Debates of Feb. 6th, 2002

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

As no other member is rising and as the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to follow up on a question I initially posed to the minister of agriculture in late October prior to the implementation of the December federal budget.

In quick summary, essentially the point I raised was that the government and the agriculture minister himself have become well known for stumbling from ad hoc program to ad hoc program with no long term vision. These ad hoc agriculture programs are consistently heavily weighted in bureaucracy. They are very complicated and eventually fail.

I asked the minister to give some kind of assurance that there was a plan in place to move past the government's crisis management, ad hoc to ad hoc program style of agriculture policy and implement a long term, sustainable agricultural policy which farmers could rely on to do some planning. The minister's response, according to Hansard , was that the government did want to move beyond crisis management.

I suppose there was some room for hope that the federal budget would contain a long term sustainable policy vis-à-vis agriculture. Regrettably there was no plan for agriculture in the December budget. There was no new money in the budget, nothing at all.

Since that time we have been questioning the agriculture minister periodically.

Today at the agriculture committee the minister marched in with his deputy minister, assistant deputy minister and about a dozen other bureaucrats in tow and announced that he was unveiling his great new plan. He called it the new architecture for agriculture plan. He had a very fancy slide presentation. He said that the new architecture plan for agriculture includes five points: risk management, food safety and food quality, environment, renewal, and science and innovation. There was no substance nor specifics.

What are farmers supposed to do with this new architecture plan? Imagine a farmer walking into a bank and saying “Here is the new plan from the minister of agriculture. I want a loan so I can put my crop in this spring”. Exactly how are farmers supposed to do any long term financial planning or crop planning if they do not know what programs are going to be there for them?

As I said there were no specifics on any of the five points of the plan, except to a slight degree with respect to risk management. The minister said that it would be a partnership of federal and provincial governments and farmers themselves. It is reminiscent of GRIP, a program which the Liberal government dismantled in 1995.

Since that time, as the minister himself said today in committee, the programs have been failures. We have been telling the minister that every year since 1995. These programs have failed. They do not work. We have to come up with a viable, sustainable agricultural policy. At least he finally is admitting that those policies did not work.

The U.S. farm bill is a comprehensive program of safety nets. It includes soil, water and wildlife conservation, a value added program, a drinking water program, rural development, research and trade subsidies. Why does Canada not come up with some kind of comprehensive agriculture policy like the Americans' plan and commit to it such as the Americans have so that our farmers can plan?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the member's question by talking about the fundamental policy changes we are currently working on for the agriculture and agri-food sector.

As the member may know, in Whitehorse in June last year the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food obtained agreement in principle from his provincial and territorial colleagues on an action plan to develop a new architecture for agricultural policy in the 21st century. Of course the federal government must act in consultation with the provinces and with producers, as it is doing. It cannot simply act out of the blue without that kind of process. It is following a process. It is important to develop this policy.

This new architecture is designed to position the agri-food sector for success in the 21st century by branding Canada as the world leader in food safety and quality, innovation and environmentally responsible production. In the December 2001 budget the government committed to provide its share of the long term funding needed to support the development and implementation of a new integrated and financially sustainable architecture for agricultural policy in the 21st century.

We are now working with the provinces and territories on mapping out the road ahead to turn the action plan into reality. With our provincial and territorial counterparts we have reviewed farm safety net programs and are working on new directions to ensure improved risk management programming for farmers.

We are also looking at renewal programming so that farmers can upgrade their skills to take advantage of new opportunities. Food safety and environmental performance will also be improved to meet consumer and citizen expectations. We will work with industry to enhance on-farm food safety programs and strengthen safety and quality assurance systems across the food chain.

Our focus with respect to the environment will be on research and development, information sharing and tools for producers. Investment in science and innovation will form the basis for a new product and process development but also underlies progress in food safety and environmental practices.

The new architecture will provide for a consistent national approach in all of these critical areas. It will improve our agriculture and agri-food sector's ability to compete and succeed in the global marketplace in the 21st century. This in turn means more revenues for farmers through increased sales and new opportunities. It will also provide for a much greater return on the government investment in agriculture and will have positive benefits for both urban and rural Canadians.

Governments will be undertaking an extensive consultation process. This will be an opportunity for the industry and Canadians to give governments their ideas on how we can make the most of this opportunity to redefine Canadian agriculture. By working together, by working with all the stakeholders, I am convinced we can successfully move the sector beyond crisis management and toward a prosperous and successful future.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I understand and agree with my hon. colleague that it is necessary to involve the provincial counterparts in order to formulate a long term sustainable agriculture policy. However, all I hear is rhetoric devoid of substance with more promises to consult. There is nothing substantive.

I mentioned the U.S. farm bill as I was wrapping up my comments earlier. It is actually the farm security act which is now before the U.S. senate. The president of the United States himself said that the U.S. will support agriculture to whatever degree is necessary. We know what that means.

That bill has provisions. It is a comprehensive program that includes safety nets, soil, water and wildlife conservation plans, value added programs and drinking water programs for rural development, research and trade subsidies. It is a comprehensive program that delivers to farmers in the United States certainty and security in a sustainable long term policy. It is a program they can rely on. It is a program which they know the government will support. However it actually causes even more problems for our farmers. The competitive disadvantage that our farmers face against the subsidies of other nations is becoming further entrenched.

For seven years the government has been stumbling along from one ad hoc crisis management program heavily weighted in bureaucracy to the next. It is incumbent upon the government to look at the American model. Look at what the result is going to be for our farmers. Give our farmers something of substance like what the American farmers have, the farm security act.

However, I have no confidence that will happen because in committee today the minister said that he did not really understand the American program.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, the government is interested in what is happening in the U.S. and around the world in agricultural policy. The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food is always watching these developments with great interest. The member said there is no substance. Let us review what I said a few minutes ago.

The government is talking about ensuring improved risk management programming. That is substance; that is real for farmers. We talked about renewal programming so that farmers can upgrade their skills. That is important to farmers; they can take advantage of opportunities. We talked about improving food safety and environmental performance. That is an important, substantive thing for farmers. We are working with the industry to enhance farm food safety programs and to strengthen safety and quality assurance systems across the food chain.

There are a number of areas where the government is working on substantive policy changes, actions and commitments that would make a difference for farmers across the country. I do not agree with the member's view on this and I hope that he will reconsider his view.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)