Garry Breitkreuz

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it has been very, very difficult to have questions answered by the government. I asked this question earlier and I must emphasize once again that the government is ignoring the question. What are the bureaucrats in agriculture doing?

I read an article in the paper awhile back that described how many bureaucrats we have in all of the departments of agriculture across this country.

There are 5.7 farmers for every bureaucrat. Farmers have come to me and asked: “What are these guys doing? This crisis is coming down the pike and nobody has prepared us for it”. It is the very same thing that the member asked: “What would you do?”

We do not need more programs designed by bureaucrats.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I must express my appreciation. It is good to see somebody on the other side who knows something about agriculture. It is also reassuring to see the hon. member working at committee to recognize the difficulties that farmers are having. She talked about a third line of defence. I am glad she is willing to look at other things that work. Unfortunately she needs to inform herself a little more fully about NISA.

I would like her to reply to a question. How do we communicate the importance of this issue to all Canadians? The concern we have over here is that not enough people are made aware of the importance of agriculture to Canada.

I can appeal to Canadians by putting this in context by saying that we are talking at great length about whether we should give a 1% or 2% raise to our union members, postal employees, teachers, workers in the automotive industry, electrical, telephone and delivery services. We express grave concerns that these people are not getting a 1% or 2% raise but here we have farmers taking a 75% cut in their pay. That is very serious. It affects a large part of Canada and yet we are unable to get most Canadians to recognize the seriousness of the problem.

We can talk about $22 billion in exports and we know how important that is but if we go beyond that people's eyes glaze over at these numbers sometimes.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to pause for a truce once in a while in the battles we engage in regarding the policies of the government and the affairs of this great country. We have a lot to be thankful for and many people have sacrificed their lives so that we may have peace. We pay them our respects. It is not easy to do battle in this House as we battle with words and that is what parliament is all about.

In posing my question I need to explain to Canadians that it is not easy to get a resolution on to the floor of the House to be debated and battled over. I want to thank all of those who helped me in the battle to have agriculture discussed. Farmers have gone to bat for us and they have done a lot for this country. We need to recognize that.

The government gets the chance to choose what is debated here most of the time. The official opposition gets to name the topic for debate about one day out of every month and generally the topics submitted for debate are much more important to most Canadians than what the government puts forth.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this topic to all Canadians. We may not debate agriculture very often, but I have no control over that.

I did not want this to be a partisan issue and so I did not press to have it votable. However my colleague had become quite partisan in his comments by documenting the failings of the Liberal government. Would it not be more productive to work with the government rather than chastise it for its failings? That is the question I would like the member to address.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the member's comments. He has made an excellent point, one which has not been made thus far today.

I heard him speak on the issue of rail transportation in his part of Saskatchewan. Could he elaborate on the concerns farmers have about government policy with regard to rail line abandonment, on some of the problems that have been created because of the lack of competition in that area? Has he heard any concerns from his constituents with regard to the transportation problems they are encountering?

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague in the Reform Party makes an excellent point. The government is trying to paint this as a partisan issue of some sort. It is not a partisan issue. If we wanted it to be a partisan issue, we would have made it votable. We could have done all kinds of things.

Everybody is trying to take shots at everybody else here. We are trying to highlight the fact that the government has bungled this portfolio badly. We need to address these issues now.

I find it unbelievable that the parliamentary secretary continues to defend NISA. We are here to try to debate the issue. NISA is not cutting it. Farmers have to contribute to it and many farmers have not.

To demonstrate how out of touch the government is, I take one phrase the parliamentary secretary used. He said that it has been the best five years in the history of agriculture. Where do these people live? I concur with what my colleague said. They must be living in downtown Toronto to make a statement like that. They cannot live in rural Canada and maintain that stand.

Then they went on to talk about advance payments. Farmers do not want to borrow more money. That is not why we are bringing forth the motion today. We have to walk and chew gum at the same time, I guess. We have to look at the long range and we have to look at the short range. We have to fix what is broken and help them out in the meantime. That is what has to take place.

I conclude by going back to one thing the minister said. If this is his answer to the whole crisis, we are in big trouble. He said that they wanted to show farmers how to use all the tools in their toolbox. They should not throw a wrench in the gears and bring the whole agricultural machine to a grinding stop and then make that kind of statement. This is ridiculous.

The government ripped out the Crow subsidy. It did not have time for transportation costs. It did not provide for any competition and so on. There has been so much misrepresentation on the part of the government in this debate that it needs to be corrected.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Before we continue debate can I get the consent of the House to ask the member a couple of key questions?

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Brandon—Souris was interested in more time. We got unanimous consent in questions and comments earlier to extend that. I wonder if we could extend it for a few more moments. Many people would like to address some of the concerns he raised.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the NDP member describe how we need relief and how we need it immediately. I agree. It is a desperate situation and we have to do something right now.

The devil is in the details. How would members propose to deliver this relief? How would they make sure that it gets to whom it belongs?

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the minister for taking a few more questions. I realize he has a meeting to go to, so I thank him very much for his time.

Four items were raised in the minister's speech which I would like him to clarify.

First, he said that our economic fundamentals are sound, that they are in good order. Would he not admit that our debt load is twice that of the Americans, our nearest competitors, and that because of that we have a much higher tax burden which puts our farmers at a distinct disadvantage? As the minister knows, I quoted some figures in my speech that show our farmers are experiencing a much higher tax burden than American farmers.

The minister said that it is a business decision not to participate in NISA. It has not been a business decision by farmers not to participate in NISA. It is because they cannot. Farm incomes have been so low that they have been unable to contribute. Those farmers who are being hurt the most have been unable to put funds away in NISA so the government could match those funds and they could withdraw them at this point. There are farmers who are well off and there are certain sectors which have not been touched or hurt by this crisis, but others are unable to contribute. Would the minister not agree this is the case?

It almost shocks me that the minister would say that farmers need other sources of income if they want to continue farming. Is the minister saying that farmers should not expect to make their living from agriculture? That is a serious matter.

My final question is: Did the minister's bureaucrats not see this coming?

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the fact that the minister of agriculture is here and there are a couple of things which should be clarified. I would ask for the consent of the House to extend the time by a couple of minutes so that I might ask the minister a question.