Mr. Speaker, there are not many farmers in the riding of Lévis, but I wanted to speak in this debate nevertheless. In any case, whenever we talk about agriculture in the House of Commons, I have a particular interest in the subject for two reasons.
As a farmer's son, I was aware of these problems from an early age. Reform Party members just said there were a lot of problems in the agriculture and agri-food sectors in Canada today, and especially in Quebec. Why? Because we do not get our fair share of federal spending on agriculture, although we contribute 24 per cent.
Today we are discussing Bill C-38, an act to provide for mediation between insolvent farmers and their creditors. We are talking about this because there is an increasing number of farmers with serious financial problems, in Quebec and in Canada. Why do they have so many financial problems? Because they must operate within an international free trade context which is hard on farmers. And also because the federal government's policies have brought a number of farmers close to bankruptcy and in many cases have pushed them over the brink.
This bill, although not perfect, has the effect of alleviating to some extent the untenable situation of certain farmers. Farmers today have to invest and go deeper and deeper into debt. To have a viable operation, they have to increase their acreage and expand their operations by buying their neighbour's land. Where I used to live, there were seven or eight farmers, but today there is only one farm, one operation.
An individual who has to manage all that has to incur enormous debts and take enormous risks, considering the fact that there is no new generation waiting in the wings. People are not lining up to continue this agricultural tradition. Why not? Because of the enormous investment involved.
You have to have a vocation. You almost have to be a missionary today to be a farmer. It is a very demanding occupation. As the Bloc Quebecois critic, the hon. member for Frontenac, said this morning, it is a seven-day-a-week job. It is as demanding as being a member of Parliament. We have to be here during the week and in our ridings on the weekend to take part in all kinds of activities. It is very demanding.
But do not expect any sympathy from farmers. No Quebec farmers will pity us because of the hours we work, because for years they have been used to working long hours to support their families. If everything works out, when he is old enough to retire, the farmer manages to convince his son or daughter or several sons to take over the farm and take out a farm loan, and then perhaps he will be able to enjoy his retirement.
But for 30 or maybe 40 years, the farmer and his wife have to work very hard. I mention the farm wives because, if there is any sector in Quebec that is a prime example of a family enterprise, it is farming.
Farm wives deserve as much praise as their husbands. The work has been divided up on the farm for years. Often the wife does the books, because the accounting is getting more and more complicated, and then there is all the paperwork to do with the milk.
I grew up with that, so I know what I am talking about. But people often have no idea. I am sometimes horrified to hear city people, of which I am one myself now, people who deserve what they earn and have their own problems but do not have to work the hours that farmers do, making deplorable comments about farmers.
They think the government heavily subsidizes agriculture and supports farmers. So many city folks make comments like this that they have an influence on the lawmakers and the people in government, especially the federal government, and end up convincing them that cuts to agriculture are justified.
This opinion is shortsighted because, if agricultural subsidies are cut, if there is no help for farmers at the primary level, this will have repercussions in the processing industry and then at the tertiary level, where agricultural products are sold to consumers.
I was listening earlier to our excellent agriculture critic, the hon. member for Frontenac, who often reminds us in the Bloc Quebecois of the importance of agriculture in Quebec, and no doubt in Canada as well, and in the West, as defended by the Reform Party. But we are not reminded often enough.
Based on my years as the political assistant to Jean Garon, the Quebec minister of agriculture between the Parti Quebecois' assent to power in 1976 and 1996, I would have no hesitation in describing him as the best minister of agriculture Quebec has ever had. He developed a concept that was no longer agriculture, but the concept known as agri-food, which established the link between production, processing and marketing. That forms a whole.
Mr. Garon used to talk about the importance of self-sufficiency and of buying our own products. This is vital. Why? Because it provided a living for more people in rural areas.
Whatever problem there may be in rural communities in Canada is due to the fact that we have started to ignore agriculture. Without agriculture, the major rural areas could not survive, and I think the problem starts at the grassroots. In other words, we have lost sight of the problems of the farming community, of farm producers, of people who process farm products and of those who sell them. Things are very difficult in the context of globalization.
This bill will ease things a bit for those in difficulty, because all too often we have seen people go bankrupt. I know you know how it works, but it always bears repeating. People get a farm loan, but they often must provide part of the financing themselves.
Parents who want their children to take over the farm sometimes loan some of the proceeds from the sale of their property to their children so they can make up the difference. This means that, at some point, there are two loans outstanding: the farm loan and the parents' loan. The time comes when they cannot be repaid, the operation is no longer profitable, and some of them face bankruptcy.
This legislation softens the edges. It provides for a new procedure to be established at the federal level to allow for mediation, so that people can make arrangements to keep the farm in operation before it reaches the point of going bankrupt.
What good does it do to declare someone bankrupt if no one else wants to buy the property and this agricultural heritage, sometimes built over generations, has to be abandoned for wanting to get out from under a burden of debt that has become excessive for a family? I think this is a good idea.
At report stage, the Bloc Quebecois, through its agriculture critic, the hon. member for Frontenac, put forward several amendments in committee. Like the third party, we had concerns. The whole issue of political patronage appointments, among other things, was of concern to us. We would like appointments to be made on a non-partisan basis, putting an end to the practice established in the federal government of rewarding defeated candidates by giving them a position. There will be plenty of them after the next election.
I know that many expect to win in ridings where the hold of the Bloc Quebecois is very strong. Soon we will have some of these people sitting on the kind of board that Bill C-38 is seeking to establish.
It is extremely difficult to wrest approval from the Liberals in committee, as is usually the case with the government, for amendments put forward by the opposition, sovereignist members who are looking after the interests of Quebecers. They cannot support this kind of amendments, because they are in office. So, the amendments are lost.
This does not prevent us from very objectively recognizing that this is a step in the right direction. Because it could save the taxpayers $1 million, we will vote in favour of this bill at third reading.
The hon. member for Frontenac has pointed out a number of flaws, which were unfortunately not addressed. But when one cannot have the best, one has to settle for second best. Because this bill is an improvement over the existing legislation, we will support it.
I would like to use the time I have left to remind the hon. members that, as I said at the beginning of my speech, Quebec is not getting its fair share of federal spending in agriculture. According to figures from the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we get only about 10 per cent of the federal expenditures in that sector, or some $311 million.
Yet, Quebec's contribution to Canadian revenues from agriculture represents about 16.4 per cent of the total. The figure goes up to 21.4 per cent if we take into account not just farm production itself, but the whole agri-food industry. In this case, if we take into account only the processing industry, the shortfall is increased by an additional $201 million.
In the years 1985-86 to 1994-95, when the Conservatives were in office, federal expenditures in Quebec's agri-food industry represented only 9 per cent of the total. During the same period, agricultural revenues from our province amounted to 16.3 per cent of the total. So, for these 10 years, the cumulative shortfall for Quebec totalled $3 billion. I could go on.
One might have thought the Liberals would have corrected the situation, but no. Things remain the same and Quebec is still being treated unfairly. Let me mention an important point. The figure of $3 billion resurfaces again. The government abolished the Crow's Nest rate. What was the result? They gave $3 billion in compensation to western farmers because that was what the Reform Party called for. In this case, Reform Party members deserve credit. They obtained $3 billion in compensation for western farmers. I do not know what those of us from Quebec did. We asked for our share of compensation as well. Instead of compensation, cuts were made to our agricultural sector.
As it is, we are not receiving our fair share, and they are cutting again. They cut $107 million in 1995-96; in 1996-97, it was another $30 million, in addition to the other cuts; in 1997-98, it will be another $113 million. This is unacceptable. Consumers thought
they were in purgatory. Now they are headed for hell. Things keep getting worse. We must speak out before the next election.
The point can never be made too strongly. It is true that Reform Party members have spoken about farming because they are looking out for western voters, but I say to them that in Quebec our farmers are suffering as well.
At the federal level, despite the fact we represent 24 per cent of the population, we are not receiving our fair share. As long as we stay in this system, as long as the people of Quebec do not opt for sovereignty, we in the Bloc Quebecois will continue to ask for our fair share, because we are paying taxes here in Ottawa.
We demand the equivalent of the $3 billion for the Crow rate buyout. Unfortunately, although this bill will ease the pain a little for a number of farmers, it resolves nothing. Canada's agriculture minister should show some backbone and resolve the problems; he should reach an agreement with the Government of Quebec to avoid duplication among other things.
Yes, I applauded the amalgamation of the three federal food inspection agencies a few months ago in the House. One came under the Department of Health, another under the Department of Agriculture and a third under another department. They were combined into one agency.
The fact is that it is essential that a stop be put to duplication in this sector and that Quebec receive financial compensation because it is closer to the people. You do not farm in an office in Ottawa. Raising cows, fishing and so on cannot be done in an office in Ottawa. The government must be closer to the community. The closest government is the Government of Quebec. Why not work together more, instead of structuring and regulating, which is sometimes of no use to Quebec?
I will conclude by urging my colleagues opposite, those who, knowing Friday would soon be here, have unfortunately already left, to give the matter some thought. We may not speak about those who are absent, but there are not very many of us here today on Thursday to speak about agriculture, although it is an extremely important sector. If they want to do some more work on the economy, if the Prime Minister is serious when he talks about the economy and "jobs, jobs, jobs", he would deliver speeches aimed at the agricultural community.
There is a line that is funny but true. When it comes to agriculture, certain Liberal ministers are behaving, as Jean Garon used to say, like mosquitos in a nudist colony; they do not know where to start. I apologize for this bit of humour, when the situation is so grim.
