moved:
That this House regrets the failure of the government to recognize the importance of Canada's food industries:
(a) by failing to provide leadership, a long-term vision and workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agriculture sectors;
(b) by not adequately preparing for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v Marshall which acknowledged fishing, hunting and gathering rights for Canada's aboriginal Peoples; and
(c) by failing to address the serious problems of Canada's agricultural producers, who are suffering from increasing subsidized competition, rising input costs, natural and economic disasters, and an inadequate long-term national safety net, the result of which has contributed greatly to increased financial and mental stresses on family farms and in fishing communities;
and, therefore, this House urges the government to give consideration to the immediate and long-term needs of Canada's agriculture and fishing industries.
Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would ask the Chair to recognize that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from West Nova, who will be speaking to the issue of fisheries. I will be speaking to the issue of agriculture.
I am very pleased to stand today and present the motion on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. The motion points to the failure of the federal government over the past six years to properly manage Canada's resource based industries, fisheries and agriculture, and to give them the priority they deserve.
This motion is about more than simply agriculture and fisheries, although we will use those as the examples, and certainly bad examples as demonstrated by the government.
The motion speaks to the lack of the ability of the government to manage. It speaks to the lack of leadership and vision, not only for agriculture and fisheries, but also the quality of life for Canadians who reside in rural communities throughout this great country of ours.
It speaks to the inability of the government to put forward the understanding that these areas of our economy are vital and important to Canadians. Our natural resources, particularly agriculture and fisheries, but also forestry and mining, have been the backbone of the country over the last century. They have been dropped down on the priority list to where it has almost been negligence on behalf of the government not to identify these areas as having a higher priority.
The federal government has failed to recognize the importance of our food industries. It has failed to provide clear direction, leadership, long term vision and workable solutions for our fishery and agriculture sectors.
The government has an opportunity today in debate in the House to finally show that it will be committed to the immediate and long term needs of Canada's agriculture and fishing industries. The government has been noticeably absent in its commitment over the past six years.
I will speak with some authority on the agriculture industry. I will begin today's debate speaking to that area.
There is a simple reality. Farm families and rural communities across Canada are paying a very high price for having a Liberal government unchallenged and uncaring in Ottawa. There is a long pattern of neglect, but the past few years have shown just how dramatically issues of importance to rural Canada have fallen off the government's agenda.
The family farm is a way of life. Food production is a source of life. The two are interconnected and the survival of both is fundamental to the well-being of every Canadian. The federal government must act now to maintain the viability of Canadian farms and Canadian fishing industries in villages throughout the country.
It is time the Liberal government realized that agriculture is important to this country as a supplier of the best food in the world.
The United States and the European Union have identified agriculture as being a priority in the support systems that have been set up to make sure that farms are retained within their societies. Our government has not done so. I would like to hear what it believes the future of these two vital industries will be having been neglected for the past six years.
Agriculture is one of the most efficient industries in Canada. Our reputation in the world is strong. We have 10% of the world's farmland. The growing globe will always need more to eat and will always find new ways to use agricultural products.
Canadian producers are in the best position to take advantage of this bright future. But if we fail to support our producers, if we fail to invest in agriculture and ensure its long term stability, that advantage will disappear. We will have to import foodstuffs in order to feed our population as opposed to depending on a reliable domestic food supply.
We need to recognize and emphasize the natural strength of this region. Canada has a rich future in value added industries if we develop the natural resources to which that value is added. One of the differences between the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party is we understand that agriculture and natural resources are still the fundamental building blocks of our Canadian economy.
I would like to comment now on the Liberal government's lack of leadership in addressing this very important issue. The throne speech is one example of how void the government is when it comes to any long term vision for Canadian resource based industries. There was no reference to what the current government proposes to do to maintain a viable agriculture and agri-food sector while that sector continues to suffer through one of the worst financial crunches since the 1930s.
The throne speech was devoid of any recognition of the agricultural situation that we as Canadians now find ourselves in. That is an absolute shame. I do not know if that speaks to the government's philosophy or lack thereof or to the inability of the minister to get that priority to the cabinet table.
In the advent of our current government's sudden focus on technology as the wave of the future, it has unfortunately disregarded the fact that agriculture's sustainability remains one of the basic needs of any country in the world, particularly Canada. The agricultural sector in Canada is facing increasing subsidized competition, rising input costs, natural and economic disasters and an inadequate national safety net program while the government stands idle.
For example, for every $1 farmers in Canada receive on a per capita basis, their competitors in the United States and in Europe receive more than $2.50 in support from their governments. This does not include the $8.6 billion farm aid package recently approved by the United States, a move that will double direct payments to farmers in that country this year.
In February 1993 the minister of agriculture stated when he was in opposition:
GRIP and NISA, which are long term safety net programs, are being tried and are being worked with. So far in many areas they have been insufficient. They have been a disappointment to the farmers and the industry.
That is a quote from Hansard in 1993.
It is safe to say that most farmers today would take GRIP and NISA over AIDA, the disastrous program that has been put forward by the Liberal government. GRIP and NISA had vision, had long term understanding as to the safety net project. The GRIP program was taken away by the government and not replaced by any long term safety net program.
It is also sad to see the minister of agriculture using desperate attempts to gain sympathy from the agriculture community for his dismal record. He talks of taking a tough love approach. Perhaps the minister would like to expand on the definition of a tough love approach. Does it mean that agriculture, farmers and producers in our country are to stand alone or fall together? Is that the tough love approach the minister wishes to take?
It is also sad to see the minister pit farmer against farmer. I will not quote what was reported in a newspaper recently, but the issue was that there were others in the farm community who did not want to bail out any of their counterparts in the industry. That is not true. From what I have seen and heard having talked with my producers on a regular basis, there is a collegiality among producers. They want to have a long term vision, a long term program, a long term viability and understanding of this industry. We have none of that.
I do not know if we are going to end up with 1,000 producers producing all that is necessary for domestic production. Is that where the government wishes to go? If it is, there is more than just farm production at risk. There is a quality of life and a way of life in rural Canada.
I am very proud to say that I come from a rural community, as does my colleague from West Nova who deals with the fishery. I deal with agriculture. It is a way of life. It is the way that we live, a quality of life that we wish to retain. That vision, that understanding, that philosophy and that ideology has to be put forward in programs and must be accepted by the government of the day. If the government of the day cannot develop those programs, be assured that the next government under the Progressive Conservative Party will understand that, as did the previous Conservative government in 1993. The next government will put forward those programs, that vision, that philosophy and the ideology that will support rural Canada as opposed to destroying it.
I will now acquiesce to my colleague from West Nova to deal with the issue of aquaculture and fisheries.
