Debates of March 20th, 2001

Supply

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have reflected on this, and the member opposite is already chirping that I am a resident agricultural expert before I have even started.

The point I want to make, if the member is at all interested, is that this is the first time I have seen an issue that has galvanized rural and urban members on all sides of the House, and certainly in this caucus.

As the chair of the Ontario caucus, I have to present the views of my colleagues from Ontario before the Prime Minister, cabinet and national caucus. I had to really study this issue, get to understand the significance of the problem and what some of the solutions might be. I arrived at a couple of conclusions.

First, a farmer from Saskatchewan called me and asked me if I realized that the $500 million that the federal government was giving to farmers would not solve the problem. That is a lot of money. It is curious how we can give out $500 million and still not solve the problem. The catch phrase from the opposition would be hard earned tax dollars.

Let me say to the urban members in my riding that they should understand the extent of the problem. That $500 million to a 1,000 acre farmer in western Canada means about $1,800 in subsidy. Let us think about this. A 1,000 acre farm is a serious business. The amount of subsidy that farm will receive is $1,800. What happens if we basically double it, which in essence is close to what the opposition motion is calling for? It is almost $400 million which will generate about $3,000 in subsidy.

Will that particular farmer be satisfied with $3,000? Will the farmer's problem be solved so that he or she will not be knocking on the door again? Will the farmer go away and say that it is wonderful, that the $3,000 has turned life around? We know that is not true.

Of course members on this side of the House would have liked to have given more. However, we also have much greater responsibility than some people in this place. We have to take a look at all aspects of society and prioritize the issues for all Canadians. A responsible motion would have called on the government to establish a policy platform to develop some long term sustainable solutions to the agricultural crisis.

I find it amazingly entertaining to sit here and see members of the Canadian Alliance back-pedalling. They are trying to defend policies that their predecessor, the Reform Party and their former leader, talked about and had in place, policies that they have ratified since becoming the Canadian Alliance.

I will share them with the House. The member could say that people watching might not understand what the members on this side are saying. Do not even ask them to try. Let them try to understand this.

At that party's last convention, it adopted a new policy book which called for the government to force “a self-reliant agricultural sector”. It was a policy declaration from the Canadian Alliance adopted in January 2000. Let us put that on the record. What does that mean? Words are very important in this business. Words are supposed to tell people what one is saying.

It went on to say “We will support and will advocate the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies”. These are not my words. They are policy words from the Canadian Alliance convention adopted in January 2000. It said “the elimination of all subsidies, support programs and trade restrictions”. This is where they hide behind the words, when it said “in conjunction with other countries”.

Just so the folks at home understand, I guess what Alliance members are saying is that they are going to call their buddy, George W. and say that we have a problem in Canada and that they want him to stop handing out money to his farmers so that we do not have to hand out any to ours. George W. is going to ask who is calling and then wish them a nice day.

The Alliance should talk straight to farmers. It should tell them whether or not it is prepared to support them. On one hand it wants to eliminate all subsidies. The predecessor party went dramatically further than even this policy book does when it called for the elimination of support to the agricultural sector.

The member for Calgary Southwest said in this place, “Spending more taxpayers' money is not the answer to any industry's problem”. He went on to say, “Reformers continue to call for reduced federal expenditures. Reformers on the other hand call for a phased clear cut reduction of the dependence of the agricultural sector on both levels of government”. Let us not play games.

That party actually ran election after election advocating the elimination of support to the agricultural sector. It has the unmitigated gall to stand here in front of the nation, in front of the House of Commons, and try to pretend that somehow were it on this side of the House, it would have written a cheque for $900 million. We just know it would have done that.

Actions in this case speak louder than words. The actions that have been shown by that party are despicable in the area of support. Did it raise the issue in this place? It did not raise the issue in this place.

Did it raise the issue in interviews and on talk shows? On an ongoing stead, it sustains an attack on the Prime Minister rather than sustaining the issue of support to the agricultural sector. That is what Alliance members have done over the past several weeks in this place.

Did the media raise this issue? Were there screaming headlines that farmers need help? I read all the papers every day and I did not see it anywhere. The media did not raise it.

One of the members in opposition during question period today said that they asked questions but that we did not answer them. I wonder who they asked? They must have asked each other because they sure as heck did not ask them in this place. The proceedings in this place are recorded. We know who has been fighting for farmers.

The people who have been fighting to get the $500 million, which is a lot of money, to support farmers and convince the government that they need help are members of the rural caucus, supported by people from urban Ontario and the rest of Canada.

People such as my friend from Toronto—Danforth held a rally in the Air Canada Centre, in that wonderful agricultural metropolis called Toronto, where thousands of people attended to celebrate and support the family farm. I was there.

It is not just about farming, it is about security of food. It is about knowing that our children will have food to sustain them as they grow. It is about building great communities. It is about restaurants and grocery stores. It is about jobs and business. It is extremely important and is all encompassing.

In closing, it would be a wonderful opportunity for any government to simply say yes every time someone came to it with a particular problem. We did say yes, with a $500 million contribution.

The Canadian Alliance is simply playing politics in an attempt to embarrass the government. It will not work. We are going to support farmers, as we have, and will continue to do just that.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that once again the hon. member across the way is long on rhetoric and good at throwing words around, such as despicable. Then he says in his intervention, let us not play games here. He says that words are very important in his business. I would submit that is very true. They are very important.

The fact of the matter is that our party and the one that preceded it, the Reform Party of Canada, raised this issue time and time again over the last seven years.

One of the most frustrating things for myself and a lot of my colleagues is the number of bona fide farmers who exist in the Canadian Alliance caucus. These are people who have been raised on farms. Their families are trying to earn a living on farms all across western Canada. I was raised on a farm. I farmed actively for 20 years in western Canada. My brother still endeavours to operate the family farm in the Peace country.

The reality is that there is a lot of knowledge on this side of the House, not just in our party but in the other opposition parties. It is continually ignored, to our frustration, by hon. members like the one who just spoke and who thinks he has all the answers.

He had the unmitigated gall to suggest that we should be advocating long term solutions. We have been doing that for seven bloody years in this place. The government has done very little, other than come up with ad hoc programs that do not work and do not address the needs.

I would ask the member to give it some more thought. If he wants to truly fight for farmers, then he should go back and ask the government why it has not instituted some long term solutions.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. I certainly would not purport to have all the answers to the farming crisis or, frankly, to just about anything else around here.

This is a collective in the sense that we all have input. However for the member to suggest that because he was raised on a farm he knows more about the issue than other members in this place is just nonsense.

I have never worked in a mine but I believe the importance of the mining industry is significant in my province and my community. I may have never worked in a steel plant or a car plant but does that mean I do not have a right to stand in this place and defend the workers in those places and talk about how we can support those industries?

Let us understand that farming is a business. I heard a member opposite refer to it as a culture. The member should get over it. Maybe he would like it to be a culture but it is a business. To survive as a business it must have new markets.

I absolutely agree, at least with the premise that the member puts forward, that we must work together, as a government and as opposition members, to bring ideas forward so we can develop long term sustainable solutions to this crisis that happens year after year after year.

Just for once I would be delighted to see opposition members put a motion for debate in this place that would lead us in that direction, but they do not. They continually play politics, trying to create problems that do not work toward solving the crisis. At least we are trying with an infusion of $500 million.

The caucus will stand strong to help farmers survive in the country so it will be a sustainable business for years to come.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it was just over three years ago, as a rookie MP with a farming background from a rural riding in western Canada, I stood here with a certain amount of pride and dignity to talk about farming issues.

Three years ago agriculture in western Canada was on a slippery slope. We started to realize that farming out west was 90% politics and 10% producing the product.

We have seen agriculture over the last three years decline to the point that we have an industry in crisis. Agriculture is one of the largest industries in the country when we consider the inputs that go into the ground, the processing that applies to everything we produce and the jobs created on the in and the out.

The agriculture minister stood in this place and said to western Canadians and Ontario producers that crop insurance and NISA were the answers to global subsidization problems. What a ridiculous statement.

Later the Prime Minister stood in his place and we heard him say that there could not be an agricultural crisis because he did not read about it in the National Post or the Globe and Mail .

Those newspapers do not represent the problems we have in western Canada or in rural Ontario, let alone in Quebec or the maritimes. An editorial writer from the Globe and Mail who is based in Winnipeg decried the whole situation. What a joke. Those people should get outside the city, have a look around and talk to producers who cannot afford to put bread on their own table let alone put a crop in the ground this year.

There is a lot of talk about the $500 million that has been allocated. There are a couple of problems with that number. When we look at the budget that the government handles, close to $160 billion this year, $500 million is not a lot of money in that context. It is a lot of money when compared to other industries that receive money from the government, but we are talking about the third largest contributor to the GDP.

The problem has gone way past the farm gate. As I alluded to, a tremendous number of service industries feed into the agricultural sector. Input costs have gone up 50%, 100%, or 200% in some cases, for fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, land taxes, machinery costs and so on.

The member who spoke before talked about a 1,000 acre western farm. That would be a hobby farm out there. The average farm in the west approaches 3,000 to 4,000 acres. There are all kinds of large farms in my riding with 10,000, 12,000 and 15,000 acres that try and make a go of it. The average cost of machinery is in excess of $1 million to $2 million on each farm.

The problem with all those inputs, the parts and everything else that keeps them running, is our low dollar. All the input costs are based on American money. We are starting out 37 to 40 cents behind, and those costs are rising.

The Prime Minister says that the low dollar is great for everybody because it helps with our exports. Well it has not seemed to help with my export prices on commodities that the wheat board handles but it certainly has cost me a lot in the pocketbook on the input side.

The freight system in western Canada is now based on conflict and animosity rather than being commercially based and properly tendered. Rising transportation inputs are probably the highest costs on my farm. Transportation costs me at least one-third off the top, which is absolutely ridiculous.

The answer to rising transportation costs on the prairies is to go higher up the food chain. Let us value add to the grain, durum, barley and so on. Let us run the flour mills and pasta plants, which have been tried and shut down because of regulations controlling the way we must buy and re-buy our own products. It is absolutely ludicrous. We are forced to pay freight and elevation charges on a product that never leaves the farm. How smart is that?

When that is explained to backbenchers on the other side they say that it is ridiculous. They ask why durum growers cannot build their own pasta plants and grind their durum into flour and recoup the extra $3 a bushel. The Canadian Wheat Board says that we cannot do that.

Ministers, like the one from Prince Edward Island who stood here and said that the wheat board is a great thing, do not live on the prairies. The people who come from these opposition benches do live there and we all got elected in 1993, 1997 and 2000 campaigning on an open and accountable optional marketing system. We need that.

The wheat board does not export out into the global market as it used to. Everything it buys and sells now goes through a line company, hence the transportation, freight and elevation charges to tidewater. There are no terminals on the west or east coasts. It is run back through one of the line companies. Who is making the money? It is not coming back to the producer at the farm gate.

Where do we go? The debate today is on subsidies, safety nets and the role of government. The role of government in this institution is to play catch up. The farm is in crisis. We must have a cash injection before spring. Farm groups and provincial governments are lobbying for a minimum of $900 million from the federal government and the balance of 40 cents on the dollar from the provinces. They thought that would get the crop in the ground and that hopefully the European and American subsidies would start tailing off. We have seen crop problems in the rest of the world that may bring the price back up.

We need those options. We must be able to do that. We must be able to value add, as I said. We need the government to look at the tax component of our input costs and the huge freight problem in the west.

There are answers. We need a safety net system. There is talk about short and long term situations. In the short term we need cash to get the crop in the ground. There is no doubt about it because we are playing catch up.

In the long term we need a NISA account that will allow us to level the playing field for good and bad years. Even the agriculture minister now realizes his previous position was wrong. We must be able to use the NISA account to level out the bad years. We must change the fundamental way NISA is handled so young farmers can get a start. The average age of farmers in Saskatchewan is 60. We have lost two generations of young producers because they cannot afford to get into the industry. We need a NISA account that will allow that type of thing to happen.

We need crop insurance that is user friendly so we can insure crops that are not covered properly now. When there is a claim we need results to be specific to one farm and not calculated as a general average, as is done with the costs.

We need a long term trade type of cushioning mechanism. It can be the trade distortion thing we talked about with the Crow money or a system like GRIP or MRI in Ontario, but it must be able to soften the blow of offshore improper trade subsidies. That is the long term requirement, but we need cash today to be able to keep on farming.

I am sharing my time with the member for Crowfoot who I know has some great points to put on the record today.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the farmers in my region, Mr. John Downer, brought to my attention a comment made on CBC last night that $2.6 billion in government support will be 75% of net farm income.

It is very important that Canadians hear that with 270,000 farms in Canada, the net farm income this year would be $12,800. That would be about $4.30 an hour based on a 60 hour week. That is without benefits, and with wives and children adding their labour for free.

In my city a policeman is paid $26 or $27 an hour. A nurse gets $25 or $26 an hour. Even though the CBC statement was factually correct, it was terribly misleading to all Canadians because it took out of context what really happens. I am appreciative of the opportunity to put it on the record.

Most Canadians would be ashamed if they realized that based on a 60 hour week the average hourly rate was $4.30.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. He is quite right that the net income on a farm is a very elusive target if there is any at all.

Seventy-five per cent of the farms in western Canada are viable only because of off farm income, that is husband and/or wife both working off farm to keep the cows in the barn.

The problem with the AIDA money, and he is talking about the $2.6 billion that was in the global budget, is that less than 60% of it ever left the cabinet table and got on to the kitchen tables. That includes 1998 and 1999.

Distraught farmers in my riding have been phoning me. Less than two-thirds of what they applied for in 1998 ever came to them. Now they are getting clawback notices from the minister of agriculture and his friends asking them to send back two-thirds of it because they were overpaid. Can we imagine being on the bankrupt rolls and being asked to send money back?

The government has rejigged the formula to include things that were not in the original formula. That would be fine if it triggers more money when the government could not get it all out in the first place, but it will now claw back the two-thirds it sent out.

The payments for 1999 are finally coming out. Guess what year it is? It is 2001. Is it a bankable program? My sweet aunt Fanny, it never got out there. It is sending out only two-thirds of the 1999 money because it is scared it will run out of money. What an absolutely ludicrous reason. The government never sent out more than 60% to begin with and it just put another $500 million in the same clogged pipe.

That pipe must be clogged with Liberal logic because we never saw any of the money out west. The Saskatchewan grains and oilseed sector is hardest hit in the country. How can the government sit across there and vote against any more money being topped in? It would not matter if we were asking for $10 billion today. Nobody would qualify.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that today, as we brought this debate to the House, the House leader on the other side stood and for an hour we questioned the agricultural difficulties and the problem here. We lost an hour of debate. There are now six people from my party, many on the other opposition sides and a few on the government side who would love to speak to the agricultural crisis. However we spent an hour on a technicality when the country is in a disaster and a crisis.

This is the fourth time I have stood in the House on behalf of the many farmers in my predominantly rural riding and pleaded their case for assistance. Today is the first day of spring, the day most farmers look forward to getting on the land and putting a crop in the ground, a time when calves are being born and equipment is being fixed. Many farmers in my riding are not looking forward to much.

Every farm group across Canada has asked for a minimum of $900 million. The government says it can give $500 million and that should do. That will not do. It will not help the plight of our farmers.

Last week farmers across the country took to the streets in tractors and combines to protest the meagre aid that was given. In Ontario convoys pulled on to the highways, even highway 401, the busiest highway in the country, to protest. They also protested in Saskatoon.

I realize that my time is pretty well up. I should like to ask for an extension of the time for debate on the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the request of the hon. member for Crowfoot. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are simply asking for the hour the government took up this morning. Perhaps we could have an extension of the debate by an hour because a few people on our side of the House would still like to speak to it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the member for Yorkton—Melville wishes me to ask for the unanimous consent of the House, I will do so. The House has heard the terms of the request of the member for Yorkton—Melville. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.15 p.m. it is my duty to put forth every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division stands deferred until after the deferred recorded division relating to the opposition motion of Thursday, March 15.

The House resumed from March 15 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, March 15, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the opposition motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Joliette.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)