Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few seconds to thank the voters of Richmond—Arthabaska for placing their trust in me for the second time on January 23. That is all I will say for now about that. I will come back to it when I speak another time, because I think that tonight’s subject is too important for me to talk at length about anything but agriculture.
I would therefore thank Parliament, the other parties, for agreeing to hold a take note debate, as was requested in response to the demonstration held on Parliament Hill. Those thousands of agricultural producers did not come here for nothing, they did not come to Ottawa to sightsee; they came to express their distress.
Those thousands of farmers on the Hill yesterday sent the new government a number of important messages. First, “welcome to the real world”. We could see that the real world had come to say that it was in dire need of assistance at this time. The honeymoon is over as well. It is time for the government to stop and think about what it can do when emergencies arise like the one they came to tell us about in that demonstration.
The time has therefore come to take action. The time has come as well to fulfil the commitments made in the election campaign and also in the Speech from the Throne. I will come back to that a little later, because we are talking about agriculture.
The Conservatives’ election promises implied that they would support agricultural producers. I heard it personally when I took part in a debate during the election campaign, a debate organized in Toronto by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. In fact, the Conservative critic for agriculture said that some commitments had been made to that effect. Now we are waiting for the goods to be delivered.
In the Speech from the Throne, on page 11, at the very end, it says:
This Government recognizes the unique challenges faced by those who make their livelihood from our land and oceans in our vital natural resource and agriculture industries. It will take action to secure a prosperous future for Canadian agriculture, following years of neglect.
We are waiting for the action. The time has come to demonstrate good faith and to fulfil the commitments made not only in the election campaign and over the years when the party was in opposition, but also in this Speech from the Throne.
This government must walk the walk. Yesterday, in question period, the minister acknowledged that there was a short- and long-term problem. Tonight we have heard the Prime Minister acknowledge it. Once again we have heard the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food say it, except that we have not had a formal commitment, unfortunately, from either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The minister said that his government would take action to meet their needs immediately. For me, “immediately” means right away. Earlier, the minister said in response to the questions and comments that the budget was coming, that we could not take measures very quickly, or too quickly, either, that the problem would not be solved in eight weeks. I understand that the problem of the farm income crisis will not be solved in eight weeks. However, this government has the means, the power and the ability to establish ad hoc measures, one-time measures to provide immediate assistance to agricultural producers before they seed their crops.
I think that all of the parties agree on this. At any rate, the government members who rose understand the situation. The official opposition, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP—everyone here tonight—all seem to be saying more or less the same thing. We do not agree on everything, but I think we are all on the same wavelength when it comes to the urgency of the situation. Unfortunately, we do not have a clear and firm commitment from the government to act immediately.
When the minister says "immediately," what I hear is "now". Yesterday, he could have gone out to the agricultural producers, as his office said he would, to announce that immediate steps would be taken to help address the farm income crisis. Not to resolve it right away—immediately—of course. But that would have been a step in the right direction.
Here again, the government must walk the walk, as I said before. Furthermore, given that a person's effectiveness is measured by what he does, not by what he says he will do, agricultural producers' concerns are understandable.
The Conservatives have promised to replace the dysfunctional Canadian agricultural income stabilization program. I have been hearing this over and over tonight. This program never worked. It was rammed down the throats of the provinces and agricultural producers by former minister Vanclief. At the time, everybody said there would be problems implementing and managing a pan-Canadian program and making it work properly.
The evidence is in now; there are problems with this program. It is time to change it. In his latest speech, the minister is asking farmers to help him convince the provinces to agree to change the program. This is something new from the minister because they are going, and I say it in English, “to scrap the case”. Now they say that they have to talk to the provinces and get them to agree.
It is no longer time to talk; now it is time to act. The provinces fund 40% of the CAIS program. The federal government simply cannot ask the provinces to reach into their pockets once again, whether to fund this program or another one. It is out of the question. They cannot be asked to do more.
The government just announced a $10 billion surplus. It can meet the needs of farmers. The arrival of a new government has not changed reality with the wave of a magic wand. As we have always said, the means are in Ottawa and the needs are in Quebec and the provinces. So do not come and tell me that it is time to talk to the provinces and ask them to do more. They have done their part. Now it is time for the federal government to keep its promises and change the program.
In Quebec, the pressure on the programs is becoming unbearable. If nothing is done, it is estimated that La Financière agricole du Québec could end the year with a $170 million deficit. Is the minister reversing himself now? Is he going back on his promises?
During 13 years in opposition as the Reform Party, the Alliance and even the Conservative Party, I cannot believe that the new government did not have time to take a serious look at the CAIS when everyone agreed how ineffective it was. The only change that was made was to replace the deposit with fees. This was not received very well by farmers in Quebec or elsewhere. I have not heard very laudatory comments about this change in the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program. In the face of a crisis of this kind in farm incomes, this is no longer the time for improvisation.
The thousands of farmers who came to Parliament Hill yesterday were not here to play tourist. In order to get to Parliament Hill, I walked with the Quebec farmers over the Alexandra bridge. The comments to be heard and what was being shouted over the microphone were not very laudatory of the new government.
In any case, farmers have much more important things to do than come to Parliament Hill. What they love is to work on their land. They must be given the means to continue loving their work, given the means to have an agricultural succession. The way things are going, we are at risk of having no choice but to buy our products elsewhere, became no one here will be able to afford to run the farms.
Because they can no longer manage to meet their needs, many farms are having to close down their operations. The farmers came yesterday to deliver four very clear messages. The current agricultural programs are not responding to the income crisis. Immediate support measures must be established, until we have a new agricultural policy framework. The present agricultural policy framework has never been accepted by the agricultural community as a whole, whether in Canada or in Quebec. We are in the process of preparing one. The government has already spoken about this. Until such time as we have a new agricultural policy, we need domestic support programs to compete with the Americans and the European Union, which are subsidizing their agricultural industry with all their might. We will never reach that level of subsidization, and neither should we. We would not be capable. There is no doubt we can offer some domestic support to limit the damage.
The funding must be flexible and adapted to the needs of the provinces. The government must maintain the marketing structures such as supply management. I have been so glad to hear the many speeches this evening defending the supply management system. Last November, just before the election, the Bloc Québécois tabled a motion which was adopted unanimously, before the negotiations held in Hong Kong. Thanks to that we managed to keep our supply management system in place. It was not easy to get that motion passed unanimously—luckily we were going into an election.
The crisis we are talking about is serious.
The year 2003 was a bleak one for the net income of farmers. The year 2006 promises to be just as bleak.
For 2006 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is predicting a dramatic decline in producer income—of over 50% from last year, and 81% from 2004. Debt has risen 90% in the ten years from 1995 to 2004. Producers have no more cash. They are in debt and no longer able to deal with this situation.
The government has to act now. That is what we are demanding this evening. All of the parties are together here, and I hope they are here in good faith. They acknowledge that there is a farm income crisis. What we are now asking the government to do is to take action.
