Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry

Issue 15 - Evidence

OTTAWA, Thursday, October 18, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:36 a.m. to examine international trade in agricultural and agri-food products, and short-term and long-term measures for the health of the agricultural and the agri-food industry in all regions of Canada.

Senator Leonard J. Gustafson (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. We will begin with our witnesses from Manitoba. Please proceed with your presentation and then we will go to questions.

Mr. Murray Downing: Thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak on agriculture one more time. It is an important issue and the backbone of our nation and its rural communities.

We are here this week to tell you that we need some help. We need a long-term program. We do not need any more ad hoc programs. The word "revenue" always seems to fit into every person's income. Crop insurance was developed in the 1960s. It is a bushel coverage program. We can yield the bushels on the farm, but there is no price protection in that. Our goal for the last two years will be to get to a revenue-style program so that when we have a situation like the one in Saskatchewan this year, it reacts to the situation immediately, not like the CFIP program where we fill out applications to find out that we do not qualify because we have had no good years prior to that.

Perhaps there are things that we can do here. We are promoting more heavily this time, but that is not the cure-all. We are finding, through the programs in which we are involved, that we are at the mercy of the grain companies - meaning access to credit. Financial institutions seem to be bailing out of this industry at an alarming rate.

Some of the farmers are reporting that they are getting that $20,000 cash advance initiated, increasing it to $50,000 last year, but the problem with that is that whenever you cap something, we'd like to see it be relative to farm size. One of our goals this time is a request that you give us 70 per cent or 80 per cent of a number. Do not cap that amount. That would mean that if I have a 1,000-acre farm, and the fellow beside me has 3,000 acres, we both get the same amount per acre.

Our proposal is to give us 70 per cent of a safety net program for a spring credit. We know that is not the answer. The message we got down here this time is loud and clear. You have no new farm programs for the crop you are going home to seed. We are in a survival mode.

My theory always was that they who survive will likely have better programs. I do not know how many will survive to have a chance at those programs. Those are some of the things we are focussing on.

Mr. Andrew Denis: My name is Andrew Denis, and I farm at Brookdale Manitoba close to Carberry in the Neepawa area. Mr. Downing is correct. We are getting desperate. There is some rumbling about better farm programs or rolling the ones we have into one better one, but it looks like that is down the road.

I have talked to a few neighbours in the last few days since have been down here, but the hope is less now than when I arrived here.

When you talk to people about there being perhaps nothing for next year but something better the year after that, they respond with, "Damn, I do not know if I will be making that." That type of thinking might be indicating they may be auctioning off this year. That will cause a collapse in agriculture. We need a short-term bridge from here to there. We have been looking at this for such a long time now. More committees are coming to look at the situation. Some of those committee members are saying they do not need to go out because they know the problem. They prefer to act on it.

When we go around Ottawa, the committee members say they are talking to the converted, that they already know, but that somebody further up the line must do something about this. We know the problem and we know it inside and out. We need to come up with something that will bridge us from here to that program.

Next spring, we will need something desperately. These programs are not working. They are overlapping. Everyone agrees. We talk to the politicians and bureaucrats working with these programs, and everyone aggress there are many overlaps.

Mr. Vanclief will stand up and name some programs, for example, NISA, crop insurance, and CFIP. They came up with $500 million in Manitoba. Our portion was called CMAP. You get $10,000 here, and you claim that as income, and it gets clawed back from a CFIP program. All these programs are only bringing you to 70 per cent. Nothing is taking you over that, and we are in an industry - we saw figures in the finance department - where there is a 2 to 3 per cent margin. We get down to 30 per cent before we start triggering a dollar. For guys who make $400,000 or $500,000 gross, at 30 per cent, we have $150,000 shortfall as individuals with nothing to make it up. That is where it kicks in. We have a 2 or 3 per cent margin. Families are asking where they get the $150,000. It is putting cheap food on everybody's table, and it is creating a lot of jobs.

In my case, I have had a net income on my CPP form for five years running at zero. It is in the negative, but it is zero for CPP purposes, and everybody who has income gets a CPP form.

My gross sales were $465,000 last year. It takes a fair amount of effort to produce $465,000 worth of gross product. You are fairly busy most of the year. It has to have an impact on the country. Individuals are using huge amounts of fertilizer and chemicals, and they are creating jobs at those levels as well as port jobs. If we get people to exit the business, that will not fix this up. The fallout will be thousands of lost jobs. The whole Western Canadian economy will collapse, and that will inevitably affect a lot of other economies.

We cannot have programs such as those. We have to fix it. We have to get from here to the fix. I do not know if you have seen some of the numbers. The income for next year in Saskatchewan, I believe, is projected at something like $213 million. In 1978, it was $958 million. Therefore, we are at a quarter of the net income in Saskatchewan in 1978, 23 years ago. That is what 2002 is predicted to be. That is pretty dismal. I do not know how you will fix it. Those guys are still producing product, using fertilizer and using all sorts of stuff. They are creating economies. That stuff gets shipped to a port and someone has to load it on a ship. They are doing their part in the system. Much of it is caused by subsidization by the Americans and the Europeans. Someone is going to have to take a swipe at this and help us.

The farmers are doing their part. For me to produce $465,000 of gross product, I feel I have done my job. It took a lot of borrowed money to do it, it took a lot of hard work to do it, and I do a good job. I produced in the last five years 110 to 115 per cent of my area average for crops. I do not think I can get much better than that. I have been fortunate not to have a drought. Whoever is having a drought with no safety nets is in pretty dire straits.

We are here today to move the message into another group of people's minds about how serious it is, so you have a better understanding of what is going on out there. It is not rhetoric. This is real-life stuff. You have to talk to a few people out there, and you will find out that people will be turning away from this industry quickly and taking all their children with them. We are in an industry where 2 per cent of the population is producing everything as far as food goes. Therefore, we can choose kids from 2 per cent of our population for this industry. It is not like doctors and lawyers who can be chosen from 100 per cent of the population's children. We have 2 per cent of the children. If the 30 and 40-year-olds take their children away, we will see a train wreck over the next 20 years. Where will we net the next generation of farmers? When you run out of nurses, doctors or lawyers, you have a choice. There is no choice here. When farmers take the kids away, it is a permanent thing and you cannot grab kids off the street in cities. It is not impossible, but there is not a big chance success. They need all of Mom and Dad's money trickling into their pockets if they will even have a chance.

It is a tough and dire situation. We have many issues in the world that are important, but this one will definitely come to the forefront again as those issues settle down. You want to keep it in your mind and see if you can help us out on this a bit.

Mr. Daryl Knight: My name is Darryl Knight. We have been down a few times. I recognize a few faces, and I am glad to be back. I am not too big on talking about old problems. We all know there is a problem out there. We have to get past this stage to the next one.

Security right now is a big issue. That is what we have been saying for the last couple of years. Our security is just a little different than the security we are dealing with now. Both are very important. There has to be a balance. I would like to see some food security for me, my children and hopefully my grandchildren some day. For those of you with grandchildren, you know what it is like. They are a proud part of your life.

Security can be stretched to consider the inside of our border. Equality is another thing I would like to see. We have all been around. There will be a fallout in agriculture. There are people who just do not make it any business.

Right now, the way things are playing out, some parts of our sector are being targeted to be the fallout sector. I disagree with that. We live in a society where we all have choice. It is not the small, the medium or the large guys who are at fault here. There are faults. We must find and fix them, but do not target the big or small sector.

I am here to help agriculture and that will help my family and me. I am not here to help me as an individual. There are some things that we have brought to the table that we would like considered. I can see, down the road, where they will help my industry that will help my family. That is why I thought I better bring that up. We are not just here to help individuals. We are not here to help the sector or one province.

I am fortunate to have a poor crop, because Saskatchewan has nothing. That is the brunt of it. I am fortunate to have a poor crop in Manitoba because I am better off than they are. I am lucky to be going broke slowly. That is the attitude of agricultural people: We are not doing badly, because we are better off than others. That is what you will find when you talk to agricultural people. They are sympathetic to each other and to other people. We hope to get some of that consideration back.

On the other hand, the education part is missing. We have nothing against urban people, because they have a place and we need them. However, I hope they respect that they need us. It looks bad when we are given this and that. Many times, we are not given. We are giving the consumer a chance to buy cheap food. Many consumers cannot afford any more money for food.

A small percentage of money to keep us at a minimum level will keep reasonable food bills. If we let things go into corporations and business-type food production, as Mr. Denis said, all stats show that we live on a 2 per cent margin. The last time I checked any business report that bragged about record profits, they are not working on 2 per cent. If they work on a 10 or 30 per cent profit our food bill will become massive, because we get less than 1 per cent of the finished product. They will not accept that at all. That is just another issue.

I would like to see a chance to move on, to get into some kind of programs. We are asking for an opportunity to be a critic of the new program before it hits the paper. Instead of whining about the program after it is there, let us whine about the problem before it is there. We could be as wrong as previous people, we do not know, but we would like to have the opportunity, and let other people see the program, beat up on it a bit before it hits and affects the whole country.

The Chairman: There is no question we are facing a serious problem in the Prairies. I believe it is a national disaster. You talked about losing farmers.

Young farmers are leaving and I would like you to expand on that. Today you cannot pick people off the street, and put them on the machinery. What do you think the result will be if we lose that generation of operators?

Mr. Denis: You are quite correct. There are many people leaving the industry. Many people are setting up to leave if something drastic does not happen to improve their lot. I know of people who have sold off dairies and quotas to help cover losses in the grains and oilseeds. That is where the hurt is right now, because of subsidies. They are doing whatever they can. If they had an RRSP, it is gone. If they had any kind of mutual funds or NISA money, for highs and lows, the guys in the industry have cashed those in. Some have converted to cattle in order to diversify. Those cattle are being sold to put them in a short-term cash position. That will put them in a worse position in the long run. Some are setting up to exit the industry. People have their fingers crossed. The machinery is run down to nothing, because they have not been able to buy new stuff. They are getting ready to exit. Huge numbers have already left. We have read that, in Saskatchewan, 11,000 exited in 1999.

Sometimes hobby farmers go from being called hobby farmers to working in town a little more. I do not know which portion of the figures are absolutely correct and which portion is accounting change. However, that is a huge number for one year. In 1999, I believe 22 per cent of farmers in Canada quit. The numbers have come down 22 per cent.

From about 1935 or 1940, we were running at about 3 per cent a year, everybody was getting bigger. That was the evolution of agriculture. Then the numbers dropped 22 per cent in one year and it has not changed much. There are many auction sales. Your machinery is worth nothing. Your land is not worth as much because the exodus is so massive. Anyone who was in a good position had their balance sheets fall apart as well. There is a domino effect.

Small portions of the industry are surviving better than others, but not many are doing really well. Grains and oilseeds especially are taking a kicking due to subsidies. It is not fair. We cannot do without that industry. We cannot just say let them go, because they will be gone pretty soon.

We must support our farmers for a better day. The trade department said that the grain and oilseed sector is one of the biggest portions our industry as far as tonnes being exported and jobs created. We cannot just let it go. Something must be done.

Many guys are leaving. It will be tough. No amount of money will bring a guy back. You might be able to salvage the ones who are ready to jump ship, if something good came along. By the time someone quits, they have a bad taste in their mouth. They lose their grandfather's farm, their dad's farm, and it is like a death in the family. The emotion about losing a farm is different than losing a shoe store where you can start another one down the street. It is not a typical business. There is emotion and attachment to that piece of land.

The Chairman: In my area of Saskatchewan, we have had people who contract their farms, older farmers who were contracting for $4,000 a quarter. This spring, they had to contract it out to farmers who were expanding fast, on credit, at $1,000 a quarter or less, and some for taxes. I can point to at least four operations that have over 100 quarters under contract like that. Those farms will never come back. They are finished. I do not know if you have that to the same extent as Saskatchewan in Manitoba or Alberta, but I think that we have hit that.

Senator Spivak: To whom are they contracting?

Senator Oliver: Americans?

The Chairman: No, Canadians. I tried to get to the bottom of this on the CFIP program. The PSRA was before this committee and said that the same thing is happening here.

Under the CFIP program, if you were not a farmer, you get an average. A corporate farm with at least four people on it can draw $600,000 in the first year, under CFIP, and $400,000 in the second year. I could not get any answers from the department. I went to Winnipeg; they said they would get back it me. They never did get back to me.

I checked it out with PFRA. They did say it privately. The Saskatchewan government in Regina confirmed that this was the kind of thing that was happening. Once you have a corporation taking over that kind of land, we have lost the industry.

Senator Spivak: Who is the corporation? Is it the grain companies? Who is taking over this land?

The Chairman: In some cases, it is the oil guys with oil money. It is different operations. I want to know if that is happening in Manitoba?

Mr. Downing: It has already happened that way.

Senator Tkachuk: I have a supplementary question. I met you guys a couple of times in Senator Gustafson's office.

We never move forward. It is very difficult.

Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry condemn the federal Liberal government for its lack of action on the western farm crisis.

I would like to move that motion now, chairman.

The Chairman: So moved. Are we all in favour?

Senator Chalifoux: We need the motion to be seconded.

Senator Spivak: What is the point of the motion? I am in favour, but what is the point of it?

The Chairman: It is because of our political situation.

All vote. All in favour? Opposed? Motion carried.

Mr. Downing: I will expand on that. We have it 432 sections of land in my regional municipality, and less than 100 active farmers. That has already happened in our municipality. The surrounding ones are worse.

The youth have already gone. For those left, we must make a commitment to do something immediately to hold that person in the community. They are the losing interest in trying to take over the family farm. The youth are saying that if something does not change in the next year, they will be gone.

There are very few left to go any more. We are down here to let the federal government know that. I do not think that they realize the magnitude of the problem. I do not know why that message is not getting here.

We have been involved in some things and brought up some things with the bureaucrats and politicians who say "We have never heard this before." I want to bring this out this way, and I hope I do not come across wrong.

We relied on farm organizations to bring this problem down here. It has not happened. You have to get in the trenches and tell it like it is. The farm organizations are not telling that story. Many times we have been in a meeting where they say that it cannot be right because we have never heard it that way before.

It is reality. It is right.

Senator Wiebe: My first question is to Mr. Denis. You mentioned that that for the last three years, your particular farm has produced about 115 per cent above what the average farmer in your area produces.

Have you been able to sell all that you produced? With that three-year average, how does that put you in regards to ADA? As you are an above average producer, would that help to increase your ADA payout? Did you receive a cheque during those three years?

Mr. Denis: Yes, I was able to sell my produce. The market for grains is actually bigger than a lot of people think it is. Quite often you read that we do not need this produce, and we are flooding the market. If the earth froze over, we would have somewhere between 21 days and 45 days of wheat. If nothing else could come off the ground, we have reserve in that area.

That is alarming. We cannot do without wheat farmers. The world eats mostly rice, and wheat is right behind it. Wheat is one of the more important things.

At 110 per cent to 115 per cent production, and the kind of prices I have been able to get, I have triggered some fairly good CFIP and ADA. That brings me up to 70 per cent of a five-year running of zero. I am looking for 30 per cent of $465,000 to make my farm break even.

It is interesting how I do that. I increased my loans from $80,000 to $150,000 a year. You can see where that is going.

I have a custom spray application business, which I work night and day, whenever I get the chance. It does relatively well as long as there is some agriculture left out there. It is based on the agriculture. When my neighbours go down around me, I will not be able to subsidize my own farm any more. Some people are driving school buses, but if there are no families with kids, there will not be any school buses. If there is nothing to spray, I will not be doing any spraying.

When the thing collapses, we will all go down at the same time. Those of us who have identified something else to keep us going in the short term will be no smarter than the rest of them. We are all in the same basket, and it will collapse.

These short-term solutions are keeping us going, but it cannot last. We can see that clearly.

Senator Wiebe: You mentioned that the world supply of grain was about 21 days. It was always my understanding that things worked on supply and demand. That percentage is dramatically low. Why have prices not gone up? Who is the guilty culprit? Why is the market not responding?

Mr. Denis: We have a false market that is directly related to American subsidies and European subsidies, which are huge.

Senator Spivak: It is not only that.

Senator Wiebe: I realize that. European and American subsidies are very high in relation to what we get here.

Why is the price not going up if the supply is so low? Usually, when you run out of something, it creates demand. That automatically forces the price up, regardless of what the subsidies are. Who, in your mind, is the culprit that is keeping the law of supply and demand from working?

Mr. Knight: The culprit is that you can only afford so much for food. The consumer drives the price of our end product. The ones between the farm gate and the end product are working on a 30 per cent profit and will not go less. The end producers will only pay this much, so it is easy to do the math. It is not hard to add up a column and get the right answer.

In our society we are getting the answer and then going back to see where we should start. If you want $10, and nine people in the middle take $1, you are left with $1. That is one of the culprits.

Senator Wiebe: I have been farming for forty years, and what frustrates me the most is the inability of farmers to speak with one voice. You are three individuals here today, but you are not part of any organization. Why can farmers not speak with one voice? Our committee just returned from a week in Washington where we met with two national farm organizations. One of them had about 2.5 million members and the other one had around 3 million members. However, they were more involved in insurance than in actual farming.

The organization with 2.5 million members had a beautiful building that was filled with staff. The membership fee for each farmer was very low, and they had a tremendous amount of clout with the government. With those low-priced memberships, they were able to afford to buy the services of researchers who could make the various presentations to the government.

We came back from task force hearings out West. There were representatives from 17 different farm organizations, and not one of them agreed with the other. I can understand how the U.S. farmers got tough with the government. Why can we not do that in Canada?

Mr. Downing: The farm organizations, over time, become like another political group. We had the pleasure of presenting to that task force when they were in Manitoba. We went to another meeting that night and we took 12 farmers with us. Our message was clear. We went to another meeting that night where we heard, "I am so and so from SAS Wheat Pool and I am so and so from somewhere else." I felt sorry for the panel, because the farmers did not know what they wanted. It was like they were on missions to make their own groups look good, like two hockey teams on the ice skating in different directions.

Senator Wiebe: Will we run out of an agriculture industry in Canada before our farmers can realize the problem?

Mr. Downing: CFA has been around since 1935, so it is not like they are new in town. We were there yesterday for a meeting and we asked them why they were not around the table deciding the program. We asked them why they are allowing the boys in the Sir John Carling building develop the programs and be the critics. We have critics. We elect those people. Get in there and develop a program.

We went back to the group in Manitoba, and we saw the presentation they made to the task force. There were no solutions there although they were looking for solutions. There was not one solution given to them.

I do not know why farmers are like that and it is puzzling. That is why we got involved and received the support that we have from individual people who are out there telling it like it is.

The Chairman: I recommend that you read an article I have that says that MPs say that the government hides the results of a national agriculture poll that was commissioned through Agriculture Canada. A survey was done from Saskatoon that stated 71 per cent of Canadians support some help for farmers in this national issue. You might want to read that for what it is worth, although you might decide that it is political.

The other thing on that point is, when we were down in the states, they brought in the bill for $171 billion additional program over 10 years. Well, they thought they got an awful blow from Bush, when he said that he would like to cut back $19 billion of that for rural support, which still leaves $151 billion over 10 years. They went up in arms over that cut, even though the $19 billion that they take out of the additional $171 billion would still go to the rural U.S.

I just do not know. It is a state of desperation, really, that we have a national catastrophe. We have a cheap food policy; the votes are in the cities; and the farmer is not getting anything for his product.

I can tell you how hard they are working. I have three sons. One is going back to university right now in Brandon because he is fed up with farming; my younger son went to work one year ago for an oil company; and my other son and I are trying to pick up the slack. We have been running long, long hours on that farm. Our situation is no different than the situation across the country. It is sad. We have a national catastrophe on our hands, for whatever reason. I am almost ready to vote Liberal.

Senator Chalifoux: I am from North Central rural Alberta, and my family has a history of farming. All the time that I have sat here and listened, I have not heard one proposed solution. We all know the situation, and every week we hear it in our caucuses. No matter where we are, we hear about the situation, but I have not heard any proposed solutions from the farmers. This is very important.

Not only that, but it has been brought to our attention - and we all know it - that as a result of climatic change, our land is very bad now in Southern Alberta. We are talking about how we are going to reclaim the land because it is so bad. In B.C., there are fruit farmers are in terrible shape. This is happening right across the country. I have not heard anyone come here with a proposed solution to pass on to the government. May I have your comments on that?

Senator Oliver: Money.

Senator Chalifoux: No, it is not money. For a proposed solution, we should look at something else.

Mr. Downing: We are down here on our fourth trip. We brought a proposal to the government. We laid a proposal on their desks. You heard them; we need to get to a revenue style program. It fits you in Alberta. It fits the fruit grower in B.C., because we all talk revenue - whether it is apple, wheat or cattle, it is all revenue. That program was brought down here.

We thought this program was dead in the water, but it has resurfaced over the last few months. It is not perfect, but we hoped that the CFA or a farm organization would put on the table and get at it. At one of our first meetings that we had with the senate committee, somebody said, "Thank God someone has come up with a solution." We have been here with that.

When we go back to our farm organization and try to work within the province, they go against it and say that we cannot do this because of that. That is not their job. Their job is to get something. Let the guys at the Sir John Carling building tell us why we cannot do it. That should not be coming from a farm organization. We tried to go with it and we got nowhere. That is why we are here.

Senator Chalifoux: What Senator Wiebe said is true. I was on that Washington trip, too. I was amazed at the support of the farm organizations and the lobby groups down there. You are saying that you are coming with your proposed solution and your own unions and organizations are fighting against you.

Mr. Knight: We do not believe that this has four wheels on the wagon.

Senator Chalifoux: It is an idea.

Mr. Knight: It has one wheel. Let somebody else put something on it. We threw it on the table to get moving. If you do not have any wheels, you will not go anywhere. At least with one wheel you can get started.

Mr. Downing: We went to more than 50 meetings in different communities to talk about this. When you said "developed by farmers for farmers," that is how this happened. We would go to a meeting and someone would stand up in the hall and say, "I do not like it, because it will not work." We made so many changes.

We finally got to a point where no more changes were being suggested. We put it to paper and we decided to go somewhere with it. This is our fifth visit to Ottawa, lobbying for farm support. If you told me that would be how things would happen, I would not have believed it. Here we are again. I am pretty determined. I do not give up easily. I love my industry. The farmers love it.

I do not know why the farm organizations have failed, but they have. I am not pointing fingers, but something is wrong. We relied on them, and it turned into a mess. We are trying to bring it back after it being down in the well, but we have quite a task ahead of us.

Senator Chalifoux: Mr. Chairman, do we have a copy of that proposed solution?

Mr. Downing: We have some here.

Senator Chalifoux: I would appreciate receiving a copy of that.

The Chairman: Do you think this can be solved without an injection of capital by the government?

Mr. Downing: No.

Senator Chalifoux: That is the typical solution. Naturally, money is needed. Let us look at the proposed solution and see how we can assist in getting this on the table.

Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chairman, I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry report to the Senate this afternoon that the Minister of Agriculture cancelled his appearance today before our committee and, therefore, the committee recommends that a Committee of the Whole be struck at the earliest opportunity to hear from the Minister of Agriculture and all other recognized farm groups, including the ones who appeared before us today, on the crisis facing farmers in Manitoba and the rest of Western Canada.

The Chairman: You have all heard the motion.

Senator Wiebe: I would move an amendment to that motion. Senator Tkachuk mentioned that there was a farm organization that was here today. These gentlemen are here, as I understand, as individual farmers, not as a farm organization. If they are, I do not know what farm organization they can possibly represent. They may belong to an organization, but we should take that out of the motion.

Senator Tkachuk: They are not forced to appear, if they wish not to come, that is fine. For those senators who are not on the Agriculture Committee, this is an opportunity for them to be educated about what is taking place. These witnesses were not forced to appear.

Senator Oliver: Put the question.

The Chairman: If there is no more discussion before we go to the question, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Chalifoux: On division.

The Chairman: The motion is carried, on division.

Senator Spivak: Mr. Chairman, we have had emergency debates in the Senate on this matter. This situation is well known. Everyone knows that everyone in agriculture is making money except the producer. It is not a mystery; it is no secret. It does not matter if the farm organizations cannot agree. We have a government. That government should lead.

People bring up the theory that this is a deliberate policy: to get more farmers out of the industry and have a corporate farm industry. I do not really believe that. I cannot believe that our own government has that in mind. The point is that this committee needs to become more active. This is not a political issue. The facts are well known.

It is one of two things: Either this is a deliberate policy, or the programs that we have are not working or there is some corruption within those programs - that is to say it is being abused - such as the situation the chairman described.

We went through the AIDA program and we said it was not good. I am not up to date, Mr. Chairman, because I have not been on this committee. However, several billion dollars are being spent. Surely we can have an emergency procedure whereby you take that money and give it to those most in need.

Three years ago, we had an emergency debate on this issue. It does not matter about the farm organizations; everybody knows the facts are there. All you have to do is look at the Saskatchewan reports.

Senator Johnson: It does not hurt to remind people. That was three years ago.

Senator Spivak: It is good to have a debate in Parliament. I am not speaking against it. What I am saying is, let us get the committee to organize some proper solutions. We have a big man here, Senator Wiebe, who is on the task force. It is not only up to the farmers to bring solutions; it is up to the government, the people in power.

The Chairman: Senator Spivak, you suggested that the committee get more active. I want to tell you what is happening with the committee. We have invited the Minister of Agriculture for the past two months and we have had no response as far as him appearing here.

We have asked the Minister of International Trade, Mr. Pettigrew, to appear here three times and he has turned us down.

Senator Johnson: Why is that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: I do not know the answer to that. Last week, I phoned Minister Pettigrew's office and told them I was quite upset that this was the third time he has turned us down. The secretary asked why he should appear, and I said, "Well, 25 per cent of Canada's export is agriculture and trade. That is very important."

Senator Johnson: The lack of appearance by the ministers should be on the record, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: If you do not accept what I am saying, you can ask our clerk because he has been trying to get these people to appear. The steering committee has cooperated in asking them to appear.

Senator Spivak: Mr. Chairman, I am not really talking about being active in terms of having the ministers come. I am talking about fastening on a program, and carrying it to the government and saying, "Here is the program that the Senate Agriculture Committee would like to see in place." That is what I mean. Maybe I am speaking out of turn because I have not been here and I do not know what is happening.

The Chairman: I wanted to bring you up to date on what the committee has been trying to do with this. We have not been able to get the ministers here in the last meetings.

Do other members wish to speak or have questions? Senator Tunney?

Senator Tunney: I have a brief question and maybe a suggestion. Have you looked seriously at alternate crops?

Senator Tkachuk: I move that we adjourn, Mr. Chairman. That is non-debatable.

Senator Chalifoux: Why?

Senator Tkachuk: I move that the committee adjourn; that is non-debatable.

Senator Chalifoux: What is non-debatable?

The Chairman: The motion.

Is it agreed that we adjourn, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

The Chairman: The motion is carried, on division.

The committee adjourned.