38th Parliament, 1st Session
(October 4, 2004 - )

[Parliamentary Coat-of-Arms]

Edited Hansard • Number 049

Thursday, February 3, 2005

 

Government Orders

Supply

Opposition Motion--Agriculture

    Ms. Diane Finley (Haldimand— Norfolk , CPC) moved:

 

    That, in light of the numerous recent disasters affecting agricultural communities across Canada and the government's failure to deliver timely financial relief to struggling farmers, whether by the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program or other programs, the House call on the government to immediately drop the CAIS deposit requirement and honour the commitments it has already made to Canadian producers.

 

[Hansard Page 3034]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz ( Yorkton —Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity and I want to thank the agriculture minister for being here to listen to this debate. My remarks are directed to him rather than the last speaker, who does not appear to really be familiar with farm programs. I also want to thank the agriculture minister for coming to my agriculture forum on January 13 and listening to farmers directly.

    After the minister left, I received some letters from farmers who were frustrated because they could not talk with him directly. I am going to publicly read part of one letter. This one is from Monica Lipinski and is very representative of the letters I am getting in regard to the CAIS program.

    In case I do not get through the whole letter, I will tell members that she makes three points. First, she explains why CAIS does not work and why it needs to be changed. Second, she then gives a very good example of how hugely bureaucratic and inefficient the program is and how that needs to change in order to serve farmers. Finally, the timeliness of payments is a huge concern, as is the way the payments are made.

    I will begin with Monica's letter and outline for the agriculture minister her primary concern. She begins by saying that this is:

 

    A program built for government savings, not for farmer's aid.

 

 

    Averaging guarantees the farmer poverty.

 

 

    Only in an occupation of farming does averaging take effect. Five year averaging of income and expenses, then taking out the good and the disaster years, only guarantees the farmer a poor income. How can it improve if you never show the best year. Plus our expenses are sky rocketing every year, and inflation is never factored in for the farmer.

 

 

    Farmers are penalized for good management and having a good year. This high year is deleted from the five year averaging. This unfair act will never give the farmer a fair payment.

 

 

    During a disaster year, this disaster year is deleted, along with the good year. How can you accurately calculate if a farmer needs aid if you take the bad year away?

 

 

    What should be done, is take the good year and subtract the disaster year. The difference should be what the farmer should get as a payment. Easy calculation, saving millions of dollars in administration. There should also be a percent increase, taking inflation into account. This would aid the farmer in coping with sky rocketing expenses that the government will not put a cap on.

    In other words, in my own words, the structure of this program is extremely flawed. It is not helping those who need it most.

    Ms. Lipinski goes on to talk about the huge administrative inefficiencies and the lack of payments in a timely fashion.

    This debate is absolutely essential in the sense that the government needs to address the agriculture crisis immediately. It cannot wait for a month or two from now. Farmers need some cash right now so they can plant their crops in the spring.

    I appreciate the minister listening to this. I hope he will take some of these points. I will forward these letters to him so that he can read them at his leisure.

[Hansard Page 3040]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz ( Yorkton —Melville, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my Bloc colleague. I also appreciate that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is still here in the House listening to this debate.

    Before I read another letter, I would like to summarize what farmers in my area are telling me about the CAIS program. They are saying that we urgently need to do something for farmers. Agriculture producers are hurting and especially across Saskatchewan where there has been an untimely frost. August 20 was a devastating night. We had a very cold summer. That night the temperature when to -3°C and -4°C in many locations, absolutely devastating crops. The quality and the quantity was greatly affected.

    Many of the comments that are coming forward are as a result of this. The farmers are not only affected by the BSE crisis and the border closure to beef, but now the grain prices have been hit very hard. The farmers complain a lot about the bureaucratic nature of our programs and the fact that other countries stand behind their food producers to a much greater extent than Canada does.

    Getting to the letter from Karen Walden, she writes:

 

    I am writing concerning the disaster in the west. I am enclosing some grain tickets to show what the railways and elevators receive compared to farmers. Our end amount was $887.72 which went toward cash advances is what we would have received, compared to $2,383.41 for freight, trucking, et cetera.

    These numbers are just astounding. This means she did not get the money. In other words, the amount that the farmer received, almost $900, compared to about $2,400 going for freight, indicates how much of a problem these farmers have. Then she goes on to say:

 

    We'll be lucky to get another $1 on payments. In fact, the U.S. upped their subsidies to their farmers. We need a disaster payment and not to be run through the CAIS program as we need the money now. The CAIS program is too flawed to be a disaster program. Payments are too late.

    I would urge the government to seriously consider putting the CAIS program aside and addressing the agriculture programs right now in an urgent way because of what has happened in Saskatchewan .