Mr. Speaker, Bill C-227, moved by the member for Athabasca, is similar to Motion No. 11 that was moved by the hon. member some time ago. This bill is an effort to provide equality and fairness for farmers.
This bill will allow farmers to defer income for one year if the farmer has to sell off livestock or destroy it because of a natural disaster, in the case of floods, drought, et cetera.
In the case of a natural disaster, if the farmer must sell livestock because their feed has been destroyed or for any other reason, the taxes on the income received from the sale will be deferred for one year. This will give the farmer time to rebuild the livestock once the natural disaster has passed.
In the case of an Agriculture Canada order to destroy livestock, any taxation on compensation would not be included in the farmer's taxes for one year. Again, this will give the farmer time to rebuild the livestock once the disease has been eradicated. This money is not taxed in the case of drought, so it should logically be extended to include livestock affected by other natural disasters and forced destruction of livestock for other health reasons.
With the aftermath of the ice storm of January 1998 there is a great need to re-evaluate the income support mechanism in the agricultural sector. When a natural disaster occurs, whether it be the floods of Manitoba, the Saguenay, northern Alberta, or last summer's drought in Nova Scotia, it is most often farmers who are hit the hardest financially.
It is time for the federal government to take a more proactive rather than reactive stance and start developing policies that benefit producers in good times and in bad times. In saying that, it is important that we emphasize the word consistency when we talk about disaster assistance. Without consistency in the delivery of assistance programs for farmers it would only create division between farmers across this great nation.
Before I go on any further, I would like to state for the record that when the Progressive Conservative government was in power between 1984 and 1989 support for our farmers was greater than ever before. Crop and income insurance totalled $21.7 billion, about $4 billion a year. Grains and oilseed farmers hurt by the 1988 drought received $850 million in emergency assistance.
It was also the Progressive Conservative government that in January 1991 brought in a new generation of farm safety net programs that farmers could count on. They were aimed at boosting farm income.
One of the most important programs, which continues to exist to this day, the net income stabilization account, replaced ad hoc programs and put in place help for farmers in all regions of this country.
The bill before us clearly demonstrates the need for us to re-evaluate our income protection system for farmers. Although government officials might say that weather conditions are never the same, disaster assistance is not the same either. I would suggest that this is where the problem lies.
There must be consistency in determining the level of assistance. It should not simply be based on the amount of publicity a natural disaster gets. This consistency must be applied to circumstances from coast to coast. Ad hoc programs provide for ad hoc solutions.
With the environmental and climatic changes that this world is undergoing, it is vital now, more than ever, to monitor these issues on an ongoing basis and develop consistent policies that would help farmers deal with these changes both financially and realistically.
I would like to mention that the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, our party's agriculture critic, has a private member's bill, Bill C-387, which addresses the problem of consistency. The hon. member's bill would establish a national committee to develop policies and procedures to ensure co-ordination in the delivery of programs by governments in the case of agricultural losses or disasters created by weather or pests, to co-ordinate the delivery of information, assistance, relief and compensation and to study the compliance of such programs with the WTO requirements.
The committee would consist of a membership of up to 21 members. Three would be nominated by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. One member would be nominated by each provincial agriculture minister. Five members would be representatives of farmers and would be nominated by such organizations representing farmers. Three members would be representatives of industry related to agriculture products and would be nominated by such organizations representing that industry.
The committee would monitor situations on an ongoing basis and discuss what income protection measures would be available to farmers in the event of disasters or unusual conditions caused by weather or pests, taking into account crop insurance, flood and drought protection programs and NISA.
That being said, the PC Party will support this bill. I hope the hon. member for Athabasca will also support my colleague's bill when it comes before the House. Unfortunately, Bill C-227 is not votable. It is important that all provinces from coast to coast have input and share ideas on income protection for the farming community. This bill clearly shows that there is a much larger problem. The main problem is the need for consistency in all financial arrangements between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. What is needed is for the federal government to show leadership on this issue and ensure that equity and fairness is there.
In conclusion, now that we know the House will rise tomorrow for the summer recess, I wish all members of parliament, including you, Mr. Speaker, a very nice summer vacation.