Debates of April 6th, 2006

Agriculture

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Chair, my colleague had a lot of facts with regard to biodiesel and ethanol. This would be a great move in the future. This would give agriculture not only the short term bounce it needs to get through the difficult time it is in right now, but it would also provide a brighter future than what we have seen in the past. We have heard a lot about that in the debate tonight and it is absolutely critical.

I know quite a bit about agriculture. I have lived it going on 50 years. We have a fourth generation farm which our oldest son has taken over. I could probably be accused of child abuse for a thing like that considering the state of agriculture right now.

There is a bright future in biodiesel. Also, there is the idea of getting rid of trans fats in Canadians' diets. This would drive another market. It is really important when getting rid of trans fats that they not be replaced with highly saturated palm oil fat. It is a great opportunity for the canola industry in Canada to have a 7% saturated fat instead of a 50% saturated fat. Canola could fuel another market the likes of which has never been seen before. We have to take a serious look at this. Lots of studies have been done. As health care has been my portfolio, I know we would save $1.9 billion per year in health costs alone if we did this as well. This is something we really need to do. It is a win-win situation for everybody. I wonder if my colleague agrees with me.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, there are some great statistics there. The member for Yellowhead is certainly correct in stating that Canadians are demanding healthier food. They want to eat healthier. We had that debate a couple of years ago in the House of Commons. A lot of changes have been made in the trans fat area.

It would be a tremendous possibility for Canadian canola growers if they could export that type of a product. Domestic consumption would be great, but it would be a drop in the bucket compared to what we could do on a global scale. Part of what we need to do is to export our commodities in a different way into different niche markets and that is certainly one of them. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That is basically what we have done here for the last couple of decades with respect to agriculture.

I went to my first farm meetings when I started farming in 1972 and I am not hearing anything different now from what I heard then. I have access to my grandfather's journals that he kept when he went to the homestead in 1918. He talked about the same concerns and the same situations at that time that farmers are facing now such as weather conditions--

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

The same price for wheat.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, the member for Crowfoot said the price of wheat is the same and he is absolutely right. We just truck it further to get the lesser price. We do need some changes to be made.

There is a glowing future out there for Canadian agriculture, but not by doing it in the same way that we have always done it. This government and this minister are going to take the lead in getting us past those hurdles and into a brighter future for our producers.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Chair, I cannot disagree with the comments of the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster. I cannot disagree with the importance of helping the agriculture industry to diversify. The member went on at length about the potential for ethanol. We have heard some really good ideas and we have to share those ideas, but at best that is a mid-term and long term objective. It is an objective that we have to strive for, but I would bring him back to the present moment, the days and few weeks ahead. We had evidence in front of the House of Commons yesterday. Ten thousand farmers are really having a difficult time. My colleague knows that. There is no disagreement here on that fact.

As was mentioned by the member for Wascana, there is a precedent for dipping into a current year's surplus to create an ad hoc assistance program. The previous government has done that. We left the new government with a tremendous set of books, thanks also to the member for Wascana and his predecessor.

Could my colleague talk about the urgent need for help for our farm community?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Chair, certainly there is a need for some sort of cash injection. We have already done that. We have made sure that the money that was supposedly pledged as an election gimme by the past government actually cleared the hoops and hurdles and got out to producers. We are well underway with that exercise and we know it is going out.

It is a drop in the bucket. There is a $50 billion farm debt across the country that has accumulated and doubled over the last 10 years. Those guys over there may have gotten the books in order for the federal government but they downloaded on the agricultural sector, the provincial governments, the municipal governments and everything else. We are paying that piper now.

Certainly we have to sit down, scratch our heads and come to terms with getting some sort of cash out. We will do our darndest to do that. No one I have talked to has seen this exemplary set of books the member talked about. I am certainly looking forward to that. If there is a pot of money that has not been squirreled away in a foundation or sent out through some Quebec ad agency, we will make use of it and farmers will benefit.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is very good to be standing here in the 39th Parliament addressing the subject of agriculture. I congratulate you, Mr. Chair, on your new appointment. I wish you well.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the fine people of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for sending me back to represent them in this great place of tradition. Many of the people in my riding are farmers as am I. Many others were raised on farms. There is a connection that is very dear to them.

I heard some members from the other parties talk about traditions on the farm. I have three sons at home. They are sixth generation. I do not have such a pleasant story. They have chosen to go in directions other than agriculture. I certainly do not hold that against them. I remember the day that my youngest son said to me, “Dad, I do not want to work like you, 18 or 20 hours a day and not really know if I am going to get paid for it”.

In reality it is a sad state of affairs when it gets to that. That is a decision that generation is making. My sons are not the only ones; many people all over this country have made that decision. We have to end the tide that is taking our young people off the farm.

There are many problems facing agriculture and farmers. Most of the problems are not their fault. Over the last year and a half I have heard from many of my constituents about the problems in agriculture. They all keep coming back to CAIS and the fact that it did not work in any way, shape or form.

During the last session of Parliament I joined with our then agriculture critic in demanding that the government drop the CAIS program cash deposit requirement for farmers wishing to trigger CAIS payments. Last week this government announced that we are getting rid of that deposit requirement and replacing it with a fee process. This means that producers will no longer have to tie up working capital. We are able to look at the savings this change is going to provide for the farmers.

In the past, farmers have had to set aside 22% of the value of their reference margins in a CAIS account in order to have full protection under the program. With that process a producer with a $60,000 reference margin had to put $13,200 up front in an account. Someone who had $13,000 would not need this program. That is gone. With the fee system a producer will pay $4.50 for every $1,000 of reference margin protected. The fee amounts to $270, but again, that has been waived for 2003, 2004 and 2005.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister pledged to scrap the CAIS program and replace it with separate farm income stabilization and disaster relief programs. We have heard that again tonight. However, he has run into a roadblock. There is a 24 month notification period or opting out clause that the previous government put in, in conjunction with the provinces. Because the provinces do not want the possibility of being hit with more payouts, they are saying all of a sudden that they have not heard from any farmers that there is any problem with CAIS. The provinces want to stick with the program.

Until that happens we are stuck with CAIS for a while. Our minister, who has been here all night, is working to find ways to make this program work, streamline it a little bit, at least in the interim while we are stuck with it, and make it a little easier for farmers.

The minister has had meetings with his provincial counterparts. I know that in June, as the minister stated earlier, they will be coming back with some suggestions. I sincerely hope that the 10 provincial agriculture ministers will come back with something constructive that our agriculture minister can work with.

Our national CAIS committee, which includes 22 producer members, is looking at all options to improve this program in order to ensure stability. Hopefully when the members report, the program will be improved. The members on the committee are agriculture producers. They have their feet on the ground. They are active in agriculture. They should be able to have some input.

I have not finished my remarks, but I see that I am out of time. I would be glad to answer any questions.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks. It is a pleasure to have worked with him on the agriculture committee.

I do want to make this point because of what has been said several times tonight. The Prime Minister said in his remarks tonight, with a bit of a preamble, that the government will ensure that it properly addresses “the costs of production, market revenue, and inventory evaluation”. If we are moving to a real cost of production formula, plus a fair return on labour and investment in terms of safety net programming, members can be assured that we will be there, but we want to see costs of production plus a return on labour and investment. Members can be assured of that: we will be there. That will be a huge step forward.

But that is for the longer term, and as the member said, we have an immediate problem. He said we are stuck with CAIS. That member used to quote the provinces, saying that the provinces were asking us for more money and asking why the federal government would not come through.

We know it is not all roses and sunshine, but the previous minister got ad hoc funding above and beyond the CAIS program. That is what we are trying to get from this government tonight. We are trying to get a commitment from the government to at least come up to that and then add a little more because there is a further 16% decline in income, to at least come up with cash before seeding in terms of ad hoc programming over and above the CAIS program. I ask the government not to use the excuse of CAIS and the provinces. We got ad hoc funding and the government should be able to do the same--only it should make it a little more money.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member across the way mostly had comments. There really was not a question there. I know that his heart is in the right place. I think that even in the last government there may have been one, two or maybe three of his members who actually agreed that they should do something with agriculture, but in 13 years, what actually got done?

We have heard about some report. I think it must have been delivered on Easter Sunday by the Easter bunny, because that was the name on it. I presume that is what happened. We are hearing about that and other things, but where were the Liberals? They have all these ideas now that they are no longer in government. Where were they for 13 years? My sons would have loved to have seen some of it, I can tell members that.

I say, do not be hypocritical. All of a sudden they can say whatever they want when they are on that side, and that is not good enough. All kinds of policies could have been brought in over the last few years and not one of them was. Maybe that member wanted to see it, but there sure as heck were not enough members in his caucus to see that it actually went through.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's comments, but today in the Saskatchewan legislature farmers were giving away loaves of bread for 6¢. A loaf costs 8¢ to produce and regularly costs over $1 to buy. So my question is quite clear. Just what is next? Ethanol and all of that will be great, but eventually the fuel companies will do exactly what big agribusiness is doing to our farmers.

What is the plan of the Conservative government to ensure that we do not see any more headlines that say agribusiness is making record profits and farmers are making record losses? What will be the plan to eventually put more money from the initial product into the hands of farmers and their families? For example, instead of 6¢, why are they not getting 20¢?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would be glad to address the member's question.

This has been and is part of the big, overall problem. As for increasing the share from 6¢ or 7¢ to 21¢ or whatever, I do not disagree with the fact that this is where it should be, but again, how we end up getting there is part of the whole package. Hopefully, with some of the consultation and ideas coming out of tonight, there will be some ideas we can work toward. I am not going to stand here and tell members that I have all answers on it, but I do know that the minister is consulting and is trying to get answers.

Earlier tonight it was mentioned, and I am not sure who said it, that in the food business we have gone from six to two grocery companies. It is the same in Ontario. It is bad. A good friend of mine who is a farmer but also has a grocery store is suffering big time because he is bringing in beef from a local abattoir that is helping out on the kill in our riding and he is being chastised by the big company. He is bucking those people and I wish him all the luck, but I have a feeling that he is fighting a losing battle. I hope the government can actually step in and do something about that kind of stuff.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I welcome you in your new position.

I always feel like what the great Tommy Douglas said: that there is something about a fight that makes me want to get up in the morning. People here know me as someone who likes to get at it, but I have to say tonight that I really have to move beyond that because I am tired of this debate.

My very first debate in the House was on this crisis, and we have had so many since then. I really do not want to be here two or three months from now replaying the same thing over and over. I have a sense that we all know what the problem is, but the question is, where are we going to go with it?

I can give members an example. I represent the great riding of Timmins—James Bay. We have an amazing agricultural base there. I think it is the promised land. And there is still promise in the promised land. We were talking with farmers the other day about encouraging farmers to come over from Europe and settle because the land is still fairly cheap. We have wheat, sheep and a great dairy and beef industry, and it can be sustainable, but what we are seeing is the problem of farmers who are now slipping under. And these are the most efficient farmers in the world.

I got a call at home on Sunday night; people know I am at home on Sunday nights. A man said, “Mr. Angus, I don't want to bother you because I know you're a busy man”. Of course he could bother me, I said. He said he needed something to help him. He said he did not have enough feed, that he had not made it through the winter. He said, “I can't feed the cattle snowballs any more”. He said, “There's got to be a government program that can get me through just to spring”.

I asked if he had tried CAIS. He said he tried but got nothing out of it. I asked if he got the cattle set-aside. He said he got a little bit from that but it did not get him any feed. I said the only choice would be Farm Credit, but he cannot go to Farm Credit. Nobody is going to give him any more credit.

The story I have is the story that each member who is here tonight has. We know CAIS does not work. We have talked about it a thousand times. We had farmers from across Ontario show up at the Ontario legislature two weeks ago. They surrounded it, like they have done here. They surrounded it for four days. They said they wanted action.

We saw that government down in Toronto stand up during its budget with its government members slapping themselves on the back and telling the whole province what a great job they have done for farmers by telling farmers to go to Ottawa, because Ottawa is their problem. That is not leadership. And here, tonight, we cannot tell our farmers that we have a problem with CAIS because the province of Ontario or the province of Saskatchewan or every other province does not want to help. We have the will if we want it.

I would like to suggest that in the 39th Parliament we do something fundamentally different from what we ever did in the 38th Parliament. I would say that we have unanimous consent: we know that program does not work. I would refer to parliamentary precedent. The great member for Elmwood—Transcona told me about the time the debate was going on about the bill on the firefighters' pension. He stood up and said, “What are we all arguing about? We all agree and we can get unanimous consent”.

I would like to say that we could get unanimous consent tonight such that within a year we are going to have a risk management program that works. If the provinces do not want to come along, we will defy them. We can do that as a Parliament. We can make that commitment to our farmers that we will go through with it. Of course, the minister cannot stand up and say he can deliver it, but what he can say is that they will try to get this into this budget.

If we sent that message, we would send a message that this Parliament is committed to actually doing something about the farm income crisis. Because I really have to say that I do not want everyone here putting out our 10 percenters saying that we stood up and fought for farmers while knowing that nothing changed.

We can do it tonight. I am asking the minister to make that commitment. I am asking each party to work with us. Let us put it aside. Let us get it done. We have a year to get a risk management program that works. We will stand up to the provinces if they do not want to come along, because we know what it is about. We know it is about passing the buck so that no one has to pay the cheque at the end of the day. That is my recommendation for this evening. I am asking for action on it.

I have a few other comments that I would like to make in terms of the overall direction, and we have had some interesting promises. I am concerned about the belief that we can move to a market-driven solution. Our farmers are the most efficient in the world and yet they are failures because we know that there is no such thing in agriculture as an open market. There is no such thing as a fair market and there is no such thing as a free market.

We have to address those fundamental inequities, internationally and domestically, and we have to be realistic about our ability to deal with that. There is no fair or free market when it is controlled by Cargill, Tyson and ADM. When farmers in my region in northern Ontario bring grade one canola down to the crushing plant and it gets dumped by ADM and there is no place else to sell it, that is not a free and open market.

My good friend from Sackville--Eastern Shore pointed out the lack of access for our domestic producers to get into the grocery stores. When we set up a milk co-op and it is successful, we know that it will be shut down because not a single independent grocer or other grocery chain will touch it when it is a local product. We have to address that.

We cannot talk about the market handling the problems at the domestic level because farmers are in a fundamentally unequal relationship. The question is whether there is a desire to deal with the problems of the agricultural crisis because agri-business is making better money now than it has ever made. That has to be confronted at the domestic level.

When we talk about the international problems, we have to be realistic. Again, I am trying to do this in a conciliatory fashion where we can bring change in the 39th Parliament. There is no way we can have a market-driven response when Ontario wheat is sold into Egypt and we cannot sell because as soon as France finds out, it throws a subsidy on its wheat and undercuts us. It is not possible to have a market-driven response when U.S. corn is coming across the border, subsidized at $2 a bushel. We cannot compete and we should not have to compete because it is fundamentally not right.

I have faith that our minister will go to the WTO and represent our interests, but no one should suggest for a second that the E.U. or the United States will drop subsidies on their rural programs. It is not going to happen. That would be the quickest ticket to political oblivion in the United States today. We have to be realistic in facing that.

What is happening with the subsidies is not just damaging us on the domestic market, it is wreaking havoc with the international economy. The economies of developing nations are being put under. Countries like Jamaica are being flooded by the E.U. What is being done to promote the farm economies of the E.U. and the U.S. is fundamentally wrong for anyone who believes that a producer should be able to take their goods to market and sell them. We can say with pride in Canada that we have not gone out to undermine third world agriculture. We have not gone to bury them with a Wal-Mart approach. We have taken our domestic markets and tried to make them work. Because we are successful, we are suffering attacks at the WTO.

I have to suggest to the minister that we need to have an articulated plan B. As much faith as I have in his willingness to go fight for us, the U.S. is not going to play on a level playing field nor is the E.U. Without a level playing field, there is no talk about a international market response. It is not going to happen.

I will leave it at that. I would love to speak for my full 10 minutes and I usually try to squeak out an extra few minutes. I feel tonight that we have had a lot of talk. I ask the minister and I ask for all-party consent to come out of tonight with an agreement that within one year we will bring back to the people of Canada a fully funded risk management program that works and we will tell the provinces that we want them to sign on or they will face the wrath of the farm community of Canada.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Chair, congratulations on your posting. I know you will do a good job and you will enjoy it as I did in a previous incarnation.

Again, I appreciate the hon. member's passion for agriculture. As he says, there is consensus that there are problems, especially in grains and oilseeds, and we all acknowledge that. Parts of the farm sector are doing well and those farmers are to be congratulated.

I did not set out in the morning to pick on the provinces when it comes to the CAIS program. They say that they want to transform it and that they want to try to make it work in the interim.

We had suggested during our campaign that we needed to replace CAIS with two separate programs, one for disaster relief and one for farm income generally. I am making that case as strong I can to the provinces, and I will make it over the next couple of months.

I agree with the member. I do not want to wait a year. We will be coming forward with proposals at our next federal-provincial meeting in June. As we agreed at the last federal-provincial meeting held here last month, between now and then we will making efforts to transform CAIS to ensure that in the interim we do all we can to improve the CAIS program.

It is the flagship program we inherited and we have to use it. I encourage farmers to involve themselves in it. We are going to try to make changes, some of which were talked about tonight. We are going to try to improve it in every way we can. We started last week and we are going to continue to make changes to try to make it more effective and so on. Again, we are not going to wait a year. There will be proposals in June for a replacement for CAIS that would involve separate disaster relief and support programs. I think that program will be winsome. I think farmers will like it, and I hope the provinces do as well.

Part of my task and part of the challenge that has been given to me by the Prime Minister is to make sure that we use the $500 million a year, the $2.5 billion, to properly fund the program, the core program so to speak, with a separate disaster relief program. I think we can do a good job with that. There may be other programs necessary from time to time for other crises that come along, and we will deal with that. We have seen it in the BSE problems. We have already sent out $755 million this year because we understand there is a crisis.

We are not waiting a year. The program changes will come and proposals will come. Because it is a federal-provincial shared agreement, I hope we will have consensus by June. Certainly we are going to have proposals by June.

I agree with the member we cannot wait long. That is why we are getting right at it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have heard it all before. Last June we were going to have consensus on fixing CAIS by dropping the deposit. Perhaps it was March. There is always decisions coming down. It seems to me that seeds have to be put into the ground before June.

The government campaigned on a promise that it was going to get rid of CAIS and replace it. It seems to be very simple. The government campaigned that it was going to get rid of child care agreements. It came in and said that it was going to do it and it did not have to talk with the provinces about it.

I would be glad if they had it in June, but the commitment I want to hear from the minister is that within a year there will be a program whether the provinces sign on or not. That is the question. It is really straightforward. Everything else I am hearing really sounds to me like a replay from the 38th Parliament.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, the hon. gentleman spent some time in his remarks talking about the difficulty of trade negotiations. They certainly are a huge challenge, especially with the subsidy levels in the United States and in the European Union and oftentimes the determination of those two major trading entities to get together in trade negotiations at the last minute and to cook a deal between them. Oftentimes it is the interests of other countries, both developed countries like Canada and many lesser developed countries that get compromised in that process.

As we contemplate the further discussion in the Doha round, which is supposed to be the developmental round of international trade negotiations to particularly assist lesser developed economies to catch up, many of those economies are entirely agricultural economies.

Would the hon. gentleman see as a trade negotiating strategy for Canada that we might examine the opportunities to make common cause with some of the lesser developed economies which are perhaps not in the same league when it comes to agriculture as we are in Canada, but whose problems, when we look at the actual producer level issues, are magnified manyfold? It seems to me that some of those lesser developed countries may in fact have an interest in joining Canada and perhaps some other nations in saying to the Americans and the Europeans that we are not going to let them get away with it yet one more time.

In the development round, which is the Doha round, the lesser developed economies have a particular amount of clout and influence and emphasis in the flow of discussion. Where the Americans and the Europeans might try to brush Canada aside, they would have a much greater problem in trying to brush a coalition of some of the lesser developed economies aside. I wonder if there is not a coalition, a tactic, a strategy where those of us who take exception to the policies of the Europeans and the Americans might well be able to put together a useful international coalition.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I certainly agree that we need allies at the international level. Unfortunately, it seems to me that we have not had allies at the international level, and that has been a major failing.

Some of our farm people who have been at the previous rounds have come back and told us that Canada is alone. When we talk with the negotiators, they say that Canada is alone. Why is Canada alone? Where have our trade negotiators been in terms of building this coalition because we do have common interest? Where is CIDA in terms of working on development by showing supply management as a system that works, supply management run by farmers, not supply management run by some dictatorial regime, something that actually gives grassroots development in these countries.

The problem we have had is that we have not built those alliances and we have suffered for it. We have not been out there marketing our systems that work to other countries. There is still grave misunderstandings about what supply management in Canada is and how we operate it, so I fully agree with the member.

This is the message that our government team going in will need to have. We can build allies, but there has to be a willingness of government to get those allies.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, farmers of today carry a heavy debt load. Some even have to mortgage their land simply to produce or survive. It is time for the government to assume its responsibilities.

In fact, several farms have filed for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

Even if we amend the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, does the member agree that the government should offer urgent, immediate aid to farmers?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her comments. I appreciate her interest in farmers and their families in Quebec and throughout Canada.

Yes, definitely, we need the intervention now. The $500 million that has been talked about is a drop in the bucket. We need $1 billion. That is something that is understood at least. We need that money now. We need the seeds going into the ground before June. That is important. That message needs to be sent to our producers across Canada so they get some confidence when they go to the bank.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Chair, since my election on January 23, I have taken time to meet with dozens of farmers in my riding. There is no question about the sense of desperation that exists in our agricultural community. There is on the one hand very strong support for the supply management system, which I also support. At the same time, there is total and absolute frustration with the CAIS program.

The system is so cumbersome that farmers and even their chartered accountants cannot manoeuvre the complex maze. This program needs a major overhaul or it needs to be scrapped altogether and replaced with the two part program that was outlined by our agriculture minister tonight.

I am proud to serve with a caucus which cares deeply about farmers and I am honoured to serve under the leadership of an agriculture minister who took weeks of his time travelling across this country listening to farmers. I am confident that the farmers in my riding and all across Canada will finally have a sense of hope for the future of agriculture in this great country.

Recognizing the failure of the CAIS program, can we count on the member and his party's support to implement the two part program that was outlined by our agriculture minister earlier this evening?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, the record of the NDP has been very clear on our desire to work with producers to ensure a risk management program that works. I would ask the government to work with and listen to producers and implement the programs they have asked to be brought forward.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate you on your appointment and also for coming in earlier in the week to welcome me to the House, and I thank you for that as well.

Agriculture is not only a fundamentally important aspect to Saskatchewan economic life, it is also a critical part of Saskatchewan's identity. Many of the people in Saskatchewan have a link to its fertile soil, from the seeders that announce the beginning of another year and the combines that harvest the wealth of the land, to the tending of the livestock that gain their life's sustenance off of it. It has long been understood that Saskatchewan has the unique status as being known as the breadbasket of the world. This has shaped Saskatchewan's identity.

However, it is also deeply understood that this way of life has been gravely threatened as well. It is this tremendously important and crucial aspect of Saskatchewan life that we have come here to debate, to discuss and to find solutions for. I am proud and honoured to be able to take part in this debate and I know all members are as well.

Agriculture, as the recent farm forecasts have shown and as the producers can attest to, is in an absolutely dire situation.

Saskatchewan's realized net farm income has been locked in a downward spiral in recent years. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada released numbers which illustrate this in grim detail. In 2004 realized net income was $44 million which was off considerably from the 2000-04 average income of $336 million. In 2005 this number plummeted to the depths of a negative $77.1 million. This was in spite of record high farm payments for Canadian farmers, payments which totalled $1.1 billion in Saskatchewan alone.

With these devastating income numbers it is clear that there is a crisis that threatens farm families. However, these numbers cannot capture the true anguish they must face day to day, holding off payments to make other payments, squeezing the most out of every dollar, and perhaps most tragically, watching their livelihood and their lives being auctioned off to salvage something from the wreckage of their dreams.

Yet, to all of this, there is still more hurt. This year is projected to be the worst yet. Saskatchewan's 2006 realized net income is forecast to drop even further into negative territory to a collective loss of $203.4 million. What is more, these dismal projections even factor in the $755 million that was already allocated but could not be delivered until after the election which was unfortunately called in November.

Clearly more action is needed. Kevin Hursh, a noted consulting agrologist and farmer stated in a February 8, 2006 article that “it would take an additional billion dollars just to get Canadian farm income back to the level of 2005, a level that everyone agrees was adequate”. One billion dollars. If this does not give the government pause for serious thought into acknowledging agriculture as a top priority and a serious crisis that needs immediate attention, I truly do not know what will.

Further to that, although I am glad the Conservatives delivered the $755 million the Liberal government booked before the election, I am dismayed, to say the least, that they continue to hold that money over the heads of producers. I say this because as of yet, to my understanding, the government has still not made a decision, a crucial final decision, on how that money will be treated under CAIS. Producers must wait to see whether money that is already being delivered is money given in good faith because of the hard times or whether it will be clawed back. This is money that will be desperately needed just to pay the bills of production.

During the election the Liberals made a commitment that the money would not affect CAIS applications. I ask that the Conservative government meet us on that commitment as well.

Conservatives made promises in their election platform for $500 million in additional funding. It is clearly not enough to deal with the crisis but it would be a start. Even if they do deliver on the $500 million, Mr. Hursh in that same February 8 article noted that the program payments in 2006 are expected to be $4.2 billion. Add $500 million to the 2006 total and the 2005 total of $4.9 billion is still not matched. Yet now, they are backing off on that modest start. Now we never hear about the $500 million let alone whether it will ever be delivered.

In fact, the minister went as far as telling the provincial agriculture ministers that he lacked even the authorization to make any commitments to them. This is unfortunate. On top of that, all he offered was a complete dismissal of their concerns. In a March 21 Leader-Post article, he stated: “I'm sure if the feds just want to trot out a bunch of money, that provinces won't mind but that's just not in the cards”. The minister is talking about money that would go to farms and farm families. This is not about throwing a bone to the provinces.

This led the Premier of Saskatchewan, who has all party support behind him on this issue, to seek an audience with the Prime Minister. He spoke with him about this issue and, as the premier put it at that time:

I hope I'm speaking tomorrow to the individual who will have the authority to say yes. The producers in Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan and the West are facing some very difficult times and we need to see that money flow this spring to help with spring seeding.

In that meeting with the premier, the Prime Minister heard about the negative forecast facing farmers and their families. He knows about the troubles grains and oilseeds producers are experiencing and the uncertainty that livestock owners must grapple with. Every word uttered in disdain about the past only wastes the time and expense of the necessary efforts that must be made now to address the crisis that the farmers are facing.

Farmers and their families need action. They need real assistance that will at least match what was done in the past. Moreover, they need guarantees that the grains and oilseeds payments will not be clawed back on their CAIS applications. Most of all, they need the government to consider the plight of farmers a priority right now. A crucial aspect of Saskatchewan's economy and identity is in the balance.

We all know that the treasury is flush, so it is not a matter of a fiscal challenge. It is a matter of choice and it is a choice to help farmers.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate you on your position.

This year my family will celebrate its 100th year on the family farm. In 1906 my grandfather moved here and cleared a lot of the land. He cleared the brush, the trees and everything else. He worked extremely hard. We are celebrating our 100th anniversary. As hard as he worked to make a go of it, I just do not know whether anyone else in the same position that we are right now would be able to make it after 100 years. One would think that by the fourth or fifth generation the family farm should be able to make it. It is very difficult.

I sold 3,000 bushels of wheat when I was home just before Parliament opened at around $2 a bushel. Last fall was a very wet year and the elevator ended up having to dry some. It was tough. I sold it for around $1.70 or $1.80 a bushel. I am receiving all kinds of calls from farmers who are very frustrated with this and see no light at the end of the tunnel.

The calls that I get are in respect of a CAIS program that is not working. The calls that I get are in respect of a transportation system that is not working. We have bins full of grain and railways that seem very slow in moving the grain.

We had a previous government that built a program that we had high hopes for. I remember standing in the House together with other members and the parliamentary secretary saying that this program would not work. Even some of the people here tonight were defending it as being the answer to the crisis.

I would ask the new member of the Liberal Party across the way, luckily not the government any more, who just spoke and who is from a rural riding in Saskatchewan if he would stand with the Conservative government in a non-partisan way and agree that the CAIS program is not working, we need to split it, we need to have the income stabilization plan, and that he recognizes what was said in the past is correct and that we also need a disaster component? Would he stand with us and support us when it comes before the House?

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Chair, the questions posed to me by farmers and my thoughts given to them by myself over the last little while have been quite serious. It comes back to the point that they need help now.

Yes, we have talked about the CAIS program in the past and the problems that it has created. The Conservative government and the opposition on this side have stated before that they are prepared to move forward. My concern and the concern of the farmers is whether the government will show up and help the farmers today. Will the government be there today for the spring seeding to help? There are farmers who say that they fully support the discussion on CAIS in the future and other transportation issues but that they may not be around to face them. They would like to be around to face them so they want the support now.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chair, I want to welcome and congratulate the new member representing his riding for his party.

I certainly will not get into what 13 years of Liberal neglect has done but I will ask the member some pointed questions about the future of the farm family, especially in his area. As he knows, the cities of our country are the engine of our economy but it is the rural areas that fuel those cities. I have been working on fisheries issues for many years and I have seen the plight of plant workers and fishermen who have lost their livelihood because of government policy.

A few years ago our caucus introduced ourselves to some Saskatchewan farmers. They told us that thousands of families were leaving the farms as we spoke. This was over a couple of years ago. We know that many of those lands are still producing because it is the large agri-businesses that now have that control.

Some of our farmers are now reaching the ages of 58 to 60 years old and many of our young people are saying that agriculture is not for them because they do not want to suffer the way their parents have suffered. I will throw a lob ball to him because the member is fairly new and I may end up liking the guy in the future. I want to help him out. I would like to give him the opportunity to give advice to the government. First, how would he entertain the possibility of enticing young people to take up agriculture as a livelihood, the very proud livelihood that it is?

Second, what would the member do to prevent the agri-businesses from having complete control of the farms and bring back some semblance to the family farms so that those family farmers who are independent and proud businessmen can carry on that tradition now and in the future?

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Chair, the only answer is to put $1.5 billion from the fiscal framework into the farmers' hands today and allow them to survive and move forward.

Second, I heard today that the University of Saskatchewan may potentially have portions of their agriculture program funding cut. We have to talk about getting young farmers into the industry and staying in there for the long term.