Wayne Easter

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, that is one of the reasons that we did the kinds of consultations we did with the farm community last year. We came down with a report that identified the real problem in the farm community as the lack of market power.

If we look at this year we will find that while farm incomes are the lowest they have been, even with record government payments that took them out of the red and put them into the black, they are still having financial difficulty. While that is happening, the agri-food sector is having record profits in terms of the chemical industry, the pesticide industry, the fertilizer industry and the grain marketing industry. I might say that in terms of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture advocating doing away with the Canadian Wheat Board, there is a benchmark study that shows that single desk selling actually adds $160 million per year to farmers' pockets. The parliamentary secretary's position in trying to advocate away that single desk selling will take $160 million out of those farmers' pockets who are going broke and put it in the pockets of the agri-business sector which is receiving record profits. That is not the answer.

I will quote William Heffernan, a sociologist, who had it right when he said that “economic power, not efficiency predicts survival in the system”. That is what we need to do. We need to empower farmers in the farm community through marketing agencies, such as the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management and deal at the WTO, and ensure that a government has safety net programs to assist farmers when world prices are low.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the member started off by talking about the last 13 years. I am very proud of what the Liberal government accomplished over the last 13 years. The Conservatives have a surplus but they will not use any of the surplus to give farmers the necessary cash. We did that a year ago. We put record payments out over the last two years because we turned a country that was virtually bankrupt into a country that had surpluses.

Why was the country near bankruptcy? It was near bankruptcy because of the Mulroney regime. The present Prime Minister has taken some of those very people who drove the country to near bankruptcy and has put them in his office and is using them for advisers. My goodness, that is not the way to go. We want to keep surpluses.

As a result of that Liberal record where we put the country and the economy into a surplus position, the present government now has some money to do things with. I would ask the government to consider the farm community in terms of utilizing those surpluses that we left it.

On supply management our record is strong. This party, the NDP and the Bloc have always supported supply management. As for that party over there, do members remember its Alliance policy platform? Do members remember its Reform policy platform? Some of those members sit in that caucus and their policy was not very supportive of supply management. In fact, their policy was to keep it and have a transition program in place while they moved to the market economy. That is not what supply management producers want to hear. They want to have strong support and strong action. When our party was in government we were in support of the supply management industry.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, they certainly try to blame us, but they cannot get away with that all the time. That will wear thin after a while because farmers know the difference. The Conservatives are in government. They have to be responsible. The government has to do the right thing. It has to put money in farmers' pockets. When will it do it?

The Conservatives cannot just blame us. They cannot just ignore their responsibility and say that it is the provinces' fault. They are the Government of Canada and we expect them, as the government, to come up with an agriculture policy that will make a difference in terms of farmers' livelihoods and the livelihood of their communities so they can get on with being prosperous, with farming in the farm community and with contributing to the Canadian economy. That is what we expect of the government. We need programs that actually mean something and not just the words it is currently using.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, there are recommendations in it. I would recommend that the minister take them to heart.

Without government payments, last year farmers would have been in the negative. As the leader of the official opposition indicated, we did put a lot of money out. Last year, over and above normal programming, we put out approximately $2 billion, totalling close to $6 billion of all programs, yet farmers still find themselves in difficulty.

I want to make the point that the problem is not the farmers. Some in the public would ask why we continue to put money out to farmers. Canadian farmers are among the most productive in the world. They contribute to our balance of trade. They are responsible for one in eight jobs in Canada. Canada is the fourth largest exporter of agriculture and agrifood products in the world. We have increased our food exports to $25 billion. Farmers are doing their part. The problem is that other players in the system are gaining the profits.

When we look at our farms and examine the facts closely, every economic indicator is positive: production, revenue, exports, output per acre, output per farmer, cost per unit, et cetera, every indicator that is, except net farm income. As farmers produce more, export more and produce more efficiently, farmers are rewarded with less. That is unacceptable.

The Prime Minister has said that he wants to move to a cost of production program. We have no disagreement with that. In fact, we favour cost of production, but members opposite and the Prime Minister have to understand that we have to get from here to there. In the meantime, the 10,000 farmers who were here on the Hill yesterday need ad hoc funding. They need a program in place to carry them over until we can get to those kinds of policies. We will be supportive in terms of cost of production, but in the interim, farmers need cash and they need it now. We need a commitment from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture to get that ad hoc funding money out there prior to spring planting.

The Prime Minister talked about scrapping CAIS. There is no question that program has to be fixed, but keep in mind if the program was not in place, the $5 billion that went out to farmers over the last two years would not have gone out. It is not enough to say scrap it; we have to replace it with a program that assists farmers with cash.

In the election campaign the Prime Minister and the Conservatives talked about $500 million more. The impression was left with the farm community by those members opposite that the $500 million more was actually more, but as compared to what the previous government did, it is actually $1.2 billion less. I would like to see somebody stand and deny it. The $500 million is over and above regular safety net programming. It is not over and above what the previous government paid out. It is $1.2 billion less. I am asking the Minister of Agriculture and others on the other side to commit to pay that $500 million per year over and above what the previous government actually paid out. That is what farmers require.

The last point I will make before I close is that in an interview the other day, the Minister of Agriculture basically said, “Don't blame me. Blame the provinces”. If we are going to develop agriculture policy in this country--

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, if the Prime Minister thinks I was quiet, he was absolutely wrong because I had consultations with farmers last year. I presented the report to the minister of agriculture. I would ask the present Minister of Agriculture to pass that report on to the Prime Minister. In fact in the last election many of the members on that side of the House quoted from that report. They said that it made a lot of sense to go forward with those recommendations. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that the Prime Minister sees that report and acts on it as rapidly as he can.

First and foremost, I want to thank all parties for their support in having this debate because there is indeed a farm crisis. Thousands of farmers were on the Hill yesterday, not because they wanted to be but because they had to be to try to push the government into taking some action. As we heard from the Prime Minister's remarks, there is really very little action. The throne speech was much like the Prime Minister's remarks, no action, just words.

The Conservatives say we have to wait for the budget. That is not true. The Minister of Agriculture could have asked the Minister of Finance to use some of that surplus before it went back to the treasury on March 31. That is what happened last year with the previous minister of agriculture when it was coming up to March 31. There was a problem in the farm community. The minister prepared some documentation and he received $1 billion from the minister of finance. Members opposite could have done the same and could have put cash in producers' pockets immediately.

Those members are talking now about $755 million that the previous government booked in November. They are bragging about getting it out. The fact of the matter is the government has put out only about $400 million to producers. What is the holdup? Get those cheques out. Those cheques would have been in farmers' pockets by now had there not been an election. Members on that side of the House talk about a lot of things, but the minister and the government must make an immediate cash infusion to the farmers prior to spring planting.

There is no question that some will wonder why farmers require dollars. Some will wonder why they are in a crisis. What is the real reason? I agree with the Prime Minister's point that a lot of the crisis is due to international trade situations, to subsidies in the United States and Europe, to policies pushing prices down and making our farmers uncompetitive. I had the opportunity to look into that issue a year ago and the real reason farmers are in crisis is a lack of power for primary producers in the marketplace.

I refer the Prime Minister to that document. There are some 46 recommendations in that report. They are not partisan recommendations and members opposite know that. They are recommendations that came from the farm community itself. I would refer that document to the Prime Minister and to the government. I urge him to implement many of those recommendations.

I would ask for unanimous consent in the House to table the report.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, well there was really nothing new in the remarks from the Prime Minister, but I have information from a farmer in the Porcupine and district disaster area which would be in the riding of Yorkton—Melville. This individual, Lee Howse, said that the farmers in the rural municipality of Porcupine No. 395 in northeastern Saskatchewan find themselves in a catastrophic situation. He went to say in a letter to me and others that a request to the Minister of Agriculture and to the member for Yorkton—Melville for a disaster relief program to help the farmers in Porcupine has been unsuccessful. He said that they desperately need our assistance to pressure the government in power.

That farmer in the riding of Yorkton—Melville is saying that the member from that riding and the Minister of Agriculture are not coming forward with immediate funds. He wants pressure put on the government. There is no better person to pressure than the Prime Minister. Will he deal with this issue and immediately come forward with cash to help those cash-strapped farmers?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his debate to the Speech from the Throne. He does come from a great riding. I had the opportunity of working in his riding in the Saint John River valley for a number of years as the president of the farmer's union and I know many farmers in the area.

Farmers have called me about the potato wart issue and the case that is going on there and I know they have called the member as well. During the election I believe the member opposite left farmers with the impression that, should the courts rule against the government, the leader of the Conservative Party, should he become prime minister, would not appeal the case. I think farmers need to know whether that is what the member really meant during the election campaign, that the government would not appeal the case if it went against the government and in favour of the farmers on potato wart.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member and I are in agreement that the government has to take prompt action. It has not shown that and it is certainly not showing that in its speeches. In fact the Minister of Agriculture seems to be backtracking on ad hoc funding.

The member knows that last March 31 there was a billion dollars put out there to primary producers to assist them in terms of getting their crop in the ground. We need to see the same kind of action from the government.

With respect to the international subsidies of other countries, I suggest to the member, and I hope that he would be on side, that the government should adopt the programs and recommendations outlined in the report empowering farmers in the marketplace.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Yes, he is responsible for Prince Edward Island as well. We hope that he will take that issue seriously.

Let me get back to the point on the GST. What we are concerned about on this side is that there is tax relief for low income Canadians.

A study released on March 29, 2006 by an independent non-partisan research institute, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, found that 5% of families earning over $150,000 a year will receive 30% of the benefits from the Conservative tax cuts, an average of more than $2,010 in savings each year. On the other side, almost half of Canadian families earning less than $40,000 will receive only 20% of the benefits of the Conservative tax cuts, an average of just over $163.

The GST cut the Conservatives are proposing, and taking away the tax reduction that the Liberals put in place, will transfer the benefits to the rich in society and take them away from the less well off. That is what the Minister of Foreign Affairs ought to be concerned about.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the member opposite does indeed change positions. I saw a great cartoon a little while ago. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was tied up in a pretzel because he made an announcement one day and the Prime Minister changed it the next. I thought it was quite appropriate.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for ACOA talked about the GST.