Mr. Speaker, I was just about to tell you. We will share our time pursuant to Standing Order 43(2).
I would like to move on to the motion before us today, a motion on agriculture.
The term "lack of action" was mentioned with regard to the government opposite; I totally agree with the notion of "lack of action" and I would like to add another term: inequity.
I think that in the last several years Quebec farmers have been treated inequitably by the Canadian government; that is unacceptable, in my opinion.
I dug out a few figures to support my arguments and to have the word "inequity" included in today's non-confidence motion because, when we look at government spending on agriculture, it is clear that for the federal government agriculture is limited to western Canada.
I will start by giving you an example. In 1980, Quebec was the beneficiary of $300 million in federal agricultural expenditures, compared with $1 billion in western Canada.
In 1987 Quebec received $410 million, compared with over $4 billion in Western Canada. I think adding the word "inequity" to today's motion would be neither superfluous nor inappropriate.
Another thing I discovered is that Quebec's share of federal spending went from 16.4 per cent in 1980 to only 7.7 per cent in 1987, which amounts to half of Quebec's share of farming revenues in Canada or 15.6 per cent.
On the other hand, western Canada's share of federal agricultural expenditures went from 55 per cent in 1980 to 76 per cent in 1987.
Between 1980 and 1987, Quebec's share fell while Western Canada's increased. It went from 55 per cent in 1980 to 76 per cent in 1987.
Once again, I emphasize the terms "unfairness" and "inequities", all these expenditures to which Quebecers contributed a big share through their taxes of various kinds; they know very well that the federal government gets a lot from them.
We calculate that about 25 per cent of the taxes collected by the federal government comes from Quebec, which means that this money which Quebecers send to the federal government is redistributed unfairly to our detriment, especially in agriculture.
From 1980 to 1987, federal spending on agriculture increased one sixth as fast in Quebec as in the rest of Canada.
During that period federal spending rose by 192 per cent. I am glad that federal spending on agriculture rose by 192 per cent between 1980 and 1987. The federal government thought it was important to increase its spending to help agriculture. I come back to my word "unfairness", and we will see how this 192 per cent increase in federal spending on agriculture was distributed.
Spending increased 37 per cent in Quebec, compared with 340 per cent in Alberta, 292 per cent in Manitoba and 285 per cent in Saskatchewan. Again I come back to the word "unfairness". Such glaring differences are outrageous. An increase of 37 per cent in Quebec when Alberta got 340 per cent, Manitoba 292 per cent and Saskatchewan 285 per cent is unacceptable. I repeat that a lot of this money, at least 25 per cent, comes from Quebecers.
In 1990, the federal government spent almost half, 50 per cent, of its whole agriculture budget on research. I do not know if it is by chance, but most of the agriculture research budget was invested in grain production. We know that more grain has been produced in Quebec in recent years, but nevertheless it only accounts for 6 per cent of all our agricultural production in Quebec. We were shortchanged in the distribution of the research budget of the department of agriculture, considering that the department invested half its budget in research on grain and grain is only 6 per cent of Quebec's agricultural production.
When the time came to do research in three other sectors where Quebec is much more active, namely the dairy, poultry and pork industries, it only contributed 24 per cent. Yet, these industries account for 59 per cent of Quebec's production. Again, you can see the inequity. Ten per cent of the research budget is allocated to the dairy industry, while the production of this sector represents one third of the total. Quebec was also penalized regarding research and development in agriculture, since more than 50 per cent of that budget was spent in western Canada.
Federal government policies unfairly benefit western producers and adversely affect Quebec producers' competitiveness, particularly regarding grain and livestock production, as I just mentioned.
These unfair federal policies force Quebec to make greater financial efforts to support the agricultural industry. Let me explain how, because the province does not get its fair share from the federal government, the Quebec department of agriculture must rely on provincial taxes. In 1987, the Quebec department of agriculture, fisheries and food had to allocate $569 million to the agricultural sector, whereas the federal government was only contributing $410 million. In other words, the Quebec government spends more on its agricultural sector than the federal government.
The injustice lies in the fact that Quebecers have contributed a lot more to support agriculture in other provinces than in their own province. In 1987, Quebecers contributed $1.3 billion to agriculture in the other provinces. We paid for 25 per cent of all federal expenditures in agriculture, which totalled at that time $5.3 billion, twice the Quebec budget for agriculture. In other words, we use Quebec taxpayers' money to spend $569 million on our own agricultural industry and to send $1.3 billion to Ottawa to support other Canadian provinces. That also is unfair. I really want to stress that point. I want to show how utterly unfair Canadian policies were to Quebec policies.
There is a double standard in the federal agricultural policy, and I want to give you some examples. Between 1983 and 1987, federal subsidies reached an average of $32 a tonne for Western grain, compared to $12.34 a tonne for Quebec grain. Why $34 in the west and only $12 in Quebec? What was that all about? We pay taxes like evernyone else. Why do we not get our fair share?
Pursuant to the act, the Canadian Wheat Board must, at the time of delivery, pay to western grain producers an initial payment set and guaranteed by the federal government. If sales revenues do not cover the payments made, the federal government makes up for the deficit. This system resulted in the following: between 1985 and 1988, the federal government spent $344 million to cover the difference between the sales price asked by the Canadian Wheat Board and the payments made to the producers. We ended up with a $344 million deficit which the federal government covered with our taxes. The worst of it all is that Quebec grain producers are not eligible for that program. We pay for the rest of the producers, but we are not entitled to these benefits.
In 1991 and 1992, under the western grain stabilization program, western grain producers were guaranteed a net income equivalent to their average income over the five previous years. The federal government paid for three quarters of the contributions for this program, and the producers paid the rest. Western provincial governments did not take part in this program. When came the time to implement the program in Quebec, the federal government asked the province to pay for a third of it. Why did the western provinces not participate in it? Was it strictly between the producers and the federal government? When the time came for Quebec to take advantage of this program, Ottawa told the province that it had to pay for a third of it.
Western grain transportation support is a real scandal. Since 1983, the federal government has been paying an indexed $658 million every year. In 1991-1992, it paid railroad companies 1.1 billion to transport western grain, whereas Quebec producers were once again not eligible for that program. We pay taxes and with our taxes, the government promotes farm production in the west at the expense of eastern producers. It is in that sense that I would like to add the words "lack of fairness" to the words "lack of action" in our motion. If I had more time, I could give you more examples, but my allotted time is running out.