There is also the business risk management component. In our opinion, this is a major pillar that will allow for a real implementation of support measures in the more difficult situations, whether it is a question of one time or recurring problems, so that our Canadian agricultural businesses are not put into precarious economic situations.
As you will see more specifically in our brief, our businesses are going more and more into debt as time goes by. Year after year, the agricultural businesses' cash flow is diminished. Canadian programs were set up to deal with this problem. They were probably partly to blame for this situation. This must be corrected by other programs that will be implemented differently.
Another pillar is based on public goods and services and affects primarily the environmental components as well as food safety and quality. We also talk about agricultural enterprises of human size, that are owned by families that assume their management. Agricultural enterprises must be able to exist in a more optimistic context. We represent Quebec farmers and we are aware at the same time that the average age of farmers in Quebec gives them a certain advantage over Canadian farmers. In fact, our producers are generally speaking a little younger. However, the whole issue of transferability of businesses, for young people interested in a career in agriculture, remains an unavoidable subject that must be dealt with. It is therefore essential to create and maintain a positive climate for farming, so that newcomers will want to come and take over from those who have spent their lives working in this area.
We talk about a Canadian agricultural policy that ensures the involvement of producers in the decision-making process. It is most valuable for a government to announce policies and invest money, but we have to ensure that the funds produce benefits and some profit for the producers, therefore at the grassroots level. It is important that this money gets to the farm level and be allocated in light of the most pressing needs. In fact, we have observed over the last few years that certain rather substantial measures taken by the government did not achieve their objectives, or at least did not meet the needs of producers for whom emergency measures were required. We would like to see those situations rectified.
We also address the issue of flexibility in the development, implementation and management of programs. In many respects, we come back to this flexibility. We would like, even within a Canadian context, to be able to adapt the federal programs and interventions to what has been developed in Quebec, and in complementarity with it. The objective is to be able to best respond to the needs of agricultural businesses. In my opinion, Quebec's ad hoc programs will not limit the intervention of the federal government. We should rather consider that the amounts invested will result in a more advantageous situation and greater spinoffs for agriculture as a whole.
There is also the issue of equivalence aimed at avoiding overlaps, of provincial design, of delivery by organizations already set up in Quebec, including the Conseil pour le développement de l’agriculture du Québec, or CDAQ, the Financière agricole, the Agriconseils, concerning the plan for service advisors, and the marketing boards, governed by the Marketing Act. The administrative burden needs to be reduced and more emphasis put on achieving objectives. We want a Canadian agricultural policy built in complementarity with the Quebec's orientations.
I would like to invite my colleague to make the presentation about the expectations regarding the various phases of intervention within the Agriculture Policy Framework.