Debates of April 6th, 2006

Agriculture

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, as this is my first opportunity to speak in the House, I would ask your indulgence as I direct a number of comments to my constituents, the people of Abbotsford. They have given me the privilege of serving them and representing them in the House, and I am deeply grateful to them for their confidence and trust in me. I hope to introduce them to the House more fully in the coming weeks.

I heard from across the floor earlier some promising comments from the leader of the official opposition. It appeared to be the suggestion that his party would be willing to work with ours in resolving the agricultural crisis. I was however astounded to hear from the member for Malpeque that somehow there was an expectation that our government would have solved the crisis in agriculture over the two months that we had been in power, yet this House has been systematically dismantled over 13 years by a Liberal government, brick by brick, block by block, timber by timber. To expect this problem to have been resolved overnight after 13 years of neglect is ridiculous.

I am decidedly encouraged by the comments I have heard from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary. We have some critical issues facing agriculture in Canada.

As some members of the House know, Abbotsford is in its essence and in its substance a farming community. It is the heart of agriculture in British Columbia, producing the largest farm gate revenues in the province. From poultry to raspberries, from chickens and eggs to dairy, my community is directly impacted by the actions of our federal government in the area of agriculture. For 13 years we have had Liberal inattention to those concerns.

The soil-based farmers of Abbotsford are seriously impacted by a shortage of seasonal workers during harvest. We have been devastated by avian influenza. In fact there is no community in Canada that has been impacted like Abbotsford has been. A whole industry has been virtually destroyed overnight. There is also the impact of inadequate compensation to our feather industry under the CAIS program.

My farming community is keenly aware of the negative impact which the WTO trade talks could have on the viability of our supply managed commodities. That is why I applaud the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the member opposite for taking the time to listen. The many farmers I have spoken to are heartened by our government's commitment to replace the CAIS program with separate income support and disaster--

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to ask the hon. member for Abbotsford to give me a moment for a point of order. The hon. member for Terrebonne--Blainville.

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

Mr. Chair, I simply wish to point out to you that the member has been speaking for four and a half minutes. He could perhaps ask a question as we are also in a question period.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I appreciate the observation by the honourable member.

Perhaps we could get to the question.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I preface my comments and my question to outline the significant concerns my community has and also the investment that my community has in agriculture. Before anyone can ask questions, we have to understand the context in which that question is asked, particularly when we have a community that is so deeply dependent on farming, especially the supply managed commodities. It is important that the House understand my community and many of the communities across the country, which are in a similar situation.

My question was actually put earlier to members opposite from the official opposition, but we never received an answer from them. It was a refusal to answer.

I now ask whether the member for Richmond—Arthabaska will join our government in defending supply management at international tribunals and to defend our farmers against unfair trade practices and subsidies abroad.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to welcome all new members in this House.

The Minister of Transport felt we were intolerant for not letting him do anything but ask a question. I merely wanted to ensure that he was not making a speech without being aware that we were in the period reserved for questions and comments. It was not at all our intention to prevent him from speaking. On the contrary, his speech was excellent.

I would like to tell the minister that I agree completely with him on the matter of supply management. As he is a new member, perhaps he is not aware that last November 22 the Bloc Québécois introduced a motion calling for the protection of the supply management system in its entirety during negotiations with the World Trade Organization. This has always been a key issue for the Bloc Québécois.

I am happy to know that the minister is defending the supply management system in his riding. Not all representatives of the Conservative government are doing so. Take, for example, the industry minister. Back when he was working for the Montreal Economic Institute, he declared his opposition to the supply management system. I hope the minister will enlighten his colleague in order to ensure that the entire Conservative cabinet and all of his colleagues will be behind us when the time comes, once again, to protect the supply management system.

The negotiations are not over in Hong Kong. The terms and conditions must still be determined. We are still very worried about what is going on, particularly concerning milk protein imports. Members who have dairy farmers in their riding surely must have heard about this. Indeed, it is currently posing a very serious problem. We have asked the government to act, as soon as possible, under article XXVIII of the GATT, or to amend the rule in order to put an end to such milk protein imports. These imports are costing our dairy producers not less than $70 million annually.

We therefore consider this a matter of the utmost importance. My colleagues can rest assured that we will always cooperate with any party that protects the supply management system.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Chair, I would like to start my question with a bit of a preface and introduction so the member know where I am coming from.

I represent a rural Saskatchewan riding and I come from that background. In 1929 my great grandfather first purchased the land, which is still in our family. Therefore, it is very personal to me to watch the devastation in the agriculture industry, in particular the grains and oilseeds sector which is suffering greatly and at great magnitude after many years. It is an industry, in particular the grains and oilseeds and agriculture in total, in which the government will stand behind farmers in every way possible.

One thing was mentioned tonight on which I would like to get the member's opinion. Young farmers are exiting or not entering the industry. I grew up on a family farm. I still go back to help my father swath and harvest. The option was not there for me. Financially it would be impossible for me to take over the farm from my father.

It has been observed that instead of worrying about exit plans for older farmers, if we had an entry plan for younger farmers, the problem of exiting would be solved. We need to build this industry.

The major problem with the CAIS program was, with the reference margins, young farmers were left out. People did not have enough years to meet the reference margins.

Would the hon. member and his party support the government's efforts to ensure that provincial agriculture ministers come on side to help make changes to get rid of the CAIS program and build a program for younger farmers? Will the hon. member and his party support programs to help bring young farmers in and make changes to eliminate the CAIS program so young farmers are looked after?

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

Mr. Chair, I will be very brief. The Bloc Québécois has always been concerned about the plight of young farmers. I am pleased that the member raised the issue of grain producers, who are also suffering greatly in Quebec. Many of them were on Parliament Hill. I assume the member heard them too.

With respect to the CAIS program, it is clearly not working. This has been said over and over, and I think everyone agrees on this. We are here tonight to discuss the income crisis. We must resolve it immediately. We must offer targeted assistance.

I hope that the member and his party will support our request to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who was here tonight to talk about it. This is something that should be important for them. We must help agricultural producers experiencing an income crisis. We need that support now.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that you are new in the chair, but it is common practice in these kinds of debates to allow all parties a question. The government has had two and its questions tend to be soft. This is just to inform you that is the practice.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I appreciate the member's comment, but it irritates me a bit since I have given him plenty of leeway today.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to speak to you about the supply managed sectors in Canada, our dairy, poultry, turkey, egg and hatching egg farmers who work hard across Canada day after day to provide Canadians with tasty, high-quality and affordable food.

Over the past few decades, supply management has contributed greatly to stabilizing the sector not just in my home province of Quebec but throughout Canada.

The system has been successful for the entire value chain. In a consumer based sector, supply management is advantageous to all parties: consumers, processors and producers.

As far as consumers are concerned, I feel they are often forgotten in our discussions about supply management, and yet they are the cornerstone of the entire sector.

At a time when “consumer is king”, supply management has delivered a wide variety of food products to consumers while respecting the environment—food that is innovative, varied, safe and of excellent quality.

How did supply management fulfil this mission? By being aware of the needs of processors and producers, by enhancing the ability of the system to react to the changing needs of the market and by taking the necessary steps to develop in a modern, effective, efficient and forward-looking sector.

Producers under supply management have always listened to the consumers. They have offered the diversity and broad range of products that consumers were looking for, even demanding. They stayed committed to quality. They stayed committed to value.

They are industry leaders when it comes to implementing food safety and quality assurance systems on the farm. They have also effectively combined these programs with similar initiatives in the processing sector in order to create a true system of food safety from the farm to your plate.

In terms of the processing sector, supply management has given processors a constant and predictable supply of products that satisfy and exceed Canada's strict standards in food quality.

Insofar as producers are concerned, there is no doubt that supply management has provided them with a stable, predictable income and a reasonable return on their work, which has enabled them to raise their families and guarantee that the market will be supplied. At a time when agricultural incomes are at some of their lowest levels in history in certain sectors, supply management remains a productive, viable approach in Canadian agriculture.

Against this background, as we all know, Canada is facing considerable pressure in the agricultural negotiations at the World Trade Organization, dealing with some key points for the supply management system in Canada.

I want to assure this House that our government is determined to defend Canada’s ability to choose how its products are marketed, including through such orderly marketing systems as supply management.

The Government of Canada will continue to work closely with the provincial governments and the full range of stakeholders in this sector to advance these matters and all other facets of Canada’s negotiating position at the WTO.

Similarly, we are following the negotiations at the WTO closely and intend to do everything in our power to eliminate the trade-distorting international trade subsidies and unfair practices of some of our international competitors.

We are searching for solutions that benefit everyone, which means that we feel very strongly about defending the interests of all producers.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food as well as the Minister of International Trade have adopted a policy of openness and consultation with the directors of GO5 Coalition for a Fair Farming Model, Supply Management, and will continue in this approach in the weeks to come, as talks in Geneva intensify.

Last month, the two ministers met with leaders of major groups in the national agri-food sector to share their views on Canada's approach to negotiations with the WTO in 2006.

As pointed out by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on that occasion, Canada continues to work very hard at the WTO to ensure that international rules are as fair as possible for Canadian producers and processors.

WTO negotiations are entering an intense phase as Canada and other members of the WTO work towards completing the Doha round by the end of the year.

The stakes are high for Canada. Canadian farmers are world-class competitors. We must protect and defend the interests of the entire Canadian agriculture sector by supporting strong international trade rules that contribute to fair trade.

Farmers and the entire sector play an important role in cooperating with the government to help it achieve, at the end of these negotiations, a positive result that will strengthen the Canadian economy and benefit the entire agriculture and agri-food sector. For this reason, the ministers will continue to work in close cooperation with the sector during the weeks and months to come.

In conclusion, I would like to say that supply management is an appropriate, effective approach to agricultural production in domestic-oriented sectors.

Supply management not only allows farmers to obtain reasonable prices on the market but it also guarantees consumers the quality of their food supply. It also offers a forum in which all members of a value chain can work together for the common good.

Supply management has proven its effectiveness over the years by achieving its goals and objectives. It has evolved and has been improved in the interest of farmers and consumers alike.

Supply management has been the preference of dairy, poultry and egg producers, and I can assure my colleagues that Canada will continue to support this choice.

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

Mr. Chair, I welcome you to your new position. I am glad to see you are wearing your Legion pin, sir. It is always a good thing to support veterans and their organizations.

I had a very lovely supper this evening and I want to thank the farmers who produced it. I thank them very much. It was a very healthy and substantial dinner. I greatly appreciate their efforts and their families' efforts in providing the nourishment for members of Parliament to debate their issues in order to make their lives a little better.

This is a take note debate. The first thing I want to note is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the minister himself are honourable, decent, hard-working family gentlemen. I will provide them with a few notes in order to move this issue forward and get control of that department. I have said for many years that the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food is running amok with the lives of our farmers.

I will provide a little history lesson on what is happening to farmers and businesses, especially small ones, in the province that I come from, Nova Scotia. There was a company called the Dew Drop Gardens, which produced hydroponic tomatoes and cucumbers, and was doing everything it could to cut its costs. The problem was it could not get its products on the supermarket shelves. Why? Because the competition among the supermarkets themselves had shrunk from six to three and then to two major supermarkets in the province of Nova Scotia, Sobeys and Superstore, and that is it. It pains me.

I can assure everyone that agriculture issues are not easy to solve. The minister is going to have a tough row to hoe, as they say in the field, in order to move this file forward. Things such as international competition, domestic concerns dealing with provinces, and weather concerns make it very difficult. He will not solve all the problems. I can assure everyone that we in our party will do everything we can to support the initiatives on a proactive basis.

The government will not solve the crisis unless local small family businesses and producers can get their products on the shelves. It will not solve the farm crisis when a box of cornflakes costs $3.60 and the producer only gets 7¢. It will not solve the problem of the farm crisis unless the farmer gets more than double or triple that amount. If farmers were getting 25¢ for that box of cornflakes, they would not be here.

If we do not solve the problem of domestic market access, corporate control of agribusinesses, delivery and everything else, the next time farmers come here, they will leave their tractors, trailers and combines with the keys in them and a note saying, “They are all yours. We are done. We are finished”.

In 1986 I went to the exposition in B.C. The most popular pavilion was the green and gold grain elevator from Saskatchewan. I visited it twice. It was wonderful. More people, especially the foreigners, visited that grain elevator than anything else at expo, but at the same time, grain elevators were being destroyed and taken down in the prairie provinces. Instead of having a close enough elevator where the farmers could bring their products, they ended up having to truck their products much further distances on very bad roads.

All of these various concerns have caused farmers and their families tremendous problems.

Supply management is extremely vital to this country, but the Conservative Party from 1993 onward was never a big supporter of supply management. In fact, the position of that party has changed over the past few years. By the way, I greatly appreciate that the Conservative Party has done that. Farmers have a right to be nervous when representatives appear before international boards, the WTO and others in order to move this issue forward.

Not only does the government have to defend the interests of supply management, but it has to get the industry minister to also say very clearly that he supports supply management. The government also has to deal with the agribusinesses and get corporate control of the domestic supply of stores and everything else in this country so that our farmers can deliver their products locally and get a fair price.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my NDP colleague for his wise question.

In my short life—I am 42—I grew up with supply management, having been a dairy producer on my father's farm. Supply management came into being when I was four or five. I can remember the whole business involved in supply management. I grew up in this sector and intend to remain there.

As a representative of the Conservative Party, I attended the convention in Montreal. The first resolution passed unanimously by the party was to defend supply management.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Chair, the topic that is under discussion this evening is a very complex one and no one would disagree with that. The answers are not easy. I have had many conversations with the parliamentary secretary. I have had many conversations with the minister himself and we all agree that the answers are very complex.

We also know that in Quebec there is a program which the province has had for some considerable years, ASRA. We also know that in Ontario the various commodity groups have agreed that a program of risk management has been put on notice to the minister and to the former minister as a formula for disaster relief. I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary has seen that or not, but I am wondering whether he would find that a program that might become acceptable for his government to move forward. I think tonight the farmers who are watching this debate are going to want a little more than $500 million.

The $500 million is going to trigger about $14 relative to the $755 million at $21, so that is not going to do it. I am wondering whether he can go beyond that, and I realize we will not get numbers out of the budget. However, can we be told clearly tonight and can farmers be assured, after we have had this debate tonight, that there will be money going forward, so that they can go to the banker in order to put seeds in the ground this spring?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question.

Let us look back over the past 13 years. I was a producer throughout that period. The previous government's farm policies ruined two generations of farm producers in ten years. The opposition can teach our government nothing.

We can assure the House that our government is very much aware of the current reality. We will do all we can to meet the needs of farmers in Canada.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I too want to congratulate you on your appointment to your new role. I want to quickly thank the people of Leeds—Grenville for sending me back to this chamber. They are many of those people who are involved in the agricultural industry. In fact, many are involved in supply managed farms. In fact, we have the largest egg producer in Canada within Leeds—Grenville, many dairy farms, and so many people that depend on supply management.

My party and I, along with all parliamentarians in the 38th Parliament in fact, voted in favour of supporting supply management. Yet, many of our supply managed farmers are concerned. Regularly they are in my office wanting to know what the situation is. They want to know what is going on at the trade agreements. In fact, we had the round in Hong Kong only a few months ago. Throughout that there was concern among our supply managed farmers that Canada was not standing up for supply management.

The concern was not among parliamentarians, but that the trade negotiators were doing something different than what was being supported in Parliament.

I have a question for the hon. parliamentary secretary. In the ongoing discussions coming up in Geneva in the next few weeks, is the government giving clear direction to our trade negotiators that supply management is non-negotiable and that they will stand up to ensure that the supply management system in Canada is maintained?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question. We are following the WTO negotiations daily. I can assure you—and my colleague—that we have done everything to protect supply management in Canada.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to lend my voice to this important debate this evening. I sincerely regret that there continues to be a need for such a debate in the first place. The matter of declining farm incomes is an issue that is not new. In fact, the problem is growing and while debate is important, talk is always cheap.

I know that each of my colleagues here in this House join with farmers from across Canada in wishing that the problems facing our agriculture industry would be resolved in a way that would permit farmers to concentrate on farming, not on lobbying governments.

Unfortunately, world economic trends, international trading considerations and various government policies have helped to transform our agriculture sector from a fiscal powerhouse into the only industry in the world that buys retail and sells wholesale. I may not be an economist, but I know full well that this strategy is a recipe for disaster.

Do members know that when we buy a $2 box of crackers at the grocery store the farmers receive only 8¢ for their work? That is right, the farmer who is responsible for providing 100% of product, excluding the packaging, receives less than 4% of the spoils from the sale of that product. Likewise on a box of cornflakes, as has already been mentioned this evening, that would cost us $3.50, the farmer would reap only 3% of that. My number was 11¢. My colleague tells me 7¢. So, so somewhere in between. Is it any wonder that farmers are having difficulty paying their inputs?

Our farmers are facing the single greatest economic challenge in the past two decades and they are in dire financial straits. In just two years, many farmers have lost more than a generation's worth of equity in their business and for many of these men and women, the wolves are at the door.

In my riding, families that have been working on a specific plot of land for almost a century are being forced off of that irreplaceable piece of their heritage by foreign subsidies, low commodity prices and skyrocketing input costs. As someone who continues to live on the farm in which he was born, I can only imagine the terrible anguish that a loss like that would represent.

The toll is being felt not just by farmers and farm families but by the whole of rural Canada. Hospitals, schools, churches and small town main streets are all deteriorating as a result of the farm income crisis.

Yesterday we witnessed a tangible manifestation of that frustration when thousands of farmers and members of farm families gathered peacefully on the front lawn to tell each of us, regardless of our political affiliation, that they need our help and they need it now.

Before I continue I need to be clear. I am not seeking to play those partisan games that can often permeate our debates in this place. It is true that the Liberals were in government between 1993 and 2006. It is also true that the Conservatives were in government prior to that, and the Liberals before that. Regardless of who is in power today and who was in power last year, we need to focus our attention on the men, women and children who were out front yesterday. Canadians should expect no less from their elected officials.

I have never been afraid to criticize Liberal ministers, the agriculture minister included, when I felt that the criticism was justified. While I believe that this minister is also genuine in his desire for positive change, I promise him the same candour.

Tonight we have a choice. We can talk about the past, we can talk about blame, we can talk about who did or did not do something years gone by, or we can talk about the problems facing farmers today and we can earnestly work together to resolve them.

On February 6, I sent a letter to the Prime Minister. The letter was not intended to be critical. In that letter I said that while I am now an opposition MP, I cannot accept that my job is simply to criticize government plans and priorities. Contrarily, I believe that in addition to putting forth an alternative position on certain issues, the role of an opposition MP is also to propose workable and constructive solutions to problems facing Canada.

It is from that perspective that I intend to frame my remarks this evening.

Since the installation of the new cabinet, I have also forwarded two letters to the Minister of Agriculture in which I suggested a range of options for consideration. I would like to take a few moments to place those suggestions on the record tonight.

First, I unreservedly support the risk management program that was designed and proposed by the Ontario White Bean Producers' Marketing Board; the Ontario Canola Growers' Association; the Ontario Coloured Bean Growers' Association; the Ontario Corn Producers' Association; the Ontario Soybean Growers; the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board; and, finally, the Seed Corn Growers of Ontario.

My party has indicated our solid support for this proposal and I would urgently call upon the government and the other political parties in this House to affirm their support for the same. A fully funded risk management program is essential. The province of Ontario is on the record as supporting the risk management program. The federal Liberal Party is on the record as supporting the RMP. Farm groups are on the record as supporting the RMP. Numerous backbenchers from various political parties are on the record as supporting RMP.

The time for discussion on this matter has passed. Let us move forward with the implementation of a fully funded RMP without further delay.

Second, I would urge the government to move forward with the plan of November 25, 2005, agreed upon as a result of the tripartite industry-federal-provincial round table meeting held in Regina, Saskatchewan. Among other measures, stakeholders and governments agreed that Canadian agriculture needs policy that leads to growth and profitability, not just volume. As outlined by the CFA, there are already solutions on the table. According to the proposal, the said solutions should be enclosed in a Canadian farm bill and I would encourage the minister to adopt such measures.

Third, and as a continuation of my second point, we must move to immediately develop a long term national agriculture policy. Simply put, we do not have a national direction for agriculture and our industry is suffering as a result. Ad hoc programming is cumbersome and has proven inadequate when it comes to overcoming many of the challenges facing our farmers. Farmers need support and investment that they can count on and plan for.

Fourth, Canada is a trading nation. With a relatively small population and a large resource-based economy, Canada must trade with our neighbours in the international community. That said, when it comes to issues like the WTO and NAFTA, Canada must work to protect our agricultural sector. Marketing systems such as supply management are domestic structures that must be shielded from foreign attacks.

The current system has consistently provided supply managed farmers with a fair return for a quality product. I believe that this must continue. Attacks on our supply managed system can take many forms. Government must be vigilant on issues like butter, oil, sugar blends and milk protein concentrates as they represent serious and calculated challenges to the industry.

Next is the issue of food security, perhaps the most important. This is perhaps the most holistic subject that I can raise. In my opinion, national sovereignty cannot be boasted or preserved without a safe and reliable food supply. A nation that cannot feed its population has a fictitious sense on national security at best. Canada has never been hungry and as a result we have failed to grasp that food security is paramount. That must end if we are to ensure that Canada never goes hungry in the future.

Lastly, we hear much discussion about the 60-40 federal-provincial split in responsibility when it comes to agriculture. To me that seems like we are fighting over who must spend money on agriculture. I would suggest that governments should not be racing to meet minimum requirements but we should be giving agriculture the profile that it truly deserves.

Farmers feed cities. More accurately, farmers feed Canada.

It may not be technically possible, given certain constitutional realities, but I believe that ownership of domestic food production should be federalized. Food production is of national importance and as such I believe that the federal government has a moral duty to foster and preserve the long term strength and viability of the industry.

I would never suggest that the provinces should abdicate their responsibility to the industry. I simply believe that we, at the federal level, should be leading the charge.

As an aside, I believe that it is also worth mentioning that farmers must finally unite. The industry continues to be seriously fragmented and that divide has not served farmers well. I applaud any real efforts to attain an actual unified voice for agriculture, but I fear that the unity that is required to prompt actual change and progress is still beyond the immediate grasp of our farm leadership. So long as that is the case, governments will struggle to ascertain the best tools and delivery methods that the industry requires.

I have just articulated six specific points that I believe would be of benefit to Canada's farmers and I would call upon the government to move swiftly to implement such policies. I would also call upon the opposition parties, mine included, to move with equal speed to ensure that such initiatives are brought about. Farmers do not care what party we are with. They want, need and deserve immediate action.

I met with the Minister of Agriculture earlier today and I thank him for taking the time to meet with me. I believe him to be a sincere man and I would ask him on behalf of the farmers of my riding of Huron—Bruce to see that these matters receive the attention they deserve within the House and at the cabinet table. Farmers are counting on us. They are the foundation on which this nation was built and they are the lifeblood of rural Canada. If our agricultural economy fails, then so does the rest of the national economy. The 39th Parliament represents a clean slate for government. Politics aside, I stand ready to offer whatever assistance I can.

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

Mr. Chair, before I begin my first speech as a new member, I want to thank the electors from my wonderful riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry who put their trust in me. I also want to send out a special thanks to my parents, René and Andréa, engaged citizens and staunch sovereignists. They taught me about passionate commitment.

I also want to send a special greeting to the older workers in the textile industry who are impatiently waiting for help from the government.

The Prime Minister came tonight and made more promises to the farmers. He talked about weeks, months, years. He does not understand. Farmers need help right now for spring seeding. The agriculture sector is in crisis. Farmers are waiting for concrete action, not promises.

Does the hon. member acknowledge that the government should give the farmers the money they are asking for immediately?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Chair, in some sense the member's question was directed toward the minister. Even though she is a sovereignist, I believe she would have the interest of all Canadians in mind when she speaks about what the minister would do for a part or all parts of Canada. I trust that the intent of her comments were that all Canadians should be equally treated and that farmers should receive and deserve immediate attention to these issues raised this evening and in days previous.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to join in this important debate tonight. I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague across the way and I certainly share his sentiment that what farmers do not need is to have a bunch of politicians looking back. We need to look forward and they are looking for some forward looking vision for the future. I think that is what the Prime Minister articulated tonight and my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, certainly intends to work closely with farmers and the farming industry to develop a vision of a brighter future for our farmers and agricultural producers.

I speak with some authority because, like quite a number in the Conservative caucus, I come from a farm background. I farmed for 20 years and I say that quite proudly. My brother still farms the family farm in the Peace River country, some 3,000 acres of grains and oilseeds, so I know firsthand from my brother, cousin, uncle and many of my friends and supporters just how serious this income cash crisis is on the family farm.

I cannot speak too passionately about the crisis that is facing our family farm. In fact, I find it very difficult to speak on this topic without getting emotional, as do many of my colleagues. When I say colleagues, I do not mean just Conservative colleagues. I mean colleagues with a farm background from all of the parties. When one knows of the suffering on the family farm firsthand and one sees the little children who see mom and dad struggling to pay the bills, it brings it home in very clear terms how our farmers and our farm families are being affected.

At one time, when I was involved in farming and farm producers organizations, I was the president of the B.C. Grain Producers Association. One of the things I learned very early on was that what farmers did not need were assistance programs designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. What works really fine here in Ottawa in some ivory tower does not help the farmer at the farm gate, which is part of the problem. All politicians have heard that part of the problem has been the CAIS program. When I was involved, many farmers put a great deal of effort into designing a program called NISA, the net income stabilization account, which worked quite well but it was done away with.

Does my hon. colleague not see that part of the problem has been that too often governments of all types, certainly the past Liberal government I would suggest, and not trying to be too critical, but have listened to what the bureaucrats wanted and what they said was possible rather than listening to what the farmers really wanted and what they felt was the best program to deliver the best assistance to them in a timely fashion?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his passionate consideration of the comments I made this evening and certainly as he relates to his constituents. I, too, have farmed for well over 30 years. I still own the farm, I will continue to own it and my sons will own it some day.

The question the hon. member put to me in terms of have we been listening to the bureaucrats, I have not been at the level where I really dealt with bureaucrats. I can only attest to what I have been told which is that bureaucrats do have a large voice in the direction of government. I suppose it will be up to the hon. member's government to determine whether or not it will listen to the bureaucrats and whether or not they will give his government better information. If we got bad information, I hope his government will get better information.

I would like to say that farmers truly should be listened to when it comes to creating programs. The risk management program that was put forward by the farmer organizations in Ontario has been unanimously supported by all of these organizations where farmers choose an entry level in which they want to support the realized net return on a commodity. Those farmers will make a choice when they pay the premium whether they pay in at $3.50 for corn, $3.75 or $4, as an example. That is a program that is ready to be accepted.

I have talked to the minister about this and he has a copy of it . I hope he takes this very seriously. It is a program that can be applied. It runs somewhat similarly to the ASRA program in Quebec. The Quebec farmers today are much better served by their programs and by the Province of Quebec than are a lot of provinces in this country. I think we need to learn from those who have tried and tested. Where there have been failures, we need to avoid those. We need to look at the successes of others and try to apply them to best suit our case.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, in asking my question this evening, let me begin by extending, from one Reginan to another, my congratulations to you on your new role here in the Parliament of Canada.

There has been a good deal of discussion this evening, a lot of it very useful discussion, about the urgency of special attention that needs to be extended to farmers and farm families this spring. The government has spoken about the provision that it intends to include in the next budget and, obviously, farmers will wait very anxiously for that news.

It is to be hoped that perhaps as the days go by the government might see its way clear to actually taking action on this matter before the budget. There is some precedent for that. If that can be done, I am sure that would be welcomed across the country.

In the last question there was discussion about the issues related to program design. In other words, what is the best structure of agricultural programming that can be of the greatest urgent assistance to farmers?

The other side of the question, of course, is the issue of quantum: How much money needs to be put into the program?However well it may be designed, what is the cash needed to back it up?

The common experience over the course of the last several years is that over and above the basic safety net funding, whether that be one particular kind of safety net or another, and they have changed from time to time over the years, the requirement from year to year has tended to be at least on average in the area of $1.5 billion per year.

Does the member for Huron—Bruce have a quantum figure in mind that would be required to make a meaningful contribution to the resolution of this problem, at least for the upcoming season and perhaps even more for the longer term? Does he have a minimum estimated figure that would be required in order to take at least some of the sting out of the hurt that farm families are feeling?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Chair, that was a very good question and I am not sure if even farmers would have the answer to that question.

However when we look back and look at the level of income expected from agriculture this year which is another 16% reduction, it will take a considerable amount of money.

I want to go back to the statement I made a few moments ago. I am very passionate in my belief that food security is as important to this nation, that a nation that has the ability to feed itself, as what it is to have a military. We know that Russia had a strong military but ultimately it could not feed itself, so it had no strength in their economy.

We have to take a different approach. We have never had an agricultural policy in this country. We have never had a policy where we have really said that we will make a commitment to agriculture in the long term. If we believe that, then I believe agriculture has to become a federal department, as it is now, but where it takes responsibility for the whole of agriculture in Canada with some association of course with the provinces, but I think we have to take the responsibility.

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

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to rise tonight and represent the constituents of Battlefords--Lloydminster in this ongoing contest we have with how we keep farmers on the land.

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and I would ask that you let me know when I am getting close to the end of my time.

Agriculture has been the backbone of every civilization for 6,000 years. In the last century technology has propelled Canadian agriculture from a subsistence activity to the point that each farmer can now feed 130 people. Our total output has increased by 350%. There will always be a Canadian agricultural sector. We are going through some really rough times but we are resilient. We will survive.

What is the key to our future in which we draw younger generations who will want to participate and present generations can make a decent living and ensure growing prosperity? One major strategy that has been talked about is the move from low cost high volume commodities to the production of high valued goods derived from agricultural products. Crops can now be made into fuel, industrial compounds, building materials, plastics, pharmaceuticals or a multitude of products we have not yet imagined.

Canada must use this opportunity to move to the production of high value speciality products either as food, fuel or pharmaceuticals. The future of Canadian agriculture in part lies in making that shift to a biobased economy. Biomass production addresses three consumer concerns: health, energy security and environmental sustainability. Studies show some pulse crops and flax can reduce the risks of heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

The government has committed $3.2 million into Pulse Canada's pulse innovation project. The idea is to kickstart a partnership of industry, producer research and government to bring new and better products to our domestic and foreign markets. We are offering the same support for soybeans, potatoes, dairy and even maple syrup.

We can no longer afford to commit a million dollars on paper and find at the other end that the producer only saw 40¢ on the dollar or that some lawyers or consultants got fat contracts while researchers spent two years trying to get six months worth of grants on their own.

The government is prepared to streamline processes, direct real money to the source and let the producers, innovators and marketers take their ideas all the way to that production line. If Canada had committed to ethanol and biodiesel when we talked about it years ago we would of course been that much further ahead. Countries like Brazil that started in the mid-seventies are now light years ahead of us.

We must take the approach that the marketplace be flexible and innovative, that the government is there to facilitate, not dictate.

The International Energy Agency predicts that the world will need 50% more energy by 2020. We know that India and China can certainly use access to cleaner burning fuels as they develop their economies.

The government has pledged to ensure that all motor vehicle fuel in Canada will contain an average of 5% renewable fuel content such as ethanol and biodiesel by 2010. This will require 8 million tonnes of grains and oilseeds.

Not only can we reduce emissions but there is a positive energy balance in that situation. Combusting ethanol produces nearly twice the energy required to produce it and biodiesel is even higher than that. By 2010 the production of 1.4 billion litres of ethanol will displace 1.2 billion litres of petroleum based gasoline. That is great for the environment.

The new Conservative government faces many unresolved issues of the recent past and many choices for the immediate future. We will support research, facilitate market access, open up opportunities and relieve many regulatory burdens for producers.