. It said:

The federal government has fired up its formidable propaganda machine to counter the day of action carried out by farmers across Canada on March 14, 2001.

The ad that ran in newspapers cost anywhere from $1,500 to $2,500 at the going rate. I know the federal government gets a cut but it is still an awful lot of money.

Members will note that the newspaper ad, in big black letters, says “Supporting our Farmers”. This is followed by smaller font, and then, again in big black letters, it says “$1.6 billion”. This is followed by more small font, and then the ad talks about the spring credit advance program. The next big font reads “$700 million”. This is misinformation to people who do not understand farm issues or how much money has actually gone to farmers.

When they read the ad, it says “Government of Canada”, “Supporting our Farmers”, “$1.6 billion”, “$700 million”. Those words stand out. The ad has everyone believing that somehow farmers have received $2.3 billion. This kind of information should not happen.

We have letters of support for the motion today from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Keystone Agriculture Producers, farm organizations and farmers across the country. I do not think there is one farmer out there who will not support it.

I am asking if Liberal members will support the motion, which gives direction to the agriculture minister and the cabinet that $400 million is what is required as an immediate emergency cash injection for the year 2001. I think the government will support the motion and come through with the required funding.

I would like to move an amendment at this time. I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting between the words “to” and “authorize” the word “immediately”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The amendment is in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member and the Alliance Party for bringing forward this issue under their supply day. I do, as members of the House recognize, believe very strongly in the issue.

I have always been somewhat confused about the Alliance policy on agriculture, but it seems to be a little clearer today after the Alliance leader and the member for Selkirk—Interlake spoke on it, although it is more anti-government than pro-farming.

I have a question for the member for Selkirk—Interlake and perhaps he can clear it up for me. He spoke very eloquently on support for farmers right now. However, back in October 2000 Statistics Canada said there were 22,100 fewer farmers than during the previous year. I will quote the member who indicated at the time:

It doesn't necessarily indicate a disaster happening. It indicates to me more the rationalization and changing of the business side of the agriculture sector. While the study indicated that there's fewer farmers on the prairies, that doesn't mean we're going to have less production or lower agriculture sector dollar earnings.

Could the member explain how that comment fits into what he is now talking about with respect to the supports that are necessary in agriculture? He says here that it does not necessarily mean less dollar earnings, but that it does not necessarily mean less production either. Perhaps he could clear that up for me.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member for Brandon—Souris continues with old style politics about how the agriculture sector works and his understanding of it. The Progressive Conservatives had many years with massive majorities to set forth a long term agriculture policy. The member for Brandon—Souris sits there questioning whether the Canadian Alliance has a strong agriculture policy.

We have a strong policy regarding grain transportation and organic farming. We support supply management. We have always supported safety nets for farmers. When the Crow rate was thrown out we had the trade distortion adjustment program that would have continued supporting farmers.

Let us talk about the survey the member mentioned. The survey was not taken out of income tax forms. It was not taken out of who was filing an income and expense statement. It was a phone survey done by Statistics Canada. The survey did not determine the number of farms lost. It determined what it was told were the number of farm jobs lost. Certainly there were fewer people in the agriculture sector than before. However this member continues to ignore history. At the end of the second world war in Saskatchewan there were something like 175,000 farmers. At this point there are some 60,000 to 75,000 farmers there.

The Canadian Alliance very clearly understands that change or evolution in any business sector, including the agriculture sector, is necessary. Those members who would sit and save the status quo as it was 5 or 10 years ago are doomed to failure, and the Canadian Alliance will not let Canadian agriculture fail.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the previous member talked about the standing committee on agriculture visiting the prairies in late November and December 1999. He read into the record the number of members of parliament from Ontario sitting on that committee who voted against similar meetings being held in Ontario.

My question is for the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake. Of the nine meetings that were held in western Canada, three in each of the three prairie provinces, how many meetings did the agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance attend?

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting question. I did not attend any of those meetings because the Canadian Alliance has such a depth of members of parliament with expertise in the agriculture field that we had members at every one of those hearings. While those hearings were ongoing and in that immediate timeframe, I was in southwestern Ontario representing farmers who were not being represented by their own MPs. Also during that time we had the agriculture producers hearings on the go. We had meetings with 3,500 farmers in 72 different ridings.

It is pointless for the NDP to say that we have not been doing our job. Hansard will show that the Canadian Alliance has done more for agriculture in the House than any other party since 1997.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and discussion on the importance of agriculture and agri-food in Canada.

We in the government can clearly show through our actions the importance of the industry. Farmers and the agri-food industry are the backbone of rural Canada. A lot happens in rural Canada, and agriculture is a major part of it. Certainly other sectors of our economy and resource sectors are involved as well.

We all contribute to the good standard of living in Canada. There is no question that there is some stress out there in certain sectors of primary production. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake pointed out in his comments a minute ago that some sectors were affected at the present time more than others. A couple of years ago some other sectors were affected.

We must work collectively and constructively to put together programs, recognizing that those programs have to be altered and changed as time goes on. It is like building a new building, a new office or a new kitchen. In a few years one has to recognize there are some realities to deal with.

One of the realities we had to deal with was the financial situation of the country when we formed the government in 1993. I will not go into it, because people know about that disastrous situation. In 1997, when I became minister of agriculture, the safety net envelope of the federal government was $600 million.

In the fall of 1998 the industry was saying that it needed $450 million in extra support above and beyond what was there for income support. The government put $1.07 billion in place to assist over the next two years.

The long term safety net agreement that we signed with the provinces last summer for the first time ever has an envelope in it of $435 million for income support alone. That is above and beyond the support that is there for programs such as companion programs within the provinces, the net income stabilization account, crop insurance support, et cetera. As a result of the document we all signed, it is $1.1 billion. When the provinces put their share with ours, their 40% for our 60%, it came to $1.8 billion.

As everyone knows, a couple of weeks ago the government announced an additional $500 million for income support to be allocated to the provinces based on our allocation formula of 60%. Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction, as we know, so when the provinces put their share with that it came to the $830 million which was announced a couple of weeks ago. The total available to farmers is $2.66 billion, the highest level of support for farmers since 1995. Members can say what they want, but I assure them that money will go to farmers.

In addition, we increased two and a half times the spring advance program the government put in place last year. Farmers can borrow up to $50,000 interest free this year to help put their crops in the ground. We estimate that farmers will take advantage of that to the extent of at least $700 million.

I ask the House and people across the country where the provinces were. Most of the provinces did not put any money on the table until the federal government forced them to come forward with their 40%. Some of them are even kicking and screaming at that, saying that their province does not want to take part in it.

For example, one province in the last two years received $400 million in support from the agriculture income disaster assistance program. The announcement last week of $500 million will mean another $200 million to that province on top of the estimate of the Canadian farm income program for this year of $200 million. That will be $400 million in government support to one province alone for the 2000 crop year.

I appreciate some of the comments being made today. I appreciate some of the comments out there in the public today and coming from farm leaders. I neglected to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth.

Overall we need to talk about government support to farms, but we need to talk about farm income in general. What can we do as opposition parties, as government, as industries, as provincial governments, to put in place a longer term plan?

The analogy I would like to give is that we have been trying to fix the roof for a number of years, with some success but certainly not total success for everyone. It is time that we put effort into analyzing and reviewing the programs, which was started. That was discussed and agreed to by my provincial counterparts last week.

We have 145,000 farmers enrolled in the net income stabilization account with $3.3 billion in their accounts. Is that $3.3 billion being used to the extent that it could be? I do not know. We need to look at it.

We have 100,000 farmers that participate in crop insurance. They have $5 billion in crop insurance out there. Are the crop insurance programs the best they could be? I do not know. My guess is there will be some improvements in co-operation with the provinces. I could go on, but we need to talk about how we can assist the overall income.

We know that there are pressures and that consumers are concerned about how agriculture is treating the environment and about food safety. We also know there are farmers out there who need some transition within their own farming operation, for example. We know as well that there may be some lands out there that, given the realities of the day, economically just do not make sense. No matter what the good Lord gave them for resources and under the best of management, with the realities of today production capacity is just not there.

Can we assist those producers to do something else or something different with their land? There is no question that there are some producers who need skills training. I believe there is a role for the federal and provincial governments and industry to provide that type of thing. I look forward to hearing constructive criticism.

We need to take that approach to build a new barn. When we build that new barn a few years down the road we know we will have to do some renovations. I have farmed all my life and I am realistic. When I built barns I thought they were the be-all and end-all, but I knew that down the road I would have to analyse and make some renovations.

The long term approach is the one we have to take. There is a short term need. The government has sought all available resources for the bridging approach that will take us to the long term approach. We cannot continue to manage the way we have been on a year to year basis. As we said in the throne speech we have to do long term planning to move it beyond crisis management. I am confident that will take place as we already have it started.

Provincial ministers told me at the federal-provincial meeting last week that they too have to take that approach. They are being told by their cabinets that they have to do something in the long term approach about the overall income of farmers. This includes government support to income, but there is more to farm income than government support such as research, innovation and resource allocation.

I look forward to the comments members will be putting forward today. I am confident that as we work together we will continue to strengthen the industry to deal with the realities before us today both domestically and internationally.