Debates of April 6th, 2006

Agriculture

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

Mr. Chair, this concerns the whole government, including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Sometimes we need to bring agricultural workers into the country. The whole government is seized with this issue.

What do we do for this transitional period when the average farmer is pushing 60? We are in danger of losing a generation. Farming is not something that can just be picked up. A person has to grow up around it to understand it well.

Young people need to know whether the government is in their corner. Is the government listening? Are we going to bat for them? We need to assure them of that by our actions and our deeds. We need to assure them of that by what we say and by the concrete measures we take as we go forward.

We have to look at government programming, not just at how it affects farming but how it affects rural communities. A rural strategy is also necessary for the country. That is why we campaigned on things like the importance of a university education and also of training people in apprenticeship work. This would give them hope that the work they were doing would be useful on the farm. We are going to help them get that training. We are going to help them get ahead.

When we talk about child care solutions, we do not just talk about solutions that work in downtown Toronto. We talk about solutions that will work for young farmers who are just starting out with their young families and how they can get a little help.

We have talked about how we are going to deliver health care guarantees. If a farmer moving out to the country asks if he will lose his health care, we can say we will guarantee him health care. We are tired of wasting money on things like the gun registry system. We are going to take that money and put it into useful things, and we are not going to tie things up in red tape. We are going to let farmers get ahead.

We are going to lower the GST so farmers can keep more money. We are going to tell farmers that profit is not a dirty word. We are going to ensure that not only will the farmer get to make money but he will get to keep his money.

Young farmers are looking for deals and we on this side of the House have an obligation to tell them what the deal is. We are going to ensure that they are profitable and that they get to keep their money. We on this side of the House are going to ensure sure that they, their families, their safety, security and position in the world is respected. Farmers can be confident that a handshake deal with this government is going to be kept.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, first, I congratulate you on your appointment. I know you have had a great interest in our government for many years. It is certainly good to see you here as a member of our House and with the important position that you have.

I have listened with great interest to the Minister of Agriculture. I want to wish him every success as he approaches this farm crisis that we talk about today.

I am very glad he has recognized not only the problems that exist, but the various problems that have been created as a result of the partnership that farmers have had among three different stools of their so-called milking machine.

We know that the farmers who came to the Hill this week have great problems. We know what response they have had from governments in the past years. Not only has it been our federal government, but just as important it has been our provinces and territories, which were part of the CAIS program.

I know our minister certainly recognizes that before the Liberal government came here in 1993, there were certain international agreements on trade which affected the subsidy situation and that Canadian producers, as a result of those agreements back in the 1980s and early 1990s, have been affected by what governments can do to help them. I am glad he recognizes that.

I am glad above all tonight to hear some solutions from the leader of the Bloc.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

This is where you're going to go to get rid of free trade. This is your success at the WTO.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

We will talk about Nova Scotia later. We will talk right now about the province of Quebec.

I want to recognize in the House again the tremendous response that the province of Quebec has had for our farm community. If all provinces had the interest in farming that they have in the province of Quebec, we probably would not have the crisis that we have right now.

I spoke to a number of farmers on the Hill the other day. Above all, they are concerned with the supply management. They are concerned about the protein substitutes that are coming into our trading system. I am glad to hear tonight that the minister will do something to shut off those protein substitutes.

Second, I am very glad to hear the minister will put more money in our budget. We know what money was put in the budget in 1994 and 1995-96. I am glad to see the minister is getting that money out, and did it in the month of January.

Above all, I want to emphasize tonight that a report was done. The minister's parliamentary secretary was part of that report from the standing committee.

The minister talked about a crisis, distress and the amount of money set aside for very particular problems. I am glad to see he is committing himself to that.

Also, I want to say that the figure the minister quoted in terms of five years is far, far short of the figure that most farm groups see. To think that only an extra $500 million is being put in over each year is certainly far short of their objectives of seeing a massive amount of money being put into the farm community that would get us beyond this crisis and that would alleviate our problem.

I hope that when we see the budget next month, the minister will see more put into the budget, as he indicated tonight.

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

Mr. Chair, congratulations on the appointment to your post. As I said to the Deputy Speaker, I have been there, done that, and it is a wonderful position to hold. I congratulate you for having it here this evening and for this Parliament.

I thank the member not only for his comments, but also for the constructive nature of his suggestions. I know I do not have lots of time, but I would like to wrestle just briefly with the issue of milk protein concentrate. There is a call by the Dairy Farmers of Canada to use article 28 of the WTO to reclassify that product.

I am as interested as the dairy farmers to find ways to ensure there is not a flood of product coming into the country. One concern I have is if we invoke article 28, and we are considering that as an option, would it affect the milk concentrate coming from the United States and Mexico? It does not because the NAFTA arrangement supercedes the WTO arrangement. My fear is that we might stop it from Europe, but we might get a flood of product coming in across the 49th parallel.

Second, if we try to reclassify it under NAFTA, then that milk protein concentrate would give the Americans an opportunity not only to challenge the reclassification of the concentrate, but they would use it as an opportunity to challenge the entire supply managed system.

In 1996 we won that court case that said we could protect our supply managed industries. I mentioned already that I want to do all I can to support them now, here and overseas as well. However, I do not want to take measures, and this is a caution for the dairy farmers, that allow a court challenge to not only possibly intervene on the milk protein concentrate, but actually put our entire supply managed system at risk. I am not prepared to do that, and I want to have every assurance before we take steps that we do not compromise supply management.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, I thank you for giving me a few minutes to talk about the crisis in agriculture. But first I would like to congratulate you on your new position. I think it is important to take a moment to thank you.

The agricultural crisis affects a number of sectors: beef producers and grain producers, and some others as well.

It will be apparent a little later what I am getting at. I want to talk about a situation that arises in my riding, in a part of the agricultural sector we should look at and pay particular attention to.

The Speech from the Throne announces the plans of the new government and the priorities it has set for its term in office. When a Speech from the Throne has only a few things in it, this means that some groups, some industries and individuals, will be left out. According to the throne speech and what we have seen over the last few days, many needs will not be met. Supply management is very important for the chicken, egg and turkey industries and the dairy industry. The entire supply management question was overlooked.

I ask myself some questions. We are debating agriculture this evening. But what the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London said in the House this afternoon during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne was very worrisome. He indicated that his government had certain priorities to address before anything else. For the people in my riding, agricultural issues and supply management are priorities. These are priorities not only for Madawaska—Restigouche, but also for all of New Brunswick and for rural regions across the country.

It is hard for me to understand how agriculture and supply management are not priorities for this new government. It can say what it wants, but as I said, a Speech from the Throne should outline the government’s priorities and intentions.

This is definitely not the way to help the agricultural industry nor help it in regard to supply management. Madawaska—Restigouche is a riding in northern New Brunswick, a rural riding—like all of New Brunswick—for which economic diversification is very important. We are not just talking about an industry that produces plastic or gasoline, we are also talking about the farmers.

Total economic diversification can strengthen a region and turn it toward the future. That is the direction it must face, and economic diversification makes it possible. A number of firms in our regions have decided to diversify in order to improve their situation and develop. They did so as well in order to help the people they employ. Thanks to this diversification, families can remain in their community rather than move to urban centres.

Supply management is vital in egg, chicken and dairy production. These three types of production enable the people of this country to eat daily in both the city and the country. We often forget the importance of our rural areas and their contribution to the economy, above and beyond feeding people.

My riding of Madawaska—Restigouche is a special case. It produces 80% of New Brunswick's chicken. You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that in my first term as an MP, this matter was vital to me. It remains a matter of the utmost importance.

Today, I am in my second term. During the latest election campaign, I promised the people of my riding that I would defend their interests in issues of importance to them. You will understand and agree as well that, since 80% of chickens raised in New Brunswick come from my riding, this issue is very important to my electors.

We must also look a little further and consider the question of negotiations and of the WTO. Perhaps there should be some discussion of supply management, since I am not sure everyone in this country is aware of it. The beauty of supply management is that the government does not need to help finance the industry. However, it does need to support the industry and supply management. Crises occur when they are not supported.

This is what my constituents have told me. Every time chicken, egg and dairy producers have come to Parliament Hill, I have met with them. I took the time to talk to them to be sure I understood their situation.

Clearly, as members of Parliament, we do not know everything. We cannot know everything about everything. Yet, when we seek to serve the people we represent, we make the effort to consult with them and understand their needs.

I must emphasize that supply management does not cost the federal government anything. The industry manages its own production; it manages itself. This cannot be overemphasized. In this regard, we must protect producers, the people who need supply management.

A closer look at supply management reveals that it is all about negotiation. These negotiations do not happen only in Canada; they happen worldwide. Nevertheless, supply management itself, as practised in Canada, is not negotiable. We have a supply management system for our producers, and they want us to support them, as I mentioned earlier. However, we must take care not to negotiate what should not be negotiated. We must not make compromises where there should be none.

We have negotiated and made compromises for too long. We have told our American and European friends that they can sell to us in return for a certain percentage, and that we can do the same. This enabled all of us to export our goods. But exporting goods is one thing. If we respect our agreement while our friends do not, we must put an end to negotiations and compromises.

With regard to many other issues, we have negotiated and made compromises. We know today that we are experiencing difficulties in other areas. As I mentioned, supply management is not negotiable and there is no possible compromise. We must promote the existing system and protect it in its entirety, in order to protect our industry.

Here are some very convincing figures that show the importance of supply management. In Atlantic Canada alone, the value of supply-managed products--chicken, turkey, eggs--totals $440 million. Just think about it--this represents only four provinces that are not very big. However, it is important to the economy of our regions. Even more important, this represents over 15,000 jobs.

If the government begins to soften its stand on supply management, and to negotiate and accept compromises, this will jeopardize an entire industry in the Atlantic provinces, as well as the diversification of our economy.

We must continue to support the people who elected us. I will definitely do so. I am very proud to represent the people in my riding and those who need supply management.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am very happy to take the floor during this debate.

First, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment and, second, I would like to thank my colleague for his well prepared and well reasoned speech. I wholeheartedly agree that we must defend supply management and its three pillars, particularly that of imports. Supply management is critical to the success of five agricultural sectors.

Before I go any further, I would like to say that my riding, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, has long been associated with farm families. It is a large rural constituency with a proud history.

The farmers in my riding work hard in the various agricultural sectors. Many of these farmers are in the gallery this evening, and I pay tribute to them.

They are good, honest, hard-working people and I have the highest respect for them. What we need to realize is that this crisis has been forming over 13 years. I have a list of motions that the previous government voted against but there is no sense reading them and so I set them aside because it serves no purpose tonight.

Let me move on to the essence of the debate which is that we all agree that this is an agricultural crisis and one that spans the country. We need solutions and we need them now and we need to work together. There is no time to lose with needless arguments.

Will my colleague and his party put aside their differences and work together in committees and in meetings in this very chamber with us to the benefit of our farmers?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to answer that question. I would like to thank the member opposite for asking it.

Let us look at the facts. Before the government was defeated last November, the House unanimously passed a motion on supply management. I have always supported supply management, and I can assure all the members that I will continue to do so.

My colleagues on this side of the House certainly take an even greater interest in this issue. Some of them and their families have made or still do make their living from farming and supply managed industry.

Let us look a little further. I am 33 years old. Consider my background. My father was raised on a dairy farm. I did not grow up on a dairy farm, but I understand the industry and what its needs are. Whether the issue affects us directly or indirectly, whether we come from a rural or an urban community, one way or another, we all have links to agriculture.

We have to be able to defend the industry. As I mentioned earlier, we have to understand it and we have to be here to defend it.

I would also mention the need to consider the question from another angle. The whole issue of dairy substitutes was mentioned a little earlier. It is a harsh reality. I personally believe in the development of my community, my riding, my province and my country. When I have shopping to do, I do it in my riding, even if it is often easy to do it in the neighbouring riding or in a bigger city nearby. That is important to me.

Let us take a look a the whole question of dairy substitutes. When I do the shopping, I put myself in other people's shoes. Is it right for ice cream to contain something other than cream? It is very difficult to make an intelligent choice. We are still in luck, because some companies continue to make ice cream with cream. We have to continue supporting these manufacturers. In addition, the bill advocating taking this approach, which the House was examining in the 38th Parliament, must be revived.

When I buy a product, I expect it to actually be made from certain ingredients. When I buy cheese, I expect it to be made from milk and not modified dairy products. When I buy ice cream, I expect it to be made with cream.

It is this way with the whole issue of supply management. As I mentioned, the system exists to help the industry and farmers, like the ones back home, to support them and make sure they have the tools they need to provide a quality product and limit potential risks. Our industry manages itself very well. It has assumed its responsibilities and manages itself very well.

We must continue to work with the people in this industry, be it in the production of eggs, poultry, milk, turkeys or other products under supply management. We must be there to support them. We must continue supporting them, and I will do so.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would repeat my first question for my colleague. Will he and his party put aside differences and work together in committees and in this House to the benefit of our farmers, yes or no?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, I have no idea in what way my response was inadequate in terms of clarity. I mentioned that in the last Parliament I voted in favour of a motion supporting supply management, as did all members from my party. We have worked in that direction. I assure the hon. member that this issue is important to us. Hence we will be working to try to find solutions that can provide people with support.

The hon. member came back with another question for me. I am pleased to take this second opportunity to say that it is important to support supply management. I am proud to defend the people of my riding with respect to supply management.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to tell my fellow colleagues on both sides of the House and all Canadians that even though I represent a northern Ontario riding, agriculture is very significant throughout northern Ontario. We may not have a supply managed sector as large as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell or the member for Madawaska—Restigouche but when I meet the dairy farmers in my riding they are as passionate as their constituents are about a very important sector of agriculture and, of course, all of agriculture is suffering these days.

Before I put a question for my colleague I want to take a moment to thank the constituents of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for their support in the last election. As all of us have said to our constituents, we will work hard, as I will, to represent them, not only in serving them throughout the riding but here in Ottawa as well.

I commend my colleague, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, who came to Parliament in 2004. He is one of our dynamic new members of Parliament with a great future. He spoke passionately about the supply managed sector in his riding. Later on, if I have a chance to take a turn in the speaking rotation, I will talk on a broader range of agriculture issues but right now I will focus my attention on supply management.

I have a letter that was given to me by Mr. Keith Emiry, the secretary of the Manitoulin - West Sudbury Dairy Producer Committee. I met with him a few weeks ago and I would like to quote from a March 11 letter, which may be information that has been supplied to other members in the House. It states:

WTO talks will continue this spring and Canada's supply management agriculture sector continues to meet with the new government to ensure that our voice as a valuable economic sector will be heard. Canadian government officials need to continue their support of our trade policy and its strong defence of supply management production at this critical juncture in trade relations.

He goes on making a very excellent point. I think the most important item among the several requirements they have in order that supply management survive is that dairy and poultry be listed at the WTO as a sensitive product category. I think members may be aware of that.

He goes on to talk about the flexibility to achieve zero tariff reductions and recognition of the market access Canada has already given up over the past years.

I wonder if on any one of those, but particularly the sensitive product category, the member could expound a little bit more about that and again underline the importance of the supply managed sector in his riding and all of Atlantic Canada.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, I understand that I probably do not have a half hour to make a response. I want to thank my colleague for his question. It will allow me to elaborate further on sensitive products, which is a very important question, and one to which attention must be paid.

In the past, some room to manoeuvre was allowed on sensitive products. There were certain elements and certain negotiations that made it possible to permit the importation of certain foreign products. There was some importing. On our side, in principle, we were supposed to be able to do the same. However the situation did not necessarily unfold in that way. That is why we must be extremely careful when we are talking about sensitive products such as eggs, poultry and dairy in general. We have been unable to command respect. For that reason, I say we must not negotiate or offer any compromises. We must support our industry and enable it to move into the future. It must continue to offer us quality products, products that will limit certain problems which may arise in today’s world.

At present, the industry is doing a very good job of managing production methods and general operations. We must continue to work in this direction and support it. That way we will have a better industry which will continue to prosper and to create progress in all of the rural regions of our fine and great country.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. We are in danger of actually losing the last Bloc speaker because we extended the question period time for the Minister of Agriculture. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the proceedings if need be to get the last speaker at the end of the night.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Does the House unanimously agree to extend the time which will be for 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board (Canadian Wheat Board)]

Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate you on the appointment to your position. I also want to thank the constituents of Cypress Hills—Grasslands for giving me the privilege of returning once again to the House to represent them.

There is a story of a mountaineer whose name was Yvon Chouinard who was going out with a group of his friends to climb Mount Edith Cavell. They got out on the mountain, set up their tent in front of the big rock face and a storm settled in and they sat in their tents for about a week. Eventually the storm subsided and they were able to go on. After he was done with that climb, he said that it did not pay to look at a great wall for too long.

With agriculture I think we find ourselves up against a great wall but I am thankful that this government is not one that will sit and look at that great wall for too long. This government is prepared to move and to begin to improve the situation for our farmers and producers across Canada.

I am a farmer and am proud of it. I grew up and spent my life on a farm. I live in the farmhouse that my great uncle built in 1918. I will continue to have an interest in our farm. I understand the pressures. I started farming before I was out of high school and farmed through the seventies, eighties and nineties and I understand the pressures that farmers and producers are under.

We find ourselves here again tonight discussing agriculture in a late night debate. I look around and see some familiar faces and some new ones. We have talked time and again about the fact that we did not want to find ourselves back here. I see the former chairman of the agriculture committee nodding his head because he knows that we have had those conversations.

Nobody in the country wants agriculture to be a welfare case but it almost seems to have been the intent of the previous government. We have the opportunity to make substantive structural changes to agriculture that will give it a chance to succeed.

Earlier tonight we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that it was time for our party to take responsibility for agriculture and we are prepared to do that but I think it is important, first, to talk about the state of agriculture that was left by the previous government. It is important that people understand what was not done and from where we have to begin.

I think the state of agriculture looks like an old farm house that has been abandoned out on the prairies with the roof leaking, the windows gone, the doors e hanging off it and the shutters broken. Some have an expectation that it will become a mansion overnight. We need to tell people that it will take us some time to make the changes that will make a substantive difference for farmers. Our job is to make it liveable first and then restore it to its proper place, and our intention is to do that.

Things were in worse shape than we realized. We found that the farm income support program has basically been universally rejected by everyone. The provinces at one point said that they wanted to continue it and now we hear them saying that they do not want it continued either. The main farm income support program that farmers had in the country has been rejected by virtually everyone in the industry.

We had a reorganization of the agriculture department a couple of years ago which was a fairly quiet thing. A lot of people did not realize that it happened. The effects of that are still being felt through the department. Research and development capabilities were stunted by that shift and that is something that people need to understand. I had a chance to spend some time talking to some of our folks who work in that area. As of last week, late March, they still had not received their budgets for this year. Obviously some changes need to be made in order to begin to move ahead. Actually I found that scientists were having to raise their own money to fund their projects.

We talked a little tonight about bilaterals. Nothing has developed in that area. People have talked about the fact that we need to move ahead on that, and we believe we do, but we have had no movement or development by the previous government on that front. It takes a while to get that up and running. We have had about two bilaterals versus about 40 that the United States has signed since the year 2000. It has moved ahead and it has started to take some of our markets. We need to move on those issues.

Biofuels is now a big issue in our country. Everyone is talking about biodiesel and ethanol. We need to have a national fuel standard. We do not even have that. The previous government never did the groundwork to lay down the standard that we needed.

Earlier we heard someone talk about the ethanol expansion program. That was intended to go to farm communities, to rural areas, to small and medium sized projects so that farmers and producers could be involved in that. The previous government rerouted that money to the large companies. The small projects in the small rural areas where producers wanted to be part of those projects were left out of that project. There needs to be some work done on that as well.

We have a huge job ahead of us and we might as well tell folks that right now, but one of the things I want to say is that agriculture is not dead. Those of us who have been in agriculture know that it takes a lot more than what we are facing right now to chase us off the farm and to kill agriculture.

When I was campaigning before the election, I asked people what they were doing on their farms and in their communities that was successful. I want to read for members a few of those things.

I know farmers and producers who are running seed-cleaning plants and who actually told me that last year they had a very good year. I know farmers who are growing specialty crops who are making unique profits on very low acres.

I had people tell me that they have diversified and switched to herbs and spices. Even in dryland Saskatchewan they are growing them and marketing them around the globe. I had people tell me that they decided to try tourism along with farming and they have been able to do that on some real high end levels.

I had people tell me that they have set up hunting camps in Saskatchewan and internationally and those camps have helped them with the farm.

We have manufacturing in our riding, both on the farm and off. We have food processing. A young couple in my riding developed a new lentil pasta. They now have it on the market, are trying to find shelf space for it and are finding success with it.

We have specialty meats. Actually, some people had gone out of producing beef and chicken because they were making money processing that product.

We have organic specialization. We have producer owned co-ops. We have seed growers. We have retail operations that are owned by farmers and producers.

Agriculture is not dead, but we need to be able to give farmers and producers the opportunity to succeed.

I believe that another thing we need to do to give them an opportunity to succeed is to reach a good trade deal at the WTO. We depend seriously on trade, with 80% of our agricultural products exported. Producers desperately need a rules-based international trading system that is fair to them. We want to be able to support free trade and fair trade. The farmers in my part of the world need a good, aggressive free trade agreement if they are going to do well in the future.

We are told that they can gain up to $20 a tonne on their wheat if we can get a good trade agreement. For canola, which is grown in a lot of our areas, they say they can get up to $70 a tonne if we get a good trade agreement. It is important that we have a level international playing field. We need that. Involved in that are the three things we have talked about over the last few years as we have been involved in trade talks. We need to eliminate trade-distorting domestic support. We need to reduce export subsidization. We need to assure real market access to other markets.

In order to give them opportunities, especially the western Canadian farmers, I think we also we need to give them marketing choice. We need to move to a situation where they are able to begin to make choices about marketing their own products, especially grain. Western Canadians need the opportunity to succeed. They need to be able to dream about success. Why not?

I did a study about four years ago. We had 120 specialty crop processing plants in our province. We had 14 flour mills, 12 of them owned by two foreign companies. There are opportunities in specialty crops. There can be in grain as well. This government is committed to the transition of the Canadian Wheat Board and giving farmers the choice on how they market and process their own grain.

We continue to get a strong message from our farmers in a designated area that they want marketing choice. The industry tells us they are ready for a change. Producers are creative and have demonstrated their ability to adapt and succeed. We will stand beside the board as that transition is made to ensure that farmers who support the board will have it as a continuing option for them.

We believe we can work with the board. In fact, we have worked with it to get the initial prices increased. That was announced yesterday. Wheat and feed wheat prices increase by from $13 to $23 a tonne, while durum will increase by $15 to $19, and barley by $10. This change obviously will not solve 13 years of Liberal rule, but it will be a good start.

Obviously we have a lot of problems to deal with. One of the bigger problems is farm income. We have heard a commitment tonight that we are going to deal with that. We are going to deal with that as we promised in the election campaign. We have said we will replace CAIS. We are committed to doing that. We have said that we will implement a new disaster assistance program and we are committing to adding $2.5 billion to farm income over the next five years in order to give farmers the beginning of success in agriculture.

I want to finish with a short illustration. I am reminded of a cartoon, a picture of a little duck, with a ball glove, standing out in the middle of a ball field. The ball gets hit and he waits for the ball to come to him. He is anticipating it and the little bulb over his head says, “Success is when skill meets opportunity”. The ball goes over his head and hits the ground. Then he thinks, “Failure is when fantasy meets reality”.

We have had enough of that. We believe we can do better. We know what needs to be done and we have the ability to do it. We can and will do that so we can achieve success for our agricultural producers across Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to congratulate you on your new appointment to this august body.

I would also like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention. Both he and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have been very available this evening. We appreciate that because this is an extremely important debate and these are important issues.

The people in the gallery tonight watching us and the people watching on television from coast to coast to coast are as concerned as we all should be about the future of the agricultural sector, the future of rural Canada. I can renew the pledge from this corner of the House and the New Democratic Party caucus on behalf of our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, that we will be working with members from all four corners of the House to make sure we get results for and solutions to the farm crisis that Canadians are living through right now.

One of the key elements of this, as the parliamentary secretary well knows, is the system of supply management. A number of members have spoken to that tonight, to the importance of keeping the supply management sector whole and viable.

I had a somewhat chilling conversation with the chief negotiator for Canada at the World Trade Organization negotiations last fall. During a briefing, he talked about the fact that the supply management sector is basically about 11% of agricultural receipts and the Americans were pushing to reduce that to 1%. The chilling phrase he said to me was that “the compromise is somewhere in between”. What that means is that there was consideration of selling out half of the supply management sector, selling that out and giving it away in WTO negotiations.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is very straightforward and clear. Will he commit today on behalf of the government that he or the government will walk away from any negotiations that reduce the supply management sector? In other words, will the government refuse to sign any WTO proposed agreement that hurts supply management and, as a result, hurts communities across this country that depend on the supply management sector to make ends meet?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, you have been sitting here throughout the evening and have heard the enthusiasm with which both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food spoke about supply management. As you know, this party supports it. It was in our platform. It was passed at our convention last year in Montreal. The member can be aware that we support supply management and we support our agricultural producers across this country.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, tonight there were a lot of words missing from those we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, that is for sure. On the Canadian Wheat Board issue he talked about marketing choice, but what he is really talking about is that we cannot have single-desk selling when we are doing other things, when are dual marketing.

There will be another time to debate that, but what those members are really doing if they do away with single-desk selling is disempowering farmers, taking power away from farmers, taking $160 million out of farmers' pockets and transferring it to the grain companies. That is exactly what they would do.

There will be other times to debate that issue, I hope, but what I want to know on that point is this. Will the parliamentary secretary assure us tonight that before there are any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board they will be debated in this House by way of legislation?

Secondly, what we are trying to do here tonight in this debate is force the government to deal with the immediate problem of putting cash in farmers' pockets prior to spring seeding, and what the parliamentary secretary said does not cut it. The Prime Minister never said there would be. The Minister of Agriculture never said there would be, and the parliamentary secretary, to basically cut through what he said, has said that there would be $500 million more than current safety net programs. The current safety net programs are the programs that he claims do not work.

The previous government paid ad hoc funding over and above those safety net programs to the tune of $1.7 billion. Is he willing to commit here tonight to at least match, prior to spring, that funding which the previous government put in place for farmers so they could get a crop in the ground in the spring?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, when the hon. member is discussing agriculture, he reminds me of a steer attempting to breed. There is a lot of noise but it is pretty well useless.

He stood across here earlier and said the reason they were giving out ad hoc money was because the programs were a complete failure. I would like to talk about the Canadian Wheat Board. He knows as well as I do that western Canadians love nothing better than having someone from 3,500 miles away tell them what is good for them. Our farmers need some choice. They need some opportunity.

The dual system works in a number of places. One of them is Ontario, where the system has actually been gaining ground and gaining market share. The second one is the system that has been set up in Australia over the last few years, although it has run into a little trouble in the last few months; it has been set up in a system that is different from ours. It gives farmers the opportunity, both domestically and in export markets, to be able to do something with their own grain.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, farmers from both Quebec and Canada have been asking the federal government for help for some time now. Despite the fact that it feeds everyone here in Canada, the agricultural sector is still the poor relation of the government.

This evening, all of us here recognize that we must act urgently on the question of assistance for farmers. We have to stop talking about what was done wrong or what was not done.

We also recognize that there are an enormous number of changes to be made. The parliamentary secretary may well say that things were good in the agricultural sector last year, but there were still thousands on Parliament Hill yesterday, 3,000 of them from Quebec, here to tell us that they had been pushed to the brink.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can answer my questions. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food has just told us that $750 million was recently paid out to Canadian farmers. I would like some details about this. First, did this $750 million come from the budget that was passed last year? Second, can he break those amounts down and tell us where they will be going? Third, given that we are agreed on the urgent need for action, in particular on the question of the spring seeding, will it be possible to do something in the next two weeks?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, as far as I understand, the money was an ad hoc payment and if my understanding of the budgeting process is accurate, I believe that would have been found in the supplementaries that went to grains and oilseeds producers. It was determined that they were the ones who needed that help.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture spoke about our commitment to agriculture. I am proud to stand as the parliamentary secretary representing agriculture across Canada. I look forward to working with my colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière on agriculture and I look forward to working together with the rest of the caucus here, because this is important to us.

Most of us come from agricultural ridings. We have a majority of farmers in our ridings. It is important to us that we protect and look after our farmers, but at the same time, we need to come up with some longer term planning that has been lacking over the last while that will give our farmers long term success, so they are not going from hand to mouth year after year. Farmers would like to make their living. They do not want to be coming back to the government.

Virtually everyone with whom I spoke told me they did not want to have to come back to the government, but right now they are forced to do so. They asked if I could change the system, so it will work for them so that they can make money from the marketplace and be proud again of what they do.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Chair, congratulations and I am sure the constituents of Ottawa—Orléans are very proud of you in your new position.

The parliamentary secretary was my seatmate in the last Parliament. He was so helpful in teaching me about the problems that the farmers of our country are facing. This man knows about agriculture, I can tell hon. members that.

I want to talk about a personal event which happened about eight or nine months ago. Three farmers came to my office on a Saturday morning. One of the men was 75 years old and he happened to be sitting very close to me. He came very close to me and held out his hand, a calloused hand that seemed as big as both of my hands. I could tell this man had worked hard all his life. He said to me that this was the second time he had to come with his hand out. He asked if I could not do something so he would never have to do so again.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to please give that man some hope. I know he is not here tonight, but he might be watching on television. If he is watching on television, can the parliamentary secretary offer the poor man and any others who might be in that same fix, some hope?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, that is a difficult question to answer and it is not one that I take lightly. We find ourselves, those of us who live in agricultural communities, understanding this desperate situation.

The government has been given a responsibility. We feel that we have begun to meet that by bringing out the $755 million as soon as we possibly could. We have committed other money to the budget. We are talking about other options as well. We want to put in place a long term plan. We want to help people in the short term and keep them going until we can get a long term plan to change the direction of agriculture in this country, so farmers have a chance to survive, to do well and be proud of the fact that they produce the food that this country eats.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few seconds to thank the voters of Richmond—Arthabaska for placing their trust in me for the second time on January 23. That is all I will say for now about that. I will come back to it when I speak another time, because I think that tonight’s subject is too important for me to talk at length about anything but agriculture.

I would therefore thank Parliament, the other parties, for agreeing to hold a take note debate, as was requested in response to the demonstration held on Parliament Hill. Those thousands of agricultural producers did not come here for nothing, they did not come to Ottawa to sightsee; they came to express their distress.

Those thousands of farmers on the Hill yesterday sent the new government a number of important messages. First, “welcome to the real world”. We could see that the real world had come to say that it was in dire need of assistance at this time. The honeymoon is over as well. It is time for the government to stop and think about what it can do when emergencies arise like the one they came to tell us about in that demonstration.

The time has therefore come to take action. The time has come as well to fulfil the commitments made in the election campaign and also in the Speech from the Throne. I will come back to that a little later, because we are talking about agriculture.

The Conservatives’ election promises implied that they would support agricultural producers. I heard it personally when I took part in a debate during the election campaign, a debate organized in Toronto by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. In fact, the Conservative critic for agriculture said that some commitments had been made to that effect. Now we are waiting for the goods to be delivered.

In the Speech from the Throne, on page 11, at the very end, it says:

This Government recognizes the unique challenges faced by those who make their livelihood from our land and oceans in our vital natural resource and agriculture industries. It will take action to secure a prosperous future for Canadian agriculture, following years of neglect.

We are waiting for the action. The time has come to demonstrate good faith and to fulfil the commitments made not only in the election campaign and over the years when the party was in opposition, but also in this Speech from the Throne.

This government must walk the walk. Yesterday, in question period, the minister acknowledged that there was a short- and long-term problem. Tonight we have heard the Prime Minister acknowledge it. Once again we have heard the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food say it, except that we have not had a formal commitment, unfortunately, from either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The minister said that his government would take action to meet their needs immediately. For me, “immediately” means right away. Earlier, the minister said in response to the questions and comments that the budget was coming, that we could not take measures very quickly, or too quickly, either, that the problem would not be solved in eight weeks. I understand that the problem of the farm income crisis will not be solved in eight weeks. However, this government has the means, the power and the ability to establish ad hoc measures, one-time measures to provide immediate assistance to agricultural producers before they seed their crops.

I think that all of the parties agree on this. At any rate, the government members who rose understand the situation. The official opposition, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP—everyone here tonight—all seem to be saying more or less the same thing. We do not agree on everything, but I think we are all on the same wavelength when it comes to the urgency of the situation. Unfortunately, we do not have a clear and firm commitment from the government to act immediately.

When the minister says "immediately," what I hear is "now". Yesterday, he could have gone out to the agricultural producers, as his office said he would, to announce that immediate steps would be taken to help address the farm income crisis. Not to resolve it right away—immediately—of course. But that would have been a step in the right direction.

Here again, the government must walk the walk, as I said before. Furthermore, given that a person's effectiveness is measured by what he does, not by what he says he will do, agricultural producers' concerns are understandable.

The Conservatives have promised to replace the dysfunctional Canadian agricultural income stabilization program. I have been hearing this over and over tonight. This program never worked. It was rammed down the throats of the provinces and agricultural producers by former minister Vanclief. At the time, everybody said there would be problems implementing and managing a pan-Canadian program and making it work properly.

The evidence is in now; there are problems with this program. It is time to change it. In his latest speech, the minister is asking farmers to help him convince the provinces to agree to change the program. This is something new from the minister because they are going, and I say it in English, “to scrap the case”. Now they say that they have to talk to the provinces and get them to agree.

It is no longer time to talk; now it is time to act. The provinces fund 40% of the CAIS program. The federal government simply cannot ask the provinces to reach into their pockets once again, whether to fund this program or another one. It is out of the question. They cannot be asked to do more.

The government just announced a $10 billion surplus. It can meet the needs of farmers. The arrival of a new government has not changed reality with the wave of a magic wand. As we have always said, the means are in Ottawa and the needs are in Quebec and the provinces. So do not come and tell me that it is time to talk to the provinces and ask them to do more. They have done their part. Now it is time for the federal government to keep its promises and change the program.

In Quebec, the pressure on the programs is becoming unbearable. If nothing is done, it is estimated that La Financière agricole du Québec could end the year with a $170 million deficit. Is the minister reversing himself now? Is he going back on his promises?

During 13 years in opposition as the Reform Party, the Alliance and even the Conservative Party, I cannot believe that the new government did not have time to take a serious look at the CAIS when everyone agreed how ineffective it was. The only change that was made was to replace the deposit with fees. This was not received very well by farmers in Quebec or elsewhere. I have not heard very laudatory comments about this change in the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program. In the face of a crisis of this kind in farm incomes, this is no longer the time for improvisation.

The thousands of farmers who came to Parliament Hill yesterday were not here to play tourist. In order to get to Parliament Hill, I walked with the Quebec farmers over the Alexandra bridge. The comments to be heard and what was being shouted over the microphone were not very laudatory of the new government.

In any case, farmers have much more important things to do than come to Parliament Hill. What they love is to work on their land. They must be given the means to continue loving their work, given the means to have an agricultural succession. The way things are going, we are at risk of having no choice but to buy our products elsewhere, became no one here will be able to afford to run the farms.

Because they can no longer manage to meet their needs, many farms are having to close down their operations. The farmers came yesterday to deliver four very clear messages. The current agricultural programs are not responding to the income crisis. Immediate support measures must be established, until we have a new agricultural policy framework. The present agricultural policy framework has never been accepted by the agricultural community as a whole, whether in Canada or in Quebec. We are in the process of preparing one. The government has already spoken about this. Until such time as we have a new agricultural policy, we need domestic support programs to compete with the Americans and the European Union, which are subsidizing their agricultural industry with all their might. We will never reach that level of subsidization, and neither should we. We would not be capable. There is no doubt we can offer some domestic support to limit the damage.

The funding must be flexible and adapted to the needs of the provinces. The government must maintain the marketing structures such as supply management. I have been so glad to hear the many speeches this evening defending the supply management system. Last November, just before the election, the Bloc Québécois tabled a motion which was adopted unanimously, before the negotiations held in Hong Kong. Thanks to that we managed to keep our supply management system in place. It was not easy to get that motion passed unanimously—luckily we were going into an election.

The crisis we are talking about is serious.

The year 2003 was a bleak one for the net income of farmers. The year 2006 promises to be just as bleak.

For 2006 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is predicting a dramatic decline in producer income—of over 50% from last year, and 81% from 2004. Debt has risen 90% in the ten years from 1995 to 2004. Producers have no more cash. They are in debt and no longer able to deal with this situation.

The government has to act now. That is what we are demanding this evening. All of the parties are together here, and I hope they are here in good faith. They acknowledge that there is a farm income crisis. What we are now asking the government to do is to take action.