Debates of April 6th, 2006

Agriculture

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, we must look carefully at these programs. We must sit down and take the necessary time to examine them, together with the provinces. Each case will be different, depending on the region and what is produced. For example, the Financière agricole du Québec functions in a manner that may not work elsewhere. Yet, it is appropriate for Quebec. Let us not generalize. We remain open-minded.

That said, before we reach that point--we will talk about that in June--I repeat, this matter is urgent. If we hope to start seeding in June, we are up against a big problem. Since the government is aware of the fiscal imbalance and given that no one can change the order of the seasons, we ask that the government act immediately.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to be here with my esteemed and experienced colleagues who have spoken. I am hoping to add a few words to this debate.

Our rural way of life is under threat.

Agriculture in Canada is facing a crisis. And that crisis has a negative effect on rural lifestyles. Indeed, if we do not support our farmers and their families, we will soon see our rural communities disappear.

The NDP places people first. If a farmer is able to earn a living, he can then contribute to his local economy, which ensures the survival of the rural lifestyle in Canada.

Unfortunately, we in Canada stumbled along for many years without a clear vision for Canadian agriculture. What is the situation out there in Essex County with those farmers I spoke to yesterday, or those in the southern Okanagan or, for that matter, right across this vast country of ours?

I have had the opportunity to live in each of the main regions of Canada and I have seen tiny villages surrounded by thousands of kilometres of farm land. We have no right to contribute to the disappearance of this very vital part of our immense country. Lastly, we are losing our ability to feed ourselves, which means that, little by little, we are also losing our self-sufficiency in the agricultural sector.

What is happening out there?

In my riding, for example, our fruit growers, especially apple growers, are not able to compete with the cheap, subsidized apples from Washington state being dumped in our markets. Orchards are having to apply for a replanting program to introduce other varieties that might be more profitable--and that is “might be”--or growers will be faced with giving up their farms altogether.

As was mentioned, in the Porcupine district in Saskatchewan, farmers are in a disaster situation due to the 2005 flood. This area was declared a disaster area in both 2005 and 2006 and as yet there is no program to address the problem.

According to the report put out by the hon. member for Malpeque, the per farm basic average income, which was $21,000 in the 1970s, has now dropped to minus $10,000 or minus $20,000. The farmer's share of retail beef prices between 1981 and 2002 was dismal, according to the report, with $5.67 a kilogram at the counter for beef bringing the primary producer only 14¢. This is totally unacceptable.

The farm income situation is unprecedented, particularly in the grains and oilseeds and horticulture industries. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada predicts that the realized net income for farmers could fall as much as 54% in 2006.

So, what are they doing? The government has to act, obviously. It is our job to express our vision for Canadian agriculture in the clearest of terms.

Farmers need an immediate financial infusion now as an initial payment on long term program solutions. The two gentlemen I was talking with today said that Ontario alone needs $1.5 billion to cover 2005, let alone thinking about 2006 and other parts of the country.

According to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the $500 million committed in the Conservative election campaign is needed to improve current business risk management programs but will do little in addressing the farm income deficiency.

Any ad hoc money must not be an offset to the CAIS program and should include farm fed grain.

Our primary producers are competing against heavily subsidized farmers in the U.S. and the European Union. One of our priorities at the WTO is to push for an eventual reduction of these subsidies. However, in the meantime, our primary producers need a level playing field.

It is not logical to push for something in the future and not support our farmers now. There must be a long term risk management plan put into place to guarantee our producers a floor price. If Americans want to dump apples into Canada, let us have a minimum floor price they have to charge so our apple growers can compete fairly.

To guarantee the survival of our agriculture industry, we have to stand up for our policies at the WTO negotiations. Under no circumstances should we allow American multinationals or other countries to dictate what we do with our Canadian Wheat Board. I strongly urge the hon. Minister of Agriculture to let it be known that our Canadian Wheat Board single desk seller is not up for discussion at the WTO. It is our farmers who will decide what happens, and nobody else.

What is more, the survival of supply management depends on success in the sensitive products category. We are seeing proposals that would require Canada to abandon up to half of some domestic markets under supply management. This is unacceptable. Supply management interests are top priority in WTO negotiations.

Our supply and demand system is efficient. It provides our primary producers with income stability. It does not cost the taxpayer one cent. In fact, the supply management system that currently exists in our dairy and poultry industries could be a model for other segments of agriculture that are suffering.

Let us not forget that under the last 12 years of Liberal government, farm incomes set record lows, while multinational agribusinesses made record profits. Between 1996 and 2001, farm employment dropped 26% and Canada lost 29,625 family farms forever.

When the two-year U.S. ban on our beef bled 75,000 Canadian jobs and wiped out farm equity, Liberal support was late and often inadequate, but $40 million went to multinational meat packers whose profits were soaring.

Today, as they have over the past decade, corporate agribusinesses are squeezing family farmers. They are pushing up input costs, for everything from herbicides to equipment, and paying less for product at the gate as they tighten their grip on the whole market chain.

We have a blueprint for agriculture in Canada, put out by the hon. member for Malpeque. This report can serve as a basis for a national agriculture policy. Frankly, I am surprised it was not done five, six or seven years ago, not just in 2005.

The time to act is now. I promise to work hard with all members of the House of Commons to develop our policy on agriculture in Canada.

Our Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has toured the country listening to what farmers have to say. He is very aware of what needs to be done. We must support him in his work.

Let us work to ensure the survival of agriculture and our rural way of life. This will benefit not only those who live in rural Canada but all citizens of this great country.

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

Mr. Chair, I listened attentively to what the gentleman across the way had to say. I find most of what he had to say to be the kind of thinking I support.

He is a well travelled gentleman. I think he has spoken to a lot of people across this country, to consumers and producers, and I am wondering what his concept is of what consumers believe they are paying relative to what the farmer gets at the farm gate. Do consumers really understand the reality that is taking place out there? Do they understand that farmers are getting only a very small pittance of the cost of the product ultimately received at the counter in the stores?

Would he agree that in this country we should possibly be considering a food tax, or whatever it would be, so that consumers are ready to pay more in some form for the product, given the fact they could be assured that in the future they would have a safe and reliable food supply? Because I believe that unless we have this, we do not really have a food policy in this country.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we first have to educate the consumer. I do not think we have done enough. Nobody has done enough to show the average consumer what the farmer is getting and where it is coming from.

Parallel to this, I think we have to make it easier to produce in Canada. In the region where I live, we have greenhouses for tomatoes and cucumbers. There is no reason why we cannot grow broccoli and other vegetables and depend less on countries other than Canada. I think that is the first step.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Chair, I would like to congratulate the member on his appointment as agriculture critic. I am sure he will execute his duties with great conviction.

In my constituency I have a number of producers, all across the old Osgoode and Rideau townships in South Gloucester and South Nepean, and I can tell members that the situation is really bad. People are really hurting. There is genuine desperation.

I had a number of my constituents on the Hill for this recent rally and I can tell members that they are not taking this much working time out of their day for the fun of it. They are spending a lot of gas and a lot of time coming all the way up here because the situation is really genuinely bad. It is getting desperate.

I have a few comments to make and I want to see how the hon. member responds.

First, I believe that we have to be careful in this country, because over the long term we have seen that supply management is slowly dying the death of a thousand cuts. One exception here, one loophole there, and before we know it, the quota system that has made supply managed sectors the only profitable ones in this country is being whittled away. I believe we need to make a vigorous defence of it and reinforce our efforts to defend the system of supply management that has preserved and strengthened those sectors.

Second, we need some sort of risk management mechanism to deal with the ups and downs of revenue and prices for our farmers, because the CAIS program is just not working.

I wonder if the hon. member would rise in his place and tell me what he thinks about these ideas. I know that he has been studying and researching quite intently. I invite his comments.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, obviously the member has been doing his homework too. His remarks reflect what I have been hearing when I talk to representatives of the agricultural industry and to farmers, which is that we must be very careful. We must not allow our supply management system to be watered down. It works, it does not cost a cent, and at least people in those areas are making money. Also, as I said, perhaps we can use it as a model for other sectors.

Yes, we need a different program for risk management. Obviously something is not working. That is what I heard today. I have talked to farmers today, and especially yesterday, and to farmers in my riding. The current CAIS program is not working. Other programs are not working. We need to revamp them and we have to do it very quickly.

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

Mr. Chair, I feel as though we are in a strange situation here, because we are all agreed. We are all agreed that agriculture is going down the tubes and that in fact it might already be there. We are all agreed that CAIS does not work and we are all agreed that supply management does, yet we never seem to get anywhere.

Our poor producers went to the Ontario legislature a few weeks ago and asked for help. The Ontario legislature looked at them and said, “We have done our share. Go to the federal legislature”. They showed up here. We cannot send them the message that we would like to help them but the provinces are not stepping up to the plate. It is incumbent upon us as the federal House of this country to come together.

It is fairly straightforward. I think this is one area where we would have all-party unanimity. We need to work together as four parties and say that we have to take action now. We have to take action now in the area of supply management. It is fairly straightforward in regard to what our message is and terms that are negotiated. In terms of a basic floor price, we have to look at that. We have to look at practical things that can be put in place now.

I would like to ask the hon. member why he thinks it is that we are all standing around here, all of us caring passionately about agriculture, and arguing with each other when we just need to do the job.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question and statements. I would like to commit myself and those in our party to work together with others to do something. The people we talked to today at the demonstration are looking to us for leadership. It is not a time to say that the provinces have to do this or that. We are the ones who were elected. We have to take the leadership. I am committed and I have committed myself as the agriculture critic to working with our hon. minister and the hon. member for Malpeque and others. Let us get on with the job.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his support in the report. I wish to say that really it was not my report. It was the report from farmers because that is what they told me. I thank him for his support.

Even I would recognize that all those recommendations cannot be put in place overnight. The recommendations will take time. I hope the government commits itself to doing that. I know the member opposite is concerned and I know as well that he talked with primary producers who were on the Hill yesterday and no doubt they spoke of an immediate need.

We need to send a message to the Minister of Finance that farmers need help in the short term until some of these other programs are in place. Maybe the Minister of Finance could take a little of that surplus that we left him, about $3 billion or so. I believe the Federation of Agriculture said that there is a $6 billion shortage. Perhaps the minister could come up with at least half of that prior to spring planting, so that farmers get a crop in the ground.

I would like to know what the view is of the member opposite. He talked with the farmers yesterday. How immediate is the problem? Do the farmers need the money right now?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, we are in a crisis situation. I have said this before and I will say it again, we are better positioned this year with our hon. members on this side of the House to work together with the minister, to work together with the cabinet and, yes, let us put pressure on the finance minister. Let us show him that we in fact are in a crisis situation and that this is vital. It is not something that we can put off until tomorrow.

The report is there. Let us use that as a basis. Let us forget about what happened. We can continue blaming the other side for years. Let us forget about what happened and get on with the job. Let us do it starting tomorrow.

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

Mr. Chair, I congratulate you on your appointment. With all your experience I am sure you will do an excellent job. I also want to thank my new colleague for being elected. I am sure he will add his voice to the House.

I had many constituents who came to the Hill. I think there were 8,000 people here yesterday. I have a riding that neighbours Ottawa and many of my people came a long way on tractors. They started out at two o'clock in the morning to be here.

These farmers came here to give us a strong message. They need help and they need it soon. They were here five years ago. There was a giant rally at Lansdowne Park. I was there. I was not an elected member, but I was there. They were asking for the same things they are asking for now. The farmers wanted some help. This is why I have sat here and I have popped up so many times.

The agriculture minister was appointed on February 6, two months ago today. The member suggests that we should solve all the problems in eight weeks. That is not going to happen.

There have been 13 years of neglect. We have not even had 13 weeks to solve this problem. Please, and I beg my colleagues, if they are sincere. The former agriculture minister, who thank God was not re-elected, refused to sign FarmGate5. The former government says it supports supply management. That is hogwash. The former government does not support farmers and it was obvious. Ask any farmer who is here.

My hon. colleague is new to the House. He should take note of the last 13 years and what the previous government did to the people who farm this great land of ours. Please cooperate with this government that wants to do something for those good people.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The time for questions and comments has expired. The member will have to consider himself instructed by the member who just spoke. The hon. Minister of Agriculture.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Chair, again, in a special way, I offer my congratulations to you. I have been in that post in the same kind of situation at many take note debates on agriculture, so I wish you well. You will do a superb job because you have the confidence of the House and the experience to make it work.

I am very pleased that the challenges facing the agricultural industry is the subject of our first take note debate here in Parliament. The fact that agriculture has been chosen as the topic of this debate is an indication of just how seriously people on this side of the House take this issue and how seriously it is being taken on all sides of the House. It is interesting that it is taken so seriously by folks on this side of the House that the very first statement made in this Parliament was about agriculture by a member from our caucus.

The very first action taken by our cabinet was to get money out the door to help producers. An ongoing priority of the government is to ensure that the people that elected us and that we stand shoulder to shoulder with are going to ensure that their priority is our priority and agriculture is finally going to get the attention it deserves in the House of Commons.

I want to begin by saying that we have more farmers and more farm interests represented in this caucus, in this cabinet, and in this government than has been the case in any government in living memory. These people here fight for farmers day in and day out. It is an honour to be included in this team of people who are going to represent farmers with aplomb over the next number of years.

As we said in the Speech from the Throne, we recognize the unique challenges faced by those who make their livelihood from our land and our natural resources, especially agriculture. We will take action to secure a prosperous future for Canadian agriculture following 13 years of neglect. For 13 years the Liberal government ignored the plight of Canada's hard-working farmers.

While the rest of the world poured billions into subsidies, the Liberals stood by and watched. While farm incomes plummeted, they folded their hands. When disaster struck, they promised money and did not deliver and when they did act, they tied up farmers in red tape and complicated rules in the CAIS program.

However, on January 23, Canadians voted for a change and that included change in agriculture. I am here to say we are going to deliver the change that farmers finally deserve today. The very first action of our cabinet was to start sending out the $755 million under the grains and oilseeds payment program. It was promised by the previous government. I have no idea why it did not send it out but it was not sent. We made it our first action.

Not only that, but we accelerated the amount of money that was going to go out, so that 90% of it would go out immediately and $400 million is already out. The rest of the money should be out over the next three weeks. In addition, during the election campaign the Conservatives promised an extra $2.5 billion investment in agriculture over the next five years to the core funding. We are going to address agricultural needs and it is going to be a priority for the government.

In the short term we are also making changes to the CAIS program. We have heard a lot of talk tonight about the CAIS program, trying to fix some of its problems so that farmers can actually benefit from the program. I have been to all 10 provinces, have had industry meetings in every province and met with all the agriculture ministers across the country. There is one consistent story that I heard from farmers, and I am not talking about the large organizations now, I am talking about farmers. One consistent story was that the CAIS program had not worked for them.

I will quote the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands who is the parliamentary secretary now in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board who said in 2002 that “this program will not meet the needs of farmers. It's going to be a serious problem for farmers and if you go ahead with it, there will be problems from coast to coast because of the CAIS program”. Unfortunately, he hit the nail right on the head.

Farmers knew it would not work: its untimely payments; its complexity; its lack of predictability, problems obtaining credit from banks; and its incapacity to respond to long term income decline. Farmers, especially in the grains and oilseeds sector, said it just did not get the job done. It had serious problems. Farmers were frustrated with it and we are intent on changing it.

We need to have something this year to tide them over and that is why I have said that we are going to continue with the CAIS program. We have no choice. In the middle of a crop year, we have to make changes. The provinces are working with us to make changes, to make it as good a program as we can in the short term, but we are intent on replacing the CAIS program with separate programs for income support and disaster relief. It is time to break those apart and finally give farmers something they can count on and bank on that is predictable and not so complex that they have to have an accountant to fill out the forms.

Other problems that farmers are experiencing are global in nature. Canadian farmers are world class, but they are up against world class subsidies and world class tariff barriers. That is why I and the Minister of International Trade had a round table here last month just down the road. We brought in about 50 key national agri-food organizations to develop our priorities and focus on the World Trade Organization meetings which are coming up later this month and hopefully will be completed this year.

Later this month I will be travelling to Geneva with our negotiators to get those subsidies down so that our farmers, as our leader has said, can compete on a level and fair playing field.

At those negotiations, and this has been brought up a few times tonight, I want to assure members that this government will stand four-square and solidly behind our supply management system which underpins thousands of family farms in Canada. I voted to stand up for supply management in November when I was in opposition, I voted for it during the campaign, and I will defend supply management when I am in Geneva during the negotiations as well.

I want to be very clear: we will support the supply management system during the negotiations in Geneva.

However, this does not mean that others will be left out. We are committed to defending the interests of all our producers in the grains and oilseeds sector, the beef sectors, and others who are looking for a way to beat down those foreign and domestic subsidies and tariff barriers that are keeping our products out of other markets.

This take note debate is happening tonight because there is an income crisis in parts of our agricultural sector. Over the past three years, the federal and provincial governments have paid out a lot of money in agricultural support programs, but still many of our farmers are struggling to make ends meet. That is why, as I mentioned, we promised $2.5 billion more for agricultural support programs over the next five years, but we also know that simply throwing money at the problem, although it is necessary in the short term and there is more money coming, is not the long term solution.

We need to have a fresh look at everything to determine how our agricultural sector fits in to the globalized market of the 21st century. We want to create an environment that will allow our agricultural producers to make a decent living from the market and enjoy future prosperity.

One of these emerging markets is renewable fuels. It is not the only answer but it is kind of symbolic. Soon we will be rolling out our biofuel strategy and I am working with the environment minister to ensure that farmers actually benefit from our commitment to 5% biofuels. We want to ensure that when we move to biofuels we want to help the environment. We want to ensure that we have a good, reliable source of fuel, of course, but we also want to ensure that when we roll out this platform, it is something that is going to benefit farmers, not just big companies, day in and day out for years to come, with a biofuel strategy that is for them.

We will also be taking greater advantage of our science and technological capabilities, an area where Canada has a real and substantial competitive advantage over many of our global competitors. Agricultural research and technological innovation can provide our producers with many new crops and uses for their crops. The real answer in the long run of course is not government subsidies. Farmers do not want handouts. They do not want to farm the mailbox. They want and deserve to make their living for themselves, their children and their grandchildren through the market.

Governments can help farmers at one level when disaster strikes and where steep income decline occurs, but the market will help the farmers prosper. It is my ambition and the ambition of this government that all sectors of agriculture become stable, our farmers become prosperous, and they understand that this government stands in their corner as we move from where we have been, unfortunately for too long, to a prosperous, reliable farm income that they can get from the marketplace and that they deserve.

The solutions we bring forward will be market-oriented but the government will be there, hand in hand, as we make the transition from where we have been, which has not been good, to where we need to be: a diverse market where farmers can get rewarded for what they do day in and day out.

Producers are facing problems now. We have heard their concerns. We realize they have a cash income crisis. We will be there for them. We have been there for them already and they can count on the fact that this government will be in their corner here and abroad for years to come.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have been listening intently to the debate. I have to say it is sadly obvious that the new Conservative government absolutely could not care less about Canadian farmers. I have heard a lot of talk from the other side tonight, but that is about it; it has just been a lot of talk and there has been absolutely no action. Worse than that, there has been absolutely no plan of action. The government is stuck in the mud, as I was saying. It does not know where we are going and it does not know how to get us there.

I was recently in the Republic of China, in Taiwan, with a group of parliamentarians. We spoke with the president of Taiwan and representatives from the department of health. My question for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is, when will the government take some action? When will the government open up the market for Canadian beef in Taiwan?

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

Mr. Chair, now there is a summary. The member probably figured that out while sipping cappuccinos at the Starbucks in Whistler Village. That kind of question is just nonsense.

Of course we want to open markets for beef products around the world. As an example, there have just been seven or eight new plants approved across the country for export markets to Japan. We want to improve market access for beef and all of our products. To simply stand and say the solution to the agricultural crisis is to open the beef market in Taiwan is just silly. It is a silly question.

Of course we will pry open markets at every occasion. It is what we are going to do at the WTO. But to think that is the solution for the crisis facing the agriculture industry is just nonsense.

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

Mr. Chair, I am happy that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is taking part this evening in the debate we requested. Obviously, this was no idle request. Yesterday, thousands of agricultural producers, many of them from Quebec, came to Parliament Hill. Thousands more across Canada were there in spirit. This is a very serious crisis.

Since the evening began, the minister and the Prime Minister have said that the situation is serious. We agree on that. Mention has been made of 13 years of neglect by the previous government. I agree completely. However, this minister and the Prime Minister were part of the official opposition for 13 years. Members of the official opposition prepare for the day when they will take power, and they lay the groundwork. They know what the issues and problems are. When they come to power, they do not just have intentions, they are ready to act.

They knew about this crisis for years. We have serious problems because of huge American and European subsidies and also, of course, because of the decrease in Canadian domestic subsidies. The official opposition was aware of all this. Now the Conservatives are in power. Since the evening began, everyone has agreed that we are facing a horrendous income crisis.

I would like the minister to tell us exactly what he intends to do. He talks about short-term measures, but what are these measures? How much money is involved? What is his timetable? Lastly, how does he respond to the producers who came to the hill yesterday? A media advisory reported that the minister was going to go and talk to them, but he did not. This evening, during this take note debate, I would like the minister to tell us and them exactly what he plans to do. We want action. We want a real answer.

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

Mr. Chair, I think our leader spelled it out pretty well. I tried to spell it out, but I will say it again. The very first action of the cabinet was to send out three-quarters of a billion dollars.

I realize that people want more, but there are two things to remember. The first is that every dollar we had parliamentary approval for we sent out the door the day that we formed the cabinet. The second thing is there is a clear promise of a major improvement to the base agricultural budget: $2.5 billion over the next five years. That is not chump change either. That is a lot of money.

When the budget is tabled and we see what our Minister of Finance has in there--and it is going to be a great package; I am looking forward to it--I hope that members opposite will help pass it quickly so that we can get whatever measures that are in there--and I cannot announce the budget today--out to Canadians across the country as quickly as possible.

However, other things are not going to be solved in eight weeks. That is a fact. I wish it were so, but when there are programs that have been badly designed, when a series of decisions made by previous governments have tied our hands in some ways, it will take us time to take corrective measures to design and implement better programs, to get more money into them, which we are going to do, and to negotiate better deals and opportunities for our producers across the country while we build secondary opportunities for them in our own country. These are things like biofuels and nutraceuticals and other opportunities, all of which we plan to do, but it is not going to happen in eight weeks. Some of the money has gone out quickly. There will be more coming fairly quickly, but it cannot be solved in eight weeks and I am not going to pretend it can. The farmers are not silly. They know it cannot be done that quickly, but as soon as we get the budget before the House, I hope it can have speedy passage.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the hon. minister for his vision on agriculture for Canada.

I have had a concern for the past few years, even before I got into politics. It concerns me when I hear that Canada is trying to play by the rules, that we want to negotiate lowering subsidies in other countries. We played by the rules with the WTO on softwood lumber and we see what has happened there.

I have a concern that if we go to the negotiations and say that we are playing by the rules and we want the European Union and the Americans to lower their subsidies, and let us assume they agree, how can we be sure that the Americans will lower them? The research I have done indicates that they have other ways. They say they are decreasing subsidies in one area, and all of a sudden those subsidies find their ways into other areas.

If we know that there are actual subsidies after we have gone through these negotiations, is our government prepared to subsidize our farmers to make sure we are on a level playing field? Can we be assured that the government will do that?

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

Mr. Chair, I know where the hon. member's heart is. It is with agriculture. I can tell that already. I look forward to working with him over a period of time.

The reason we are going to Geneva to try to get subsidies lowered is that if we want to go head to head with the Europeans we have to talk $70 billion to $80 billion to $90 billion. If we want to go toe to toe with the Americans, we had better ante up $20 billion. We just do not have that kind of money in Canada. The better thing to do is to try to get international subsidies down, and that is why the serious negotiations are taking place right now, and to try to get rules at the WTO to enforce them.

I agree with the member, one of the weaknesses in the past has been that when someone has a countervailing opportunity, it is peanuts to penalize someone who is breaking the rules.

Part of the discussion and part of the sticking point in Geneva is to make sure that the rules, the modalities that we are negotiating, actually have some teeth to them. That is one of the things we are keen on in our negotiations. It is not just to say that we should all be boy scouts about this, but to say that we do not mind being boy scouts as long as we have an ability collectively to take the big boys out and thrash them when they need it and have it coming.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have heard a great deal of debate tonight. I heard the hon. member for Malpeque talk about what the former government did in the last two years. Let us go back a little further. We used to have a couple of programs that actually worked for producers in this country. We had market revenue and NISA. What did the Liberals do? They got rid of them presumably because they worked too well.

I remember the Liberals promised producers super NISA. That was going to be the next program. What did they do? They did not give it to the producers. They ignored them. Instead they gave them CAIS which we know does not work. They finally admitted tonight that it does not work.

I know that producers are watching the debate tonight and they are judging us according to our platform commitments, and rightly so. We are keeping those commitments.

What are the alternatives? If the Liberals had won the last election, what would have happened? What did their platform say? They did not pledge to get rid of CAIS. They pledged to study changes to it. We would have been waiting for a committee to study changes. That is what producers would have had. The Liberals did not promise to accept risk management, for example. They promised something along those lines. They were going to study it some more. They would be caught in the same situation, not doing anything for producers.

I would like the minister to comment on how we are actually doing something. The Liberals were not going to be doing anything if they had won the election.

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

I do not know when I am going to get any sleep because I have so many farmers and farm interested folks in this caucus that they keep me pretty busy, Mr. Chair, I must admit.

During a campaign it is easy to promise things. It is easy to roll out numbers and even promise the moon during election campaigns. What we said and what we are going to do, and we are not just talking here, is we will add $2.5 billion over the next five years to the basic agricultural support system. With that money we are going to replace CAIS with separate income stabilization and disaster relief so that the people in Porcupine Plain whom I actually met with know that they will have some help when they really need it.

What I hear farmers saying again and again is, “It is not just about the money. You need to paint us a road map forward. You need to show us where we are going, tell us how we can fit in, make sure that we get part of the value added opportunities that are there so that farmers are not just the low cost producers all the time. Show us how we can join in and then let the farmers get to work”.

If they can see it, if they can predict it, if they can bank on it, if they know it is coming and they know the government is in their corner, the farmers are going to get to work. They are going to be profitable and we are going to make sure that they are.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, our question time is just about finished. In other parliaments with regard to debates with former agriculture ministers the House has given unanimous consent that the minister be allowed to field more questions. I would ask for unanimous consent to extend the question and comment period.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The member has asked if there is unanimous consent to extend the question and comment period for the benefit of members having more access to the Minister of Agriculture. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the House for allowing Parliament to hear more from our agriculture minister. I want to thank him for his speech tonight. He did more than just simply point out the failures of the last Liberal government, but he also clearly laid out our plan.

I want to commend all those in the election campaign. We had the plan clearly laid out in the election campaign as well. I think a lot of people in agriculture and a lot of Canadians recognize that when we came into office, we would carry out those promises.

I also want to thank the minister on behalf of my constituency. Since he has been appointed Minister of Agriculture, we recognize that he has travelled across the country many times. I know one Monday when I was in Ottawa at meetings, he was in my riding meeting with people around Calgary. The next day he was in Ottawa for a meeting and the day after I think he was in the Maritimes.

We all recognize the crisis we are facing. When we talk about crisis in agriculture, sometimes we broaden the scope to all of agriculture. At the present time, we are seeing perhaps an unprecedented crisis in the grains and oilseeds sector. I appreciate what the minister said. I do not believe any farmer wants to farm a system or a program in Canada. It is not how can we farm into a program, but how can we eventually leave programs and stand alone? However, in the meantime there is a crisis, and the minister has laid out part of that.

There is another crisis coming down the road as well. The average age of a farmer is 58 or 59 years old. We are seeing a depletion in equity on a lot of these farms, grains and oilseeds farms to be more specific. How can the government give hope to those who will soon move into a transition period? What hope is there for a young farmer who wants to take over dad's farm, if he is still there, or any young person wanting to move into this industry?