Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that we have an opportunity to discuss the throne speech delivered earlier this week and entitled “Building a higher quality of life for all Canadians”.
When I look at that title, certain questions come to mind. The first one is: Who was left out of this speech?
Of course, since I take a particular interest in the agri-food sector, I must tell you that I have the distinct feeling that agriculture was completely left out in this speech. One would need a magnifying glass or would have to be an expert at criscross puzzles to find something that applies directly to agriculture.
On the contrary, even with this magnifying glass, I can hardly see any interest at all for agriculture. And God knows this industry is going through serious difficulties caused by a reduction in subsidies to Canadian farmers while those given to European and American farmers keep increasing. These difficulties are also caused by a drop in prices, which are unstable or low for agricultural commodities, both animal and vegetable, as well as by natural disasters.
This brings me to the issue of the crisis Canadian agriculture is facing today. There is a national program called Agricultural Income Disaster Assistance, or AIDA, but it is inadequate.
One just has to look at the numerous releases that were sent to us over the last year to understand what I am talking about. We saw all kinds of changes being made to the program, all kinds of adjustments to try to make it acceptable to farmers. But I wonder if government officials sat down with a farm family to see how these people can fill out these kinds of forms.
Some of the farmers who spoke to me of their distress told me that filling out the form can cost them $1,000 or so in accountants' fees, because an accountant is needed. The farm's taxation year is not the year in which the products are sold. There are therefore two kinds of figures and generally a person who is very busy and used to doing farm work is not going to be an accountant as well.
There is one delay after another. Why so? People do not enrol in this program because the forms are too hard to fill out and the results are very questionable. Yet when this program was implemented, there was a national revenue advisory committee, which asked that there to be no payment ceilings for farmers, that asked for use of negative margins, and for no linking to NISA, the Net Income Stabilization Account. All that was forgotten. Yet the people consulted knew their business and could have been of great service to the agricultural sector.
So here we are facing a crisis that is far more acute in the west than it is in the rest of the country, and which is reflected accurately in the letters children write to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture. These children write that:
“They need more than one job to survive on the farm”.
Basically, they are complaining that their mother and father have to hold down two or three jobs in order to make ends meet until the end of the month, if not the end of the day or week.
Another child, Terryl Drisdale, wrote:
“Farmers are a unique type of people. I am very sure that you personally don't work the hours annually that the farmers do for the pay that they have at year end”.
It is moving, because these are sixth grade children writing the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture. It is like a cry of dismay at that point in social terms.
How will they cope with this crisis? Not with what they currently have at their disposal. Suppliers waiting to be paid for 1998 commodities have been very patient again in 1999. Will they continue to be?
When things are not going well in one sector of society, the wolf is at the door. So too there are people waiting to buy dirt cheap the land that is often family heritage and has been cleared and maintained by dint of hard work.
Yet, the government believes in rural life and in the diversification of farms, but all these fine principles the government states in public do not come about in a single day. The rural world is fragile. The work done on it must follow the seasons.
There is also income security. Not a peep in the Speech from the Throne on income security. Not a word on a review of stability programs.
In Quebec, we have a 25 year old farm income stability program, which adapts to federal programs, because we are partners. But here we realize that the program changes every three or four years. How can events be followed over the long term if the programs change?
There were references in the throne speech to research and development. It mentioned increased funding for research and development. And it is high time, because nothing has changed since 1993, despite the efforts in the last budget.
What is important, and needs to be mentioned, is the need for those doing basic research to be independent. The programs now in place often involve partnerships. Sometimes not much is said about the partner, but when its involvement runs to 90%, as it does with certain large corporations, the large corporation picks the research topics and they do not include basic research to help the public. All these partnerships inhibit research.
There is also the issue of genetically engineered organisms, one in which I have a great interest. Yesterday, we heard the Prime Minister begin his speech by stating that the next century will be the century of the Pacific. But, if we do not resolve firmly to label genetically engineered products, we will not get very far selling to the Pacific.
Are we prepared to lose Asian markets? This is a very good question which must be asked and which has a major impact on the country's farmers. I would like to conclude—I could go on at great length about genetically engineered organisms, but I will address the matter at another time—by referring members to page 19 of the throne speech, which reads as follows:
The Government will protect the health of Canadians by strengthening Canada's food safety program, by taking further action on environmental health issues, [—] pesticides [—]
This sounds like the bill that died when Parliament was prorogued, but it is reminiscent of the premises of Bill C-80, a superstructure with no accountability, where failures in the health system make us fear the worst. We cannot add all this to the work of Health Canada when we already know that the brain drain has left it unable to evaluate all the services the government should provide. So I have some major concerns.
Despite its lofty title, the throne speech leaves me, as agriculture critic, very puzzled.