Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 314.
When we debated the motion last month the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food told the House that the federal government had been taking steps for some time to reduce overlap and duplication and that we had been doing so in close co-operation with provincial and municipal governments and the private sector.
I will not go into detail about the initiatives we discussed in the House at that time, initiatives that clearly demonstrate the ongoing efforts of the federal government to reduce both overlap and duplication among the various governments.
However I should like to remind members of some of them. They include in depth discussions among the federal government, the provinces and the private sector regarding the implementation of a Canadian inspection plan, a federal-provincial protocol for the development of trade and the promotion of new markets, and talks we are holding with the provinces aimed at increasing the efficiency of the delivery of financial services to the agri-food sector.
As far as the last point is concerned, the Farm Credit Corporation and interested provinces are discussing strategies to reduce duplication of government services in the sector. As part of the process the FCC has acquired the $37.4 million portfolio of the New Brunswick Agricultural Development Board. We are also attempting to combine the lending services of the Farm Credit Corporation and the Alberta Financial Services Corporation into a single delivery point. Needless to say the initiative is exactly what is needed.
I could go on at length about the federal government's initiative to reduce overlap and duplication but I am limited by time constraints. Today I will focus on the content of Motion No. 314 and certain key aspects of the discussion on the motion, the basis of which I find puzzling.
The motion attempts to provide a starting point for negotiations based on the following three questions. First, what does it mean to reconfederate agriculture and why do we need to do it now? Second, what role should government play in agriculture? Third, what role should the agri-food industry play?
If the motion were adopted, the federal government would have jurisdiction over trade policy, trade distortion adjustment support, whole farm income stabilization programs, health and safety standards, and macrophysical monetary and taxation policy.
The provinces would be responsible for human and material resources, while the private sector would be responsible for all aspects of the business plan, from design to the sale of goods and services.
While all the reforms put forward in the motion may at first glance seem clear cut, a number of points are far from clear. Let us begin with the transfer of responsibility for all income stabilization programs to the federal government.
Such a measure is inconsistent with the significant progress recently made by the federal government and the provinces together, in the interest of Canadian producers. As a result of their concerted efforts, much progress has been made in this area.
We can think back to the situation that existed in Canada in the area of the income stabilization programs in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The federal and provincial governments had their own completely independent rival income stabilization programs which distorted market signals to some extent.
In December 1994 after extensive discussions with the provinces we reached a federal-provincial consensus aimed at developing a renewed national whole farm income stabilization program. The program is an example of close co-operation between the government and is more in line with the interests of the sector.
In addition, as announced in the federal budget brought down on February 27, the $600 million allocated to the annual costs of the new whole farm safety net program will be increased by a contribution from the provinces and from the federal government, bringing total annual government support to producers to $1 billion.
A rational and effective national delivery system is what Canadian producers including the producers of my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River wanted. That is what we are attempting to give them.
It is in the interests of both federal and provincial governments as partners to play an active part in becoming financially responsible because their common goal is to contribute to a stable economy that will benefit all producers, in fact all Canadians.
A second point in Motion No. 314 that puzzles me concerns the proposed trade adjustment assistance program designed to counter the export subsidies imposed by the United States and the European Union. It seems clear to me that the cost of the proposal would be exorbitant and that it is largely inconsistent with our commitments under GATT and the World Trade Organization.
Adopting Motion No. 314 would be a large step backward. Given the current trade regime, no producer, processor or government can afford to lose 15 or 20 years of partnership, close co-operation and dialogue.
We owe it to Canadians including the people of my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River to move forward with the current policies and to build, to be innovative and to demonstrate ingenuity. The government has already initiated serious discussions on the issue with the provinces and the private sector. It has also launched many initiatives that have allowed it to transform itself into an innovative, flexible organization that is ready to face today's market and the market of tomorrow.
Therefore I feel I must defend the interests of a sector that is so important to me. Consequently I urge the members of the House to reject Motion No. 314.