Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the motion of my hon. colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately pursue negotiations with the provinces and the agri-food industry in order to reassign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap and duplication.
The hon. member refers to this process as reconfederating agriculture. This is an appropriate term because it alludes to a new way off looking at how levels of government should treat agriculture.
The motion undertakes to prod government to adopt a more efficient and effective agriculture industry by reducing the amount of overlap between the federal and provincial governments. It is important to note the suggested changes and jurisdictions could be made without any constitutional amendments.
There are major changes afoot in the area of agriculture. In the west we are seeing the subsidy for grain transportation eliminated after an existence of close to 100 years. Global change in agriculture is at an unprecedented pace. We must change the way
we treat our industry to keep up with it. This is combined with an ever increasing realization that governments at almost all levels are in serious debt.
We do not have the money to fund everything. It is time to cut back significantly. Agriculture departments are no exception. The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has had its budget cut considerably in the recent federal budget.
It is now time to take a hard look at how we can eliminate overlap between levels of government so we can get the most results from our scarce tax dollars. In 1994-95 the 10 Canadian provinces will spend a total of almost $2.2 billion on the agriculture industry. The federal government will also spend an additional $2.2 billion on this industry. That is a total of $4.4 billion all coming from the same taxpayers.
Where are the provincial or federal funds? The 10 provinces had 10,000 civil servants employed in their agriculture departments this year. The federal government had about the same number for a total of approximately 20,000 full time people on the public payroll in support of private sector agriculture. That equals one person on the public payroll for every seven farms. Clearly with these statistics we must examine what kind of effectiveness we are getting for our expenditures.
As members of Parliament we must strive to ensure we have an industry more marketed oriented, can respond faster to external demands and is more productive and efficient.
With regard to government involvement in agriculture it is really time to get out the microscope and closely examine what government does in its dealings with agriculture.
By looking at the various components that make up the agriculture industry we can clearly label the tasks that should be performed by government and the tasks that should be left in the hands of the industry. As has been stated by my colleagues, reconfederating agriculture means we will develop a system of agriculture in which more decisions are made at the local level and at the farm gate.
Reform members have always said farmers, given the opportunity, will always make the decisions in the best interests of the industry. The motion really asks for the federal government to initiate a process where government at all levels works to give farmers this opportunity.
There are some important themes in the motion. The basic idea is that the decisions in the industry should be made at the closest possible level to the farm gate. The higher levels should be programmed where the federal government and provincial governments have some input.
We should ask the following six questions from this type of service. Does the program continue to serve the public? Is there a legitimate role for government in the program? Is the current role of the federal appropriate or could it be realigned with the provinces? What program related activities could be transferred to the private sector? How can overall efficiency be improved? Is the program affordable?
Government responsibilities would be clearly divided between the federal government and provincial or territorial governments. The provinces would be responsible for natural and human resources. This makes sense because these resources are specific to each province and they vary from province to province.
The federal government would have responsibility for trade policy, whole farm income, stabilization, import, safety and health standards and fiscal and monetary policy. This would reinforce the goals of the federal government which are to assist lower levels of government in areas that span provincial boundaries and managing issues common to farmers and processors regardless of what area of the country they come from.
Among the functions of government should be research and development to ensure among other things we are investing money primarily in sound ventures that guarantee return on our investment.
Another necessary role of government is establishing a necessary level of regulatory policy in the private sector. Although I think most people in the industry would agree that overall there should be a decrease in regulations and that governments should get off the backs of farmers and processors, there is still a need to provide a basic level to ensure the integrity of Canada's industry.
Another government responsibility is to create the lowest level of taxation possible for the most efficient environment for agriculture to operate in. The tax burden in Canada is simply too high. It has been fueled by indiscriminate overspending and it stifles investment and jobs.
A clean break is needed from the cycle of tax and spend. If we are ever to realize the full potential of our industry there are a few other responsibilities to be studied. I know my colleague and others have discussed these at greater length.
The responsibilities of the agri-food industry would be to provide the supplies to meet the demand. That is to say, by providing goods to the public the industry should have the responsibility and the input at all stages in the life cycle of goods including research and development, production, processing including storage, inspection, grading and labelling, and transportation. Producers must be directly involved in the marketing of their products. Financing and insurance should be available to processors in a competitive atmosphere.
I think the motion of my hon. colleague addresses these issues and gives some very important input into regulating or deregulating the agriculture industry so that it will become productive, efficient, and compatible in today's world standards.