Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on the motion brought forward by the member for Selkirk—Interlake.
I spent many years farming. Although I cannot claim to be a full time farmer, I can certainly sympathize with a lot of our farm community, especially those in the west who are suffering significant economic hardship today. I can remember receiving a cheque for a grain shipment and wondering why it was that the total amount of the cheque did not equal my fertilizer bill. I can imagine that some farmers can take that one step further and wonder how they are going to feed and clothe their families based on such low income levels.
I am amazed a little about the shape and form of this debate in the House today. I have listened to the members opposite who talked about all the things we should do as a government to solve this problem.
Some of the pork producers in Durham suffered through the low commodity prices for pork just last year. They had severe economic hardship.
A number of things were totally beyond their control, mainly due to a high cycle of productivity and the collapse of international prices for pork. The government came forward and addressed the issue. It listened to the concerns of farmers all over the country and implemented an AIDA program.
I am certain that there are those who have concerns about the AIDA program. I heard some members opposite talk about the problems of making application for these funds and the administrative process. Quite frankly I am surprised by the opposition. It has not taken into account the necessity for accountability in our framework. By that I mean we chose a methodology of program delivery that required farmers to use their income tax returns in order to prove, to hypotheticate and to understand the nature of their income support levels. I will be sharing my time with the member for Chatham—Kent—Essex.
This process became somewhat cumbersome. A lot of people have concerns about it. There is a time delay between cashflow problems and when the cheques arrive. We know of the reverse situation where governments got into program delivery where they simply wrote cheques and told them later about whether one could prove the necessity for or need for the program.
These programs are disastrous in and among themselves. The worst thing governments can get into is paying out moneys to people with income problems and turning around a year later and saying they overcontributed to the program and need the money back.
I am sure members understand that there are idiosyncrasies about the program. I am sure a lot of farmers are discouraged by the fact that they have to fill out these forms. I have to admit that I am an accountant but I have never had to fill them out. I understand their concern with my profession which makes money filling out these forms. I share and sympathize with the problem. It should not be that complicated. Indeed I do not think it is that complicated. Many of my constituents tell me that they complete these forms by themselves.
We listened today to the Reform Party telling us two or three different points. I cannot seem to reconcile the messages. It was telling us that part of the solution was to form a regime that would protect farmers from the disparities of international subsidies and subsidy programs. At the same time it was telling us that we should reduce taxes. It did not take long to understand that these two policy choices were in direct conflict with each other.
Many other businesses in the country are subjected to the disparities of international subsidies. I only have to think of our aircraft industry, steel imports and many other industries with concerns about tariff and unfair subsidies in other countries. It is not within our economic or physical ability to protect every interest in the country from distorting trade practices in other countries. As a government and a people we could go to countries within the World Trade Organization and other forums to argue that we need fairer trade practices.
Surprisingly enough, today the leader of the Reform Party and the member for Lethbridge, if I recall, talked on and on about how terrible it was that the Prime Minister would go on trade missions and not be in the House. The way we deal with these trade distorting practices is to go and talk with people in other countries.
Not long ago I was able to go to Taiwan. At that time I was concerned about what I considered to be the unfair trade practices of the Taiwan government that favoured American imports of beef over those of Canada. We talked about how we could find some way to liberalize that regime and narrow it for the benefit of our farm community.
Many other speakers have intervened in this issue, but the reality is that our exports of agricultural products are at an all time high. Canadian farmers have been very successful at producing agricultural products efficiently and cheaply and at being able to export them into world markets.
I do not think it takes a lot of brains to understand the way the world is going if we look at the Asian community. Quite frankly the conclusion is that the world is going into an era where it will not be able to feed itself. Certainly communities in Asia and others will not be able to feed themselves. It is a good opportunity for our agricultural industries.
One issue today was about government concern in this regard. Strangely enough, suddenly the Reform Party is greatly concerned about agricultural issues. My research tells me that the Leader of the Opposition in the last session of parliament never asked one question about agriculture and in this session he has only asked one.
We heard members of the Reform Party today. They are very concerned about the agricultural plight of the west, specifically Saskatchewan, yet the questions were on APEC, about the hurt feelings of a few people involved in the APEC inquiry. Farmers, whether in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, were the least thing on their mind when it came to question period.
We are here today talking about some of the programs available to farmers. The NISA program has been in place for many years. It is a tremendous program where taxpayers attempt to match contributions to the fund by farmers to allow them the ability to smooth out their income over peak years.
Because of the drastic downturn in commodity prices and some of the climatic conditions that have impacted on the production of agricultural products in the west this system is not adequate enough. When we are designing income support programs we should find out where to put the safety net and how much we can afford to support the safety net.
Situations occur, whether in agriculture or other industries, where there is oversupply and undersupply and a rationalization going on in the market. Agricultural producers in my riding are not looking for free handouts. They are not looking to the government to subsidize them, unlike what the Reform Party is seemingly suggesting today.
If I went around my riding and asked the farming community whether it would would be happy with a program which protected them from all things in the world, which is what the Reform Party is proposing in the motion, my constituents would tell me no. They are big people. They are very confident they can effectively run their farming operations. Farmers want us to sit down at the trade tables to negotiate a reduction in international subsidies which gives Canadians the ability to compete in worldwide markets. I suggest that is what the government is doing.
We have a World Trade Organization meeting coming up in Seattle next month. The government is working very hard at the position it will put forward to reduce agricultural subsidies throughout the world. The best we can do for Canadians is not create another regime of subsidies and support like the Reform Party would have us do but reduce the unfair practices of today.
