AGRI Committee Report

DISSENTING OPINION OF THE BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS

FEBRUARY 2000

Introduction

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food attempted to respond to the present farm income crisis in Canada by holding a series of public hearings on the Prairies. Although the Committee's deliberations were important and responsible, the Bloc Québécois cannot associate itself with the Committee's report. There are two main reasons for our dissenting report: firstly, the title of the report does not reflect its content; and, secondly, some recommendations, based as they are solely on the present situation on the Prairies, are highly questionable.

A biased report whose title does not reflect its content

Having read the Committee report, entitled Strategy for Making the Farm Income Safety Net Stronger and More Responsive to Farmers' Needs, the Bloc Québécois considers that the report should have provided a more complete picture of the agricultural sector in Quebec and Canada. In order to do so, the Committee would have had to hear witnesses from Quebec and all the provinces. Nothing of the sort was done. Although we raised this point at Committee meetings, it was dismissed as being irrelevant.

The analysis of the economic situation given in the Committee's report focuses solely on the situation of Prairie farmers, while its recommendations are general in nature. The Bloc Québécois does not challenge either the reality of the present farm income crisis on the Prairies or the urgency of making decisions about it, but the report, in ignoring the situation of farmers in Quebec and other provinces, implies that their situation is rosy. Do the "farmers' needs" referred to in the title of the report mean only Prairie farmers' needs? Is the report a plank in an election platform, a springboard from which the Liberals are preparing to conquer the West? The Bloc Québécois wishes to point out that the present farm income crisis is not limited to Western Canada; the crisis is more visible and more urgent there, since agriculture in the Prairie provinces specializes more in grains and oilseeds, prices for which have recently plunged.

As well, the title of the Committee report suggests that it is intended to present a strategy. A strategy is defined in the Nouveau Petit Robert dictionary as a "series of operational objectives selected to implement a previously defined policy" [translation].¹ In light of this definition, why does the report make no reference to hog and sheep producers in Quebec, who are still suffering from the effects of the slump in their farm income? Why does the "series of operational objectives selected to implement a previously defined policy" refer solely to the Prairie provinces? It undoubtedly does so because the "previously defined policy" is to allow the Liberals to harvest Prairie votes.

Finally, in tabling our dissenting opinion, the Bloc Québécois wishes to show that the federal government is responsible for the present situation since it set up the entire Agricultural Income Disaster Assistance (AIDA) Program, which is more visible than useful to farmers experiencing income crises. When the AIDA Program was announced, both farmers and the Bloc Québécois consistently criticized its shortcomings, but the Liberals ignored our objections. Now, the Committee report recommends an overhaul of the AIDA Program operational criteria. Our dissenting opinion, then, is intended to highlight this blatant failure: the AIDA Program as originally set up was never designed to meet farmers' needs. Because they waited so long before accepting this fact, the Liberals are responsible for the worsening of the farm income crisis, which has deteriorated to the point where the very survival of many farmers is now at stake.

The recommendations

The Bloc Québécois has carefully studied all the recommendations contained in the Committee report. Good intentions aside, Recommendation 1 includes no criteria for defining natural disasters.

Recommendation 5 is unacceptable. Firstly, the Bloc Québécois fails to understand why this recommendation is contained in the Committee report when paragraphs 19 to 22 criticize the concept strongly and in detail; apparently this recommendation was included solely because it was acceptable to Prairie farmers. Secondly, this recommendation would essentially set up a non-targeted program, and it would require additional funding so that farmers actually in need of assistance would indeed obtain it. Thirdly, a farm income support program based on seeded acreages instead of production yields would certainly be a waste of money, allocating public funds according to criteria that are not based on economics (yields) but rather on geometry (acreages), and this would involve paying out a great deal of public money to those who do not need it in order to ensure that those who do need it--small farmers, for example--are eligible for a decent level of assistance.

Recommendation 6, aimed at increasing federal and provincial contributions to the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA), also comes up against the problem of allocating funds. Contributions to NISA must not be increased to the detriment of contributions to other farm income support programs.

Although it is not customary to do so in a dissenting report, the Bloc Québécois wishes to point out that Recommendation 8 is a praiseworthy initiative. However, it is high time to take action and to ensure that farm income support programs take into account the real situation on family farms.

Conclusion

At a time when action is urgent, the Bloc Québécois is disappointed with the government's lack of openness. All farmers, not only Prairie farmers, are experiencing economic difficulties. However, in this Committee report, the government has done more electioneering than problem-solving. More seriously, the report makes blanket recommendations based solely on the situation in the Prairie provinces. This fact does not mean that some recommendations are irrelevant, but, when the government claims to be recommending a strategy for Making the Farm Income Safety Net Stronger and More Responsive to Farmers' Needs, the least it can do is to consult all farmers in all parts of Canada and Quebec.

1^# Nouveau Petit Robert, page 2149, column 1, definition 2.