Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-49.
This bill deals with the management of the federal Department of Agriculture. As you know, Mr. Speaker, anything that impacts on agriculture is important to me as a farmer and is also important to a great number of my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster as agriculture is the leading industry of the riding.
In my opinion and the opinion of my caucus this House does not discuss agricultural issues nearly enough and government action is even more rare. We did see a little bit of action when cabinet was expanded the other day. We now have I believe a minister of state with responsibilities for agriculture. I guess that is well and good but the call I am hearing from the industry is not that the cabinet be expanded but that some of the issues that are near and dear to the industry be dealt with in a real, sincere and effective manner.
I heard a rather humorous description of a man who was adjusting his tie while his pants were on fire. I think that application might apply to the current minister of agriculture who gave a very eloquent speech. There was very little in it that any of us could find fault with. We all want the best for our industry. The fact is that there are a lot of problems in the industry. Until we act, our eloquence is rather hollow and rather empty.
Most reforms to the agriculture sector have one of two results. Either money is taken out of the farmers' pockets through program cuts or a department reshuffling is initiated, leading to more bureaucracy and red tape. If anything, this bill seems to fall into the second category.
Farmers have made it clear that they are ready for action on a number of very important issues. Instead, the first bill that the minister has brought to us in this session is one that opts to perform some cosmetic changes to the department, shuffles some chairs around and hires a few more inspectors. It would seem that the minister is deliberately ignoring the issues of most concern to the agri-food industry.
For instance there is widespread consensus across the prairie provinces for a producer plebiscite on barley marketing. Opinion polls, farm groups and surveys, including one that I did in my constituency, show that a vast majority of farmers support holding a producer plebiscite. In my constituency a survey indicated that 93 per cent of Canadian Wheat Board permit holders would support a plebiscite to determine how they market their barley. The strength of these numbers indicate that those on both sides of the issue are eager to resolve the question in a democratic manner.
In fact the Prime Minister before the election called for a plebiscite on this issue. Why is this minister not taking action regarding this democratic initiative? He seems more interested in rejigging his department than acting on issues of importance to farmers.
Another issue concerns the Canadian Wheat Board. All farmers know that the current board is out of date and unresponsive to the needs of producers. There are some elements of the western Canadian press that are sounding the demise of the wheat board. The Reformers believe that a vibrant and responsive wheat board that gives farmers choices would be preferable to eliminating the board.
Most farmers are calling for a democratized wheat board that will listen to farmers, meet their needs and change with the times. Again, this question was included in a survey in my riding. In fact 96 per cent of Canadian Wheat Board permit holders in the riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster in the survey we conducted supported democratization of the Canadian Wheat Board. In other words, take control of the wheat board out of the hands of the politicians and give it to the producers as is the case with most marketing institutions in Canada.
It seems that the minister would rather introduce housekeeping measures that have more to do with relabelling bureaucrats than accomplishing anything for farmers.
There are some very constructive things that can be done to reform the department of agriculture and will have positive results for producers.
It is my contention and that of my Reform colleagues that the purpose of funds earmarked for agriculture support should primarily be to assist agriculture producers who, through no fault of their own, find themselves financially disadvantaged.
I remind the minister of agriculture that at present there are a total of 41 different agriculture programs at the federal level, 286 more provincial programs, and 22 joint federal-provincial programs. That brings the total number to 349 separate support programs for agriculture, each one administered and accounted for separately.
The administrative cost of running so many different and often overlapping and outdated programs is rather staggering. Over $2 billion per year is spent by the minister of agriculture, of which over $700 million is spent on operating and capital costs alone. These figures do not include the $728 million spent under the Western Grain Transportation Act. I believe those figures are for the year 1992. They have been reduced somewhat since.
This appallingly high level of overhead signals mismanagement because of overmanagement. By consolidating all those federal programs and initiatives into three or four the government could save many millions of dollars and provide better support to the industry as a result.
We must expose the myth that more money spent always results in more effective programs. In the case of agriculture it is not only possible to provide better support with fewer dollars but it is essential to the long term sustainability of the industry given the bad financial shape of the government.
The government has a moral obligation to the next generation of farmers to ensure that whatever programs it has in place today will remain economically viable for tomorrow. At present with a $40 billion annual deficit this government is not living up to its moral obligation.
Reform of agriculture programs is essential because we must be able to defend the cost of agriculture support to taxpayers, consumers and future generations. Support programs that protect farmers and producers from situations beyond their control are defensible and desirable for the maintenance of the agricultural industry.
My colleagues in this House have proposed three major programs that we support. I will not review those in their entirety today but I will list them because we believe they are defensible programs. They include an actuarially sound federal-provincial producer funded crop insurance program. They also include an income stabilization program that is a whole farm program available to all sectors of the industry. The third program that we suggest would be a trade distortion adjustment program designed to compensate exporting producers as a direct countermeasure to foreign subsidies.
My colleagues and I believe that if these improved programs are targeted to those producers who need them there will be many benefits.
A couple of them I might list are support dollars that are strategically targeted to increase their effectiveness manifold. Why are we just spending money in all directions where there is not a quantifiable need? Also, by delivering support more directly to the farmer rather than through a large bureaucracy the money gets to where it is needed and it gets there faster.
These are just a few examples of how the minister can increase his effectiveness and the effectiveness of his department for those farmers in need of support and at the same time reduce the burden to taxpayers. These are the kinds of things the government should be doing. Simply making a few internal housekeeping changes to the department is not going to affect producers in any meaningful way.
Rather than making some of these reforms that move the agricultural industry forward the minister is content to shuffle his department around. The minister is adjusting his tie while his pants are on fire. In other words, there are serious problems in agriculture that need urgent attention and here we are in the House today debating a recycled Tory reorganization bill.
If we look at the minister's record of action we can see why farmers and producers from all across Canada are unhappy with his performance. I will list a few of the minister's non accomplishments. The minister signed the GATT agreement the way that we forecast he would during the last election campaign. He did not change a thing, contrary to the promises in the red ink book.
We recognized the decision that had to be made while the Liberals and other parties in this House were reticent to accept the fact that Reform indicated the deal would be signed more or less the way it was signed. The agriculture minister had to sign the GATT deal more or less the way it had been negotiated in spite of promises to the contrary.
Our agriculture minister bungled the grain transportation system effectiveness last year which led to a disastrous year for many producers. Producers are worried about the same thing occurring this year because very little has been done to put safeguards in the transportation system that would not allow a reoccurrence of last year's paralyzed system.
The agriculture minister is stalling on the issue of backtracking of grain from Thunder Bay. The date has been set back and we have not seen anything of substance that would indicate he is even going to meet the targets he set.
Of even more concern is that the minister of agriculture has caved in on his commitment to defend durum producers in Canada by agreeing to export quotas to the United States when all of the cards were in our deck and we were in the right and the Americans were in the wrong. Yet we caved in and handicapped our producers who were discovering a great export market for their product where the customer had cash on the barrel head to pay for the product.
Our agriculture minister has labelled Canadian farmers as criminals for wanting to export their own grain to the United States. Rather than rectifying the problem he has lashed out at the producers he is supposed to represent. Our agriculture minister has failed to reform the Canadian Wheat Board even though most farmers are calling for it. Our minister of agriculture has failed to consolidate support programs for the agricultural industry, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. He has failed to reduce the proportion of agriculture bureaucrats to farmers. I believe at this time there is one bureaucrat for every three to five farmers. It depends on where the figures come from.
This minister talks about consulting with producers. Certainly there is no one and no party more warm to the idea of consulting with people than the Reform Party. As my colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre said, we have seen consultations, we have seen studies, we have seen a lot of producers and producer groups do an immeasurable amount of work in putting forward proposals that once they have come to the cabinet table get put on a shelf and nothing comes of it or the final product is far removed from what was indicated through the consultation process.
We would urge this minister to move beyond the consultation process and move into the action mode where he either acts on the judgment and wisdom of producers who have spoken in the past or in a democratic fashion allows producers to make decisions such as on the wheat board and the marketing of barley.
The minister must get around to doing something. We cannot consult forever until the industry wanes and becomes weakened over time through inaction.
In his speech the minister talked briefly about Wayne Gretzky. Of course being a hockey fan I perked up immediately when he said Wayne Gretzky said he scored because he shot the puck. My concern is that our agriculture minister is not even on the ice. If he is on the ice he has not even gone over his blue line yet. It is a concern that many producers share.
I hope the minister has listened to the suggestions that I have put forward sharply. I admit I put them forward sharply because I believe that action is required. However, they are in a spirit of constructive criticism. My desire is that the government will very soon stop putting forward administrative bills and finally act to improve the agriculture industry.
