Debates of March 20th, 2001

Supply

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is the standard procedure of the federal government on all issues to try to put moneys forward in the form of matching grants and then take credit for the entire amount as if it had in fact spent the entire amount. That would explain the largest proportion of what is going on here.

The original claim of the government was that it had in fact met the farmers' demands for $1 billion, with the government saying that after all, it was putting in a good chunk of that and the provinces would put in money too but only because the federal government was, so therefore the federal government really spent the money even though provincial taxpayers paid for it.

Obviously farmers have not bought that. That is in fact why they were protesting here in Ottawa and elsewhere, including Saskatchewan. Clearly proposals similar to those made by my hon. colleague would have been precisely the right direction to go in.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know this is a very important debate in the House. The minister on many occasions has said the Alliance has not raised questions about the agriculture issue, but we have, and I think it would be incumbent upon the government to have at least one minister of the crown here to—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member knows very well that he cannot allude to or refer to the absence of anyone in the House.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hard working rural caucus colleague from the great riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.

Before I put some of the good programs before the House, I have to point out some falsehoods that were put forth by the last few members who spoke, especially those from Saskatchewan.

I want to be very careful and very accurate in my description here. They talked about the money that has not gone to the Saskatchewan producers, which we are all working for. I say to my colleague from the Alliance, I would not laugh when we see from the statistics that it is very fair to point out that Saskatchewan farmers have now received very close to $400 million from AIDA. Yes, more than 80% of that money has been delivered directly to those producers. Yes, the province has helped up to this time, but now the province is denying the money to the producers.

The last $500 million, half a billion—yes, it could have been more—will be invested. The cash will get to the producers between now and the end of March. That is how fast we want to hand out the money. I would ask my colleagues, for all the right reasons, to lobby their own minister, as we members will, so that we can get the money through to our producers.

Also, my colleagues across the way were very correct in pointing out that we must have the co-operation of the European Union and the United States in bringing down the tariffs. They are right. I want to point out that our minister of trade spoke with his counterparts in the United States in the last few days. In fact, the minister of agriculture spoke to his counterpart in the United States yesterday. Our minister spoke to his colleague yesterday in Washington, and we are working on it.

I am very pleased to join this debate, but I would ask my colleagues on the far side to clarify where they stand on this situation. Perhaps that is why only once have we heard the leader of the CA Party on his feet asking questions in the House on this very important issue. The rest of the time the CA leader never stood up on this subject. That leader never stood up to be counted.

Earlier today my colleague from the great riding of Ottawa Centre pointed out that several years ago Reform Party policy was against all subsidies. When it comes to present research, the same situation exists. Less than one year ago the policy papers—I am sure they come from the leader's office and the backroom people, and I am sure my colleagues are ashamed of them—pointed out that the party is still against subsidies for our producers and our growers. It is very unfortunate.

Certainly agriculture is very important in this country and we in the government will continue to be there for our farmers. It is true that agriculture is essentially a rural industry, but rural Canada, its people and its communities are more than agricultural communities.

The federal government has resolutions and plans in place to address rural needs. Whether or not it is the main industry, whether it is agriculture or not, the government will be there for the people. In fact, rural and remote communities are a vital part of our national fabric and the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that they are able to share in and contribute to our prosperity.

Most rural communities rely on the income and the industry that agriculture generates, which is why it is essential that we support this sector beyond our farm income programs, and that is exactly what we are doing. We believe that two factors are critical to the success of our communities. First, communities must take charge of their own future. Second, the programs the government puts in place must stimulate economic development rather than just supplement it. Also, the programs must be initiated by local individuals. In other words, they have to come from the bottom up, from the grassroots.

I would like to look at what I believe are the two specific roles for government in this process. The first role is to ensure that communities have the tools to pursue their particular interests. The federal government has worked hard over the last several years to develop a series of tools that communities can access in a way that makes sense for them. I would like to take a minute to review some of them.

Canadian rural partnership is a four year, $20 million initiative that was launched in 1998. It has proven to be a great success. It includes a pilot project component that has helped fund 239 community based projects in the first three years. There is also a rural dialogue, which has given rural and remote Canadians a real voice in the decisions that affect their communities, and a rural lens, through which all government policies, programs and services are examined to make sure they respect the needs of rural and remote Canadians.

Community futures is one of the greatest programs we have had for the last decade. Our government has expanded this program by an additional $90 million in the last budget.

I am proud to say that the Secretary of State for Rural Development accompanied me to my riding this past Friday. The government invested $750,000 in the riding. The money was invested because the decisions on the money lent to small business and invested in small business and entrepreneurs will be made by the grassroots people, the great people who give their time and who are the directors of the CDC in North Hastings and Central Hastings. I would like to extend a thank you to those individuals.

In budget 2000 we announced $2.65 billion over the next five years to rebuild our national infrastructure. Work will include improvements to grain roads in the west as well as federal bridges and wharves. Most of these will be in rural Canada.

Last summer the secretary of state and the hon. minister of agriculture announced the Canadian agricultural rural communities initiative, CARCI. Funding of more than $9 million will be provided over the next three years to help agricultural rural communities adapt to change.

These are just some of the ways our government and our programs help rural communities, including farmers, achieve profitability and stability in the long term and prevent sole reliance on farm income programs. By encouraging and investing in local development, the risk of becoming one industry towns is minimized.

There is a second role for government. Community development requires more than the investment of dollars. It requires an investment in people, an investment in community leaders, not just the decision makers but all the people who have innovative ideas and all the people who make important contributions to provide the vision their communities will have in the future.

We have to foster that culture of creativity in our communities. We can have initiatives that sound great on paper, but without the individuals who have the skills and the initiative to set the economic wheels in motion, we will not succeed in achieving long term sustainable development in our communities.

This development can only happen when all partners are working together and everyone has common long term goals. The key to helping rural communities move away from being dependent is to be self-sufficient.

In that speech the government said:

Canadian communities of all sizes—whether urban or rural, aboriginal or multicultural—face diverse challenges and have unique needs. The Government of Canada will strive to ensure that, whenever possible, its actions and programs are co-ordinated to help build local solutions to local challenges.

This empowering of local communities will govern our actions as we implement our campaign and our throne speech commitments. This will be evident as we carry out our commitment to our rural communities.

Specifically, the Speech from the Throne said:

The government will help Canada's agricultural sector beyond crisis management—leading to more genuine diversification and value-added growth, new investments and employment, better land use, and high standards of environmental stewardship and food safety.

The government provides funding but to be effective it is essential that initiatives are developed by local individuals to address local needs and priorities.

The people at the grassroots are the best ones to make decisions that affect their communities. It is this bottom up approach that is absolutely essential to effective community development.

One-third of our population lives and works in rural Canada. They are a vital piece of our social fabric that makes our country. I am sure we all agree on one thing. We are very proud of the citizens of rural Canada.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if there is a disaster in Canada, the Prime Minister usually visits the area. I personally delivered a letter of invitation to the Prime Minister but he has consistently refused to meet with farmers.

I do not believe the Prime Minister could ignore the plight of grain farmers, if he could personally witness this disaster. Why does the Prime Minister not come to Saskatchewan and personally meet with farmers?

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the invitation. I am sure he wants to include all of us.

I have visited his great riding, which includes Yorkton, in the last two years. I am glad we have an infrastructure program so we can do a little better job on the roads north of Indian Head.

However, I know my colleague will agree that I have met with many farmers from Saskatchewan in the last few weeks. Many of my colleagues, urban and rural on both sides of the House, have met with these farmers. Our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has met with the farmers and spokespeople. We met with them here on the Hill in the last few days. As I said, our minister spoke to our U.S. colleague.

To answer my colleague, I would like to see the Prime Minister also visit his riding. However, let us put forth right now the fact that the Prime Minister has met with farmers from Saskatchewan more than once in the very last few months. The Prime Minister was very kind to extend an invitation to Nick and his combine. I did not say that the combine was on the grounds at 24 Sussex, but I was very glad that the Prime Minister met with Nick.

More important and most serious, the Prime Minister and his office met with more of these producers in the last few days, and we shall again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have certainly been following the words of the member for the Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

Today is decision day. We will be voting on the motion today to support farmers with an additional $400 million. When we look at the other issues surrounding agriculture, his stand on issues has not been in keeping with the agriculture sector. I would quickly point out that he supports a Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. Our organic farmers have voted overwhelmingly that they want to have marketing outside the wheat board, along with many other farmers of standard grains.

I do not see any pressure to lower the federal excise tax on fuel. This member supports grain transportation which is highly regulated and causes problems with the wheat board. The gun bill is still in place by the government.

Will the member vote for or against this motion to give farmers $400 million?

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I watched the news today on farmers from across this country. It reminded me of my colleague who does a lot of great work on our committee. I believe we still will. It is a committee that gets along probably better than any other committee on the Hill.

I was reminded of Canadian cattlemen. I would not want to include a list of which members opposite belong to this wonderful association. I admire the Canadian cattlemen, I appreciate them and support them. However they are asking, as they and their colleagues have before, that we not support giving money to our producers.

We cannot have it both ways. I am not asking my colleague to stand up and say that we will hand out a few dollars today, but we will not be there tomorrow. We will be there tomorrow for our producers.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to take this opportunity to thank the opposition for bringing forward a motion today on agriculture. It is a very important issue. I believe we have a crisis in agriculture today. As rural members in the House, it gives us an opportunity to speak on agriculture. It is very much appreciated.

At the same time too, I want to thank the Prime Minister, the cabinet, my colleagues in our rural caucus and some of our urban members, such as the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Parkdale—High Park, two downtown Toronto members who stood up and voiced the concerns that many Canadians have on the crisis in agriculture.

I also want to thank the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of National Defence who are all urban cabinet ministers but who are in the House today talking about this issue. They are concerned about this and have been listening to the concerns of all members about the crisis.

We are here today, aside from the politics of the issue, because agriculture in Canada is in crisis. We have heard from many different people who have many differing views on what the crisis is, how best we can solve it and whether or not money should be flowing into the hands of agriculture, farmers and rural Canadians.

From the bias of coming from a rural area, a small town Ontario riding which has very many similarities with the ridings of the hon. members across the floor who are from other provinces, I say there is a crisis out there and we need to further recognize that. As parliamentarians and as a government, I believe we need to move to do more in this area.

The opposition suggests that we need to put more money into it. Our rural caucus and our cabinet ministers who supported us came up with a good package that addressed many of the immediate concerns that farmers have today, particularly those concerns of getting crops into the ground this year.

In saying that, I believe we need to do more and can do more. In fact we not only need to look at the immediate crisis, but we need to look at the long term solutions. First and foremost, we need to talk to Canadians, inform them and let them know why agriculture is so important to this country and why it is in need today.

Agriculture is the third largest employer in the country. It accounts for 8.5% of our GDP. It is important to the future of the country that we have a healthy industry.

Why are we in crisis today? We are in crisis today for a number of different reasons. As was pointed out, our international partners are putting direct subsidies to exports. Exports are so important to the agricultural community today. We have $22 billion or $23 billion in exports across the world.

When our farmers try to export into foreign markets that use export subsidies, it lowers the price that that farmers gets for his commodity. Hon. members may not be aware that in certain areas farmers are not making back their costs of production. They are paying more out than they are taking in from their crops. I saw on television last night, I believe it was on CTV, that in some cases 75% of farmers' incomes come from the public purse.

We cannot continue to survive as a country and we cannot continue to thrive as an agricultural community, if that continues to be the case. We need to get our income out of the marketplace. As parliamentarians we need to sit down and try to find solutions to do that.

One solution being put forward is to put $100 million of new money into it and that somehow will solve the problem. It will not solve the problem that we are facing today. We need to go beyond that and look for broader solutions that involve all provinces and involve not only farmers and rural Canadians but also those who live in the urban centres who purchase the food farmers produce.

That is not being done. There has not been enough dialogue from the farm leadership, from the parliamentarians or from farmers themselves. There has not been enough done to bring in more Canadians and inform them of the problems that farmers face today.

I have been involved for a number of years in international trade. What I try to do, and what our Minister for International Trade is doing as we speak, is deal with how other countries subsidize their farmers and get these export subsidies down. If we can get those export subsidies down, if we can get the trade distorting subsidies down, our farmers will be able to compete. However that issue will take a while to resolve. It will not be resolved overnight. International trade negotiations take years. In fact I believe the last one took seven years. This one could even take more.

As Canadians we have to make a decision. Do we want viable farm families? Do we want to support our families in need until we can internationally negotiate these subsidies down? Those are the questions we are faced with today.

I believe we should. I believe there is a public good in having Canadian farmers produce the food we eat because we can regulate exactly what is in that food. If we did not have Canadian farmers producing the food, then we would not have control over what is in it. We would have some control, but we would have a lot more control if we were assured that Canadian farmers were producing our food.

Not only can we regulate it but we can guarantee that we will have that supply. If we start losing farmers, which is what is happening now, if we do not invest in young people getting into farming today, if we do not invest in the research and development that is needed not only to produce better crops but to produce better crops that will sell, if we do not put our emphasis on those areas, then we will not have an industry here. We will not have the guarantee that Canadians need: that the industry will grow the food we eat. In fact, we will just import it and the price will be at the whim of what is in the product, which other countries will produce and we will not. We have the cheapest food prices in the world. We have some of the most productive farmers in the world. In order to keep these things, we need to continue investing in the industry.

I represent an area in southwestern Ontario that is one of the most diverse agricultural areas. The problem today is not only in grains and oilseeds, but in areas such as apples and horticulture and particularly in areas that other countries are putting a lot of emphasis on in subsidizing their producers.

We will deal with the international problems, but in the meantime as parliamentarians and as a country we need to take seriously the problems that farmers face today and deal with them in a non-partisan way. I have tried—and I will wait for the questions from the opposition—to deal with the issue in a non-partisan way because I believe that is how Canadians will listen to us.

I thank the Prime Minister, cabinet, my rural colleagues and members of the opposition who have raised this very important issue. I believe we can and should do more. On behalf of my constituents, I guarantee that I will stand to speak at every occasion on behalf of my constituents and farmers in southwestern Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly in a non-partisan way I intend to stand here on behalf of Selkirk—Interlake constituents and vote yes to support farmers with an additional $400 million. I think that opportunity is open to everyone in the House.

I ask the member if he does not believe that in fact there are many ways to help farmers through non-direct subsidies. Would the member support a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board? Would he support a lowering of the federal excise tax on diesel fuel to zero from four cents, where it is today? Would he look at supporting grain transportation, so that it is not the highly regulated system it is today, and putting it on a commercial contract based system? All those things would add up to close to $400 million for farmers.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that I have only been here for 13 years or so. I used to chair the agriculture committee and have probably spoken on agriculture as much as most people in the House. Even though I come from southwestern Ontario, I have always stood up for western grain farmers.

I have been out there and have talked to farmers in the west. I have looked into the whole issue. The member talks about the wheat board. I want to assure him that I and members on this side will stand up for the wheat board and for those farmers in the west, who are the majority, who support farmers having a say in the sale of their wheat. There is no question that if we ever got rid of the wheat board, as the hon. member would like, the farmers would be at the whim of foreign nations and foreign multinational companies. They would not have a voice in the marketing of their products.

I have always believed, as I have in terms of marketing boards, that the best way we can market our products, the best way farmers can have a say in their livelihoods, is to do it through a marketing system. I disagree with the hon. member. I believe that the best way we can support farmers is through marketing boards, to make sure they have a say in the way their products are marketed and to make sure they have a say in the House. That is why I feel it is important that farmers have an opportunity to have debates like this, and I appreciate the fact that the debate was brought forward by the opposition.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke has no real understanding of the Canadian Wheat Board and he has clearly demonstrated that by his comments.

Does he know that if a farmer wants to take his durum wheat, process it into pasta and add value to it he has to first of all sell it to the wheat board? He does not own the grain. He has to sell it to the wheat board. He has to buy it back at a price considerably higher because he is charged for transportation to a seaport whether he uses that transportation or not. He has to go through all kinds of hoops and hurdles which discourage him and cost him a huge amount of money before he can add value to it. Is that right?

We do not have property rights in Canada and that is one of our key problems. A farmer who challenges this will be found by the courts to have no basis for it. That is absolutely wrong. There is no way the Liberal government should be hamstringing our farmers this way.

The member could change this entire debate. If 50 or 60 Liberal MPs with rural components stood up and let their voices be heard, they could break the power of the Prime Minister's Office and we could get on with some meaningful assistance. I wonder if the member would support that.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I will not be drawn into his political debate because I believe this should not be politicized.

I know that a lot of hon. members say that the Prime Minister's Office somehow has a grip on hon. members. I talked with a lot of my Liberal members yesterday and they see through the tricks that the Alliance Party is putting on. They do not buy what it is trying to do with this holier than thou sudden coming forward to ask for funds. In fact, now I learn that it is not money Alliance members are asking for. They just want us to somehow change the wheat board.

I can assure the hon. member that members on this side of the House will continue to stand up and speak for farmers in this country, and in all parts of Canada, not just in the west. We in this party represent all parts of the country and we represent the farming community in all parts of Canada. We will continue to stand up and fight on behalf of farmers.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is really frustrating to see how Liberal MPs are twisting the entire meaning of this debate. We have an opportunity today to tell the agricultural producers of the country that we are not only concerned about their plight, but we are willing to do something about it. This motion to provide added financial support to our struggling farmers is not about politics or party policy. This motion is about ensuring that the primary producers of Canada are given the same opportunities as other sectors of the economy.

Last night on our government funded public broadcaster, there was a report about the amount of subsidies Canadian farmers receive. The CBC reported that in 1999 this country's producers received 57% of their income from the government. They project that by the end of this year a farmer will have received 75% of his income from the government. The CBC is crediting these numbers to Statistics Canada. Common sense would tell us that if these numbers are true then our farmers are in bigger trouble because their incomes are so low. The reason we are really in a crisis today is that the government puts so little into agriculture in Canada compared to what other nations do.

The tone of the report gives a completely false picture and it only serves to make the government look good. The figure the CBC is using is not an accurate portrayal of farm subsidies in Canada. The Organization for Economic and Co-operative Development, known as the OECD, which is the authority in determining agriculture subsidy levels, stated that in 1999 only 20% of a Canadian farmer's income came from government. That is quite a difference from the 57% reported by the CBC. Why is there that difference?

The OECD is actually taking into account the entire farm receipts received. Statistics Canada figures use the net farm numbers. When we use the net farm numbers it appears as though our producers are receiving some great subsidies, because a farmer's expenses will have been removed from the figure. If we use the net farm numbers, we are in effect counting the government subsidy level twice. If we count the government subsidy level once on the gross farm numbers and then when we eliminate the farm expenses and compare the subsidy level again, we come up with the preposterous figures that were delivered on the CBC last night.

Inaccurate reports from our publicly funded broadcaster are inexcusable and hurt the very people forced to pay for them. This irresponsible reporting is one of the main reasons we are here today. This type of misinformation gives the impression to our city cousins that farmers are receiving some type of huge payout from the government. However, that is far from the truth. If farmers were receiving 75% of their income from the government, does anyone think we would even be here today?

I hope that after hearing today's debate our national broadcaster will correct last night's report and accurately reflect the level of farm income support in the country.

Our minister of agriculture was on a CBC show this weekend. He made the comment that farmers should be treated like any other business. I could not agree with him more. Unfortunately, the minister and the government do not treat farmers like other businesses.

Let us look at how they are not treated fairly. The most obvious difference is the treatment at the international bargaining table. In 1986, Canadian wheat producers received about 45% of their income from the government. Since that time, support for our primary wheat producers has been reduced to the point where it is only about 11% from government. This would be fine if our competitors would have reduced their subsidy levels, but that did not happen.

In fact, the United States in 1986 had its wheat farmers receiving about 49% of their income from government. In 1999, a U.S. wheat producer received 46% of his income from the government. In the last year, that level of support has gone higher.

The inequality in subsidization is the reason we are here today. Subsidies distort the marketplace and have resulted in overproduction of grains, which in turn has forced the price for these commodities downward.

Our farmers in many cases are growing these crops below the cost of production. By doing that, they continue to subsidize consumers in our cities and keep food prices low. People shopping in our supermarkets today should understand that one of the main reasons a loaf of bread is not $4 is that our farmers continue to produce this product cheaply and efficiently.

When our food prices start to rise substantially, then there is going to be a public outcry. Will the government then realize it should have supported our agricultural sector? Unfortunately, then our family farms will be gone and it will be too late.

There are many examples of government preparing for problems within different sectors, but when it comes to agriculture, the planning is not there.

Back in the mid 1990s, when the government was balancing its books on the backs of farmers, it removed the Crow rate subsidy. At that time Reformers told the government that eliminating this program did not remove government from having to support farmers. We explained that even though times were good then, commodity markets would come down and the government had better be prepared to help when it happened.

In fact, we told the Liberals to take 80% of the money in the Crow and put it into a trade distortion adjustment program to be used when farmers needed it. Did the government listen? No. We would not be here today making this motion if it had done what we asked. If the government had listened to our suggestion, by 1998, when this crisis started to become apparent, there would have been over $4 billion to help farmers.

The fact the government was not willing to plan for the future relates to my main theme, in that government does not treat agriculture like other sectors of the economy. The government will plan for the future when looking at other sectors and industries, but when it comes to agriculture there is no long term agriculture policy.

Let us look at the Bombardier issue. This is a company that made $700 million in profits last year. It was competing with a Brazilian company for a $3 billion contract to build airplanes. The Brazilian company was receiving subsidies from its national government to give it a competitive advantage. Canada's response to this was an industry minister who said Canada could no longer afford to be the Boy Scout of the international trade world. This statement was also combined with a $1.5 billion loan guaranteed to help Bombardier compete against Brazil for a contract.

Here we have the government supporting a business that is being forced to compete against unfair foreign subsidies. Does this not sound familiar?

For the last four years we have been explaining to the government how our farmers are competing against unfair foreign subsidies, yet we do not have an industry minister or an agriculture minister who is willing to back up our farmers by making the same commitment that was made to Bombardier.

This is why I am saying agriculture is not being treated like other businesses or industries by the government. There are two sets of standards here and it has to stop.

Another example of the government preparing other sectors for problems down the road is our Canada infrastructure program. The government has committed $2.65 billion to deal with the need to replace aging infrastructure in communities. This is a prime example of how government can provide support to a sector by looking ahead, determining a need and addressing that need.

I cannot understand why the agriculture department is not doing the same thing. It has used ad hoc programs to address the current crisis. The programs are not working and the department still has not prepared long term solutions to help support agriculture. This is not treating agriculture like other sectors.

Let us look at grain transportation. It is not treated like other industries. The government promised $178 million in savings when it rammed its new transportation bill through the House of Commons last spring. After talking to grassroots producers, I can tell members that there have been little or no savings in transportation. Without implementing a commercial and competitive grain handling system, the savings will never be achieved. By government overregulating and not ensuring competition among the railways and grain companies, farmers continue to lose out.

The MP for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington said farmers should be allowed to be entrepreneurs and I agree, yet when I talk to backbench Liberals they have no idea of how the wheat board works.

There is one glaring difference between prairie grain producers and other businesses: farmers cannot sell their wheat and barley to whomever they want. Producers are forced to sell their wheat and barley to the Canadian Wheat Board. They cannot process their own product and sell it to consumers without going to the CWB.

Other sectors of the economy are not treated like this. I do not know of any other industry that has to sell its product to a government controlled bureaucracy and then buy it back at a higher price before it can reap additional profits through processing. If another profession or industry would not stand for this, why should our farmers be forced to accept this type of approach? The government once again does not treat agriculture like other businesses.

Here we are, asking the government to approve an additional $400 million in support for our agriculture producers. This is not some cap in hand payment. This is treating our farmers like any other business in the country. When other businesses are sold out at the international bargaining table, there is an obligation to stand behind them. Why not agriculture? We have to put our political ideologies to the side and look at what is needed for our agricultural sector.

Members from all political parties in the House have expressed concern for the primary producers of the country. Now is our chance to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. This action would provide some immediate relief to producers to help them through this cropping season.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in closing that maybe we need to put ideologies aside. He is far from doing that. We have had the usual rant against the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Canadian Wheat Board is one of the vehicles that is there to maximize returns back to producers from the international marketplace. We have had that kind of rant from the Canadian Alliance before.

He wants to set the ideology aside when it comes to paying subsidies, which the Alliance Party is opposed to doing, although they are talking about it now, but when it comes to the wheat board he wants to keep his old ideology. Does he want the government in or out? He cannot have it both ways.

I want to correct for the record what the member said about government controlled bureaucracy or something along those lines in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board. The fact of the matter is that he was in the House when we passed a new act in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board, in which the Canadian Wheat Board, after much debate, was turned over to the control of the farm community through an elected board of directors.

The member cannot have it both ways. For Pete's sake, he should give the real facts to the House instead of the malign ones he is producing.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could get the real facts into the House. I agree with the member on that last point. The members across the way are the ones who are distorting the predicament farmers are in right now. Not defending them or the motion is not looking at the facts.

Yes, philosophically we are opposed to subsidies, but clearly if other countries are engaged in subsidizing their farmers and we have hung our farmers out to dry at the international bargaining table, we have to stand behind them. We have a clear obligation to do that and we have said since 1994 that this is what has to happen. That is why we proposed that 80% of the Crow subsidy be put into a trade distortion adjustment program.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made the point that there is a double standard, that agriculture is treated differently, and he is exactly right. It is the Alliance that is treating agriculture differently, wanting to offer subsidies only to agriculture.

We have already offered $500 million to agriculture, but we have also offered subsidies for exports. We offer subsidies in Quebec through FEDQ, in northern Ontario through FedNor, in eastern Canada through ACOA, and in western Canada through western diversification, to the aerospace industry, to the technology industries, to the sustainable development industries and to communications.

I have four quick questions for the hon. member. Did he support the rural pilot projects that help projects in rural Canada? A number of them are related to farming and people living in farming communities.

Was he incredulous when the previous Alliance member criticized the Liberals for their subsidize, tax and regulate philosophy when the hon. member is proposing a motion on subsidy that causes more taxes and when the member had just spoken against regulation?

Did the member find it strange when the member from Pembroke said she is the spokesperson for her province when there are 50 times more Liberals in her province?

Finally, did you find it strange when the hon. member said this is fighting export subsidies while the leader of the official opposition, in his response to the Speech from the Throne, spoke against export subsidies?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I know the hon. member is new to the House and I remind him to address his comments to the Chair, please.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that was more like a little rant. In this debate we are trying to indicate clearly that the subsidies the government should be engaged in are those where we can clearly demonstrate that a sector is being hurt by another foreign subsidy. It is absolutely clear.

In regard to some of the programs he was listing, the businesses in competition with those being subsidized would have to pay those subsidies. That is blatantly unfair. We would not support that because that is within Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about this being a non-confidence vote. The member for Malpeque has said that the department seemed unable to come up with a solution in terms of an assistance package. He said that there were always 16 reasons why the bureaucracy could not do something and never one why it could. He also said that this country had to support the farm community to nearly equivalent levels with the United States and Europe.

I would ask the hon. member if he does in fact believe that a confidence motion should not be held on this and that members should be able to vote according to their constituents' wishes.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that this would provide an opportunity for the 50 or 60 rural MPs on the government side of the House to represent their constituents. I was hoping that would be what would take place today. We wanted to make this a non-partisan debate and suddenly we are shouting at each other, and those members are going to use it as an excuse not to support the farmers in their ridings.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, farming is the heart of this country. It always has been and hopefully it always will be.

Today we are debating the Alliance motion calling on the government to inject the additional emergency funding necessary to keep Canadian farming alive through the coming year.

It sometimes seems like we are speaking to a brick wall over there. As a farm partner myself and one of the hundreds of producers in my riding, I know firsthand how serious this crisis is. The magnitude of the emergency cannot be overstated. We need the money, period.

The minister's announcement a couple of weeks ago was clearly inadequate. He said so himself. Here is a quick rundown. All farm groups are asking for at least $900 million. Five provincial governments are calling for at least $900 million. The Canadian Alliance is calling for at least $500 million. The Liberals knew about this crisis at least three years ago.

Rather than continuing to point out the obvious to the government and the minister, I thought it would be beneficial for you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues to hear from farmers in their own words. Before I entered the political arena, through the media I put out a plea to farm people to tell me their stories. These are some of the letters I received. I was overwhelmed by the response from these people, and there were heartbreaking ones from all of them, but especially from the men.

I would like all hon. members in the Chamber to pay careful attention to the letters I am about to read, particularly my colleagues opposite, some of whom clearly need to learn a thing or two about farming and farmers. The first letter states:

This year we didn't put a crop in—we are finished farming. That sounds so simple “didn't put a crop in”. How do I put into words the despair, the tears of anger, frustration, the heartbreak. My husband is so defeated. He used to be up for a challenge. If something didn't work the first time, he kept on trying. He'd find a way.

My husband feels that he is a failure—no amount of me telling him that it's not his fault changes the way he feels. Something is gone inside.

We took a crushing debt load with us, as we try to start a new business. Our little community is in jeopardy. The rail line has been removed and our elevator closed. In the past five years, many families have left the community. Approximately 18 school-age children have left. In a small school with a population of 97—those numbers are devastating. We're fighting to keep our school open. Everything is a fight—and there is little fight left in anyone.

The second letter states:

The sad thing is, if it happened suddenly like a lot of disasters, we would have gotten noticed. But the grey depression that has settled over southwest Saskatchewan where we live has been coming for a long time.

There have been so many marriage breakups, alcoholism, depression, cancer and farmers leaving the land. The whole stressful household is worn out.

All our neighbours are in the same position. It just seems there is no joy in farming anymore. We are puppets with big corporations pulling the strings. I see sadness and depression everywhere I look.

The third letter states:

I farm with my husband and I know the crisis we're in. I need not say more. When the government took away the “Crow”, that was their first mistake. It was to be here as long as the grass grows and the rivers flow.

The government is putting millions of dollars into other countries and have a deaf ear to their own farmers.

The fourth letter states:

In the mid-eighties when grain prices started to fall, my husband became really stressed out and was ready to sell out and quit. This is where our problem arises. Our older son has always wanted to farm. He saved enough to buy a quarter of land so we sold him one. He tried renting some land from a neighbour but found he only had a profit one year of the four he rented.

He had worked off the farm for about ten years and was ready to take over more land and responsibility so we are gradually selling everything to him. We didn't want him to borrow from the FCC or a bank to pay us as the yearly interest alone would be move than the profit from farming. He has no money to pay us even though he does off farm work. He is always busy and if anyone deserves to make a living farming, he does.

At 31, he is still single, which probably is just as well as the stress would be too much for a lot of young women who haven't lived on a farm...He really needs a break but can't afford a holiday even though he has enough air miles to fly almost anywhere. It really bothers him that he owes us so much money and it bothers us too now that we are retired, we are so limited in what we can do. Everything we put into the farm as “the farm is our retirement” is still tied up in the farm.

The fifth letter states:

The farm crisis in Saskatchewan is real—it is happening, it is a tragedy, it is preventable. It is impossible to make a living on a farm of any size with the present world situation.

What will it take for the Canadian federal government to take a long hard look at an industry that feeds millions and yet the principal players cannot make an honest living through no fault of their own? How can a democratic country like Canada stand and watch the death of the western Canadian grain industry? The break basket of the world is being destroyed by an eastern Canadian government that refuses to accept responsibility for its demise. And a demise it is as every other grain producing country subsidizes their grain growers because they value their product, they value the farming industry as an integral part of their country's business world and they recognize the importance of the farmer and his family to their way of life. But not here in Canada—the very country that should be supporting farmers is destroying them.

Finally, the sixth letter, written by Nicole Stenerson of Sonningdale, Saskatchewan, a University of Regina first year student, states:

A very sad situation has evolved in our prairies. A morbid cloud has rolled onto its beautiful sky. Hopelessness is in the air and you stop for just a moment, you can almost hear the land weeping in mourning for what used to be. The death of a family farm is upon us. The tradition that this country was founded on is dying along with the spirit and the pride of the farmers that are left to preserve the land. Today, every family farm on the prairies is in danger and many of them are indeed dying. This story is the truth and it is happening today.

Canada's farming economy affects everyone. This is a fact that is most misunderstood. Most Canadians think the farming crisis does not involve them, and approach the issue with great apathy. In truth, this crisis affects every Canadian. If sympathy for the struggling farmers cannot cause you to surrender your support, perhaps fear for this country's economy can. Canada's economic base was originally farming, with the prairies considered the “bread basket of the world” and today they still are. Unfortunately, this is a fact that has become forgotten.

As Canada loses its farmers, it begins to suffer economically. The disappearance of the farmer would affect the economy in a very direct way. Farmers with less money spend less money. This would mean the demise of both small businesses and large corporations. Without farmers, there would be no need for farm equipment dealerships, fertilizer and chemical companies and many other large businesses that base themselves solely on farming. This is not a prairie crisis; this is a Canadian crisis.

As Canadians, we need to stand up for our fellow countrymen. We need to show the farmers empathy for their plight. Unfortunately, if this government continues to do nothing to stop the extinction of the family farm, we will soon be in mourning for a culture that has disappeared completely. We cannot stand idly by as a culture of the country is in such great suffering and not even offer our heartfelt sympathy and support.

What more can we offer the government? What more can we say? How can we convince the backbenchers of the government that cannot see what kind of a plight agriculture is in? How can we convince government members to stand up and vote tonight on the Canadian Alliance motion?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some firing of derricks from the other side in terms of how we might vote on this issue tonight. Let me make it clear off the top where I stand on this resolution today by the Canadian Alliance. I will vote against it. I will outline the reasons why I will vote against this resolution.

Yes, I believe that we must do more. We must do much more to encourage the minister of agriculture and cabinet in terms of assisting the farm community. However, I do not want to see that decision handcuffed by this narrow motion by the Canadian Alliance.

The party across the way, the Canadian Alliance, was the party that came to Ottawa and said it was going to do politics differently.

I will be sharing my time, Mr. Speaker.

Here it is today basically saying what it has said all along and that is get government out of agriculture, get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board or dual marketing, and it attacks supply management.

What the Alliance is really doing with this motion is violating its own principles. It is asking for government subsidies when it has said all along it does not believe in subsidies.

The Alliance cannot have it both ways. Its position, and I have fought against it, has been to get the government out of the farmers' lives. That is why it attacks the Canadian Wheat Board. That is why it attacks supply management.

I have always believed there is a role for government in farm policy and I continue to believe so. I advocate a much stronger role in terms of farm policy by government than we currently have in the country.

Contrary to my party on this issue of support, I believe we must support at levels close to that of the United States so that we are not a poor country. I believe we are a very strong industrial nation. We have good fundamentals in our economy. We should be there for our farm community when our farm community needs help. However, we should be there in a number of ways, not just by subsidies.

I found the discussions over the last number of weeks very interesting in terms of some of the people who came to us looking for government subsidy support. I spent 17 years in the farm movement and many of the people today who are calling for government subsidies are the very people who said “Get government out of the business of farming. Do not allow it to subsidize things. We can survive in the marketplace”. We cannot have it both ways. We either believe in the farm market, live by the sword and die by the sword or we do not believe that that market is the absolutely determining factor.

Farmers, governments and political parties have to think this through. What is the best way? Is the marketplace really the answer? If the marketplace is really the answer, and the farmers and the parties believe that, then they should not be in the House asking for government subsidies. I believe in them, but I come from a different philosophical base because I believe there is a role for government in farming, to assist the farm community.

Tonight I am not going to align myself with a party that says one thing and does another. I stand by my principles. If it is willing to rethink its position, I am willing to work with it in order to try to find a long term solution.

To comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge, we see where the Alliance Party stands through its attack on the Canadian Wheat Board again. The fact is, as bad as prices are in the grain industry as a result of international subsidies and the export enhancement program in the United States forcing prices down, the Canadian Wheat Board is able to protect the interests of farmers and producers somewhat.

The Canadian Wheat Board is able to at least maximize the returns that are in the marketplace back to the primary producer. As well, through single desk selling, the Canadian Wheat Board in selling into that competitive international market has created a situation where farmers are not competing against themselves and are maximizing the price that is in that marketplace.

This is not the first crisis that farmers have faced since we became a nation. In the 1930s, under emergency measures, the Canadian Wheat Board was brought in partly to challenge the unbridled power of the grain companies and the railways at that time. It remains today, and we have made improvements to the wheat board in the interests of farmers.

In the sixties and seventies, dairy, poultry and egg producers were in much the same situation as grain producers find themselves today. The buying power of who they sold to was so concentrated that they could basically drive prices down. There was not too much product in the marketplace but product was manipulated, the market was manipulated and farmers were being driven out of business. What did farmers do? They got together and came to the government. We had a minister, a department and a party that was willing to go out and say that the market was not working. They were willing to challenge that market. They implemented the supply management systems which remain in place today and which that party attacks.

We do not hear supply management producers in here today. Those farmers went out and changed the system that was not working, with the support of government. I maintain that is what we have to do in this area as well.

I think Elbert van Donkersgoed perhaps said it best, certainly better than I can say it. He was talking about the minister of agriculture's $500 million in federal funding and the total of over $2.6 billion. He said “The commitment is timely and welcome. Rural Canada will breath a small sigh of relief”.

He went on to say that the minister of agriculture said “With this funding in place we must now focus on our ability to compete over the long term”.

He further said:

We've been there and done that! If Canadian agriculture has done anything well over past decades, it is focusing on our ability to compete—almost to the exclusion of all else...reinvested assets, latest technology, faster machines—

We are still producing more for less. The answer is not to just go that route.

Let me conclude by saying the current crisis will require short term assistance. The Alliance Party resolution is not going to do it. Yes, in my view there should be more on the table, but it will require long term, global solutions and changing how that marketplace operates. We have to change the marketplace so it operates for farmers rather than against farmers.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake mentioned something I said earlier in a past debate in the House relating to the department, and I stand by that view. I believe that the people within the department do not really understand the practicality on the farm, and we have to change that too. That does not mean those people are not good people. They are just in the wrong department at this point in time. We are going to have to change this thing from stem to stern.

The departmental level and the farm community are going to have to come together and analyze this from the total perspective, not just a subsidy or a dollar here and a dollar there, but in terms of putting in place the kinds of marketing programs and transportation policies that will assist the farm community so that it can be the best in the world in agricultural development.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed and disappointed by the comments made by the member. I am not sure why the member who just spoke wants to twist what we are doing today or why he wants to twist our policies. The attacks he made are false. People watching television may not realize they are false. We have not opposed supply management.

Then he made the point that somehow the Canadian Wheat Board was an indication of supply management. People watching television might not realize that there is no relation between supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board. The two are completely different concepts.

Then he said that the Alliance was opposed to subsidies and now it was coming forward with this. We have made it abundantly clear that we need to support our farmers because of the subsidies that are put in place by governments in other countries that stand behind their farming sectors. That is very different from subsidies within a country that have nothing to do with trade distorting programs in other countries. Those are two completely different concepts. To mix them is totally inappropriate.

We are correcting the record here today. Back in 1994 we were calling for 80% of that Crow money to immediately be put in a trade distortion adjustment program.

What we really are opposing is our tax money being used to subsidize projects in the Prime Minister's riding that cost more than all three prairie provinces get in similar programs.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, if I had the policy statement of the Alliance Party here, I guess I could get into a discussion on those points and what they really mean in terms of supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board, et cetera. However, I will not take the time of the House. I can give the member a copy of his party's policy, if he wishes, so he can understand it.

The member mentioned that the Canadian Wheat Board is not supply management. Of course it is not. Supply management is a system that came into place where producers of certain commodities, dairy, poultry, eggs and turkeys, decided that under legislation they would produce to meet effective market demands. In other words, they were not producing surpluses. A 5% surplus can drive down the whole price by 105%. They manage the supply. That is what supply management is all about.

In return for doing that, consumers are assured of a high quality product at reasonable prices. That is a very good system. However, it will not work for every commodity and I recognize that. It certainly will not work for commodities where the major amount is exported.

What will work and can work in that area, if we have the right international environment, is orderly marketing. The Canadian Wheat Board is orderly marketing. It sells through a single desk and tries to maximize what is in that marketplace back to primary producers. That is what the Canadian Wheat Board is doing, given the rough prices internationally. In other words, with the orderly marketing system within our country, we are not competing against ourselves to drive prices down.

The members opposite talk about subsidies. That is the party that says, and there are other farm groups out there that will agree with it on that point, let the market decide all things. As I said earlier, if that is its position, to let the marketplace decide all things, then let it live by the sword and die by the sword.

However, if we are ready now, after facing this crisis and seeing that the system does not work, then let us come to the table. Let us discuss it and decide where we will go as a country on the recognition that the marketplace does not work in its entirety. There is a need for government involvement in terms of farm policy, be it through assistance, through marketing programs or through whatever, but let us have that kind of discussion. The resolution on the floor today does not lead us to that kind of discussion.