moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the definition of hobby farmer stated by Disaster Relief Canada should be split into the following two definitions: ( a ) Hobby farmers: individuals who seek careers outside agriculture and have farms for recreational or investment reasons; and ( b ) Junior farmers: individuals who intend to become fulltime farmers, but currently are forced to seek off-farm income to build an equity in their farming business.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this evening to rise to debate private member's Motion No. 11. It came about as a result of a situation in my riding in the summer of 1996. I introduced a similar motion in the last Parliament which died on the Order Paper and, therefore, I have reintroduced it in this Parliament.
Since I first drafted the motion circumstances across the country have brought new relevance to the whole issue of how farmers, particularly part time farmers and small businessmen, are compensated in instances of natural disaster.
In the summer of 1996 there was a situation of serious overland flooding in the northern part of my riding.
In my part of Alberta and in many parts of Canada part time farming has become a way of life because the economic realities of farming demand that many farmers, or members of their families, take off-farm employment to supplement their farm income in order to survive. The very fact that they demonstrate the determination and the willingness to do this has brought about a situation where they are ineligible for disaster relief funding under the criteria of the guidelines of national defence.
It has created a serious and almost ridiculous situation where a farmer or a businessman on one side of the road receives disaster relief funding to compensate him for damages to his property, while his neighbour across the road is denied that funding.
I do not want to get into a debate over whether or not the natural disaster was worse in one area than in another. I firmly believe that the effect on the individual is the same, whether you are an individual among thousands or an individual among hundreds. My heart goes out to everyone who suffered through the Red River flood in Manitoba and the Saguenay flood in Quebec, as well as this winter's ice storm in Ontario and Quebec.
The very occasion of a natural disaster has a devastating affect upon Canadians. It robs them of their valued property and possessions. It certainly takes away their financial security and their peace of mind.
I can sympathize with those individuals, having operated a farm for probably 35 years. During many of those years I had to take off-farm employment in order to build equity in my farm.
I know what it is like when you are young, you have a dream, and you and your family work your hearts out to build that dream. In a matter of hours those dreams can be wiped out and destroyed by a natural disaster. That kind of loss, in itself, is enough to destroy families. Many families in my area have been destroyed through no fault of their own, but through circumstances which arose as a result of these natural disasters.
We have to stop and imagine the anxiety and distress that would be added to the suffering because of the uncertainty over whether or not these farmers would receive assistance through Disaster Relief Canada.
In the last three years farmers across this country have suffered serious damage to their farms and businesses due to the flooding of rivers and streams all across the country.
Extensive media coverage made all Canadians familiar with the Saguenay flood in Quebec, with the Red River flood in Manitoba and, of course, with the ice storm in Quebec and Ontario.
Certainly less attention nationally was given to the floods of 1996 and 1997 in northern Alberta. It was the flood of 1996, which occurred during the same summer as the Saguenay flood, which motivated me to draft and to introduce this motion.
Following the flood in northern Alberta my office was bombarded with phone calls from farmers who were seeking assistance and disaster relief. The majority of the phone calls came from part time farmers who were not covered by Emergency Preparedness Canada because they earn more than half their income off-farm. The federal government's response to their pleas was nothing short of a slap in the face.
My constituents were forced to sit by and watch as side agreements were made to compensate hobby farmers affected by the Saguenay flood, the ice storm and the Red River flood, although there seems to be some confusion about whether part time farmers did receive compensation for damage caused by the Red River flood. Certainly that was the case in the Saguenay and in the areas affected by the ice storm. Individuals in northern Alberta, in 1996 and 1997, were denied that funding.
It is for this reason that my motion asks for the definition of a hobby farmer to be divided into a hobby farmer and a junior farmer under the Emergency Preparedness Canada guidelines.
The current definition assumes that all farmers earning less than half their income from their farms have those farms for recreation or investment purposes.
In my riding it is more often the case that so-called hobby farmers are part time or junior farmers who intend to become full time farmers but who are forced to seek off-farm income to supplement farm income.
In the case of the ice storm, the part time farmers in question were the maple sugar producers whom I visited shortly after the storm. They have an extremely short season and under the current system are penalized for having the drive and ambition to seek additional work during the off-season.
Ironically, the majority of part time farmers reinvest their off-farm income into their farms to build equity, to accumulate capital and quota until they are able to maintain a full time farming operation.
The advantage of splitting the definition is clear. Hobby farmers who own farms for recreation and investment purposes would still be excluded from disaster relief programs, while part time or junior farmers would automatically be included in federal disaster relief programs.
Part time farmers would no longer have to wait for or rely on side agreements that are negotiated entirely at the discretion of the Treasury Board. This would eliminate the problem of regional inequality whereby some part time farmers, like those affected by the ice storm and the Saguenay floods, are given assistance while others are not.
Northern Albertans were denied additional assistance by the Treasury Board, while part time farmers in Quebec and Ontario received it for reasons known only to the Liberal cabinet.
Presumably the smaller magnitude of the Alberta flood in terms of dollars and cents was the reason. However, whether 200 or 2,000 farmers were affected, the impact on the individual farmer is the same.
How can it be justified to a part time farmer in Alberta that he will not be helped because not enough people were affected? It makes no sense that a person be given assistance for damage done by what was clearly a natural disaster while his neighbours across the road or his colleagues in other parts of the country are denied the same.
The devastation to the individual farmer in Alberta was, most assuredly, equal to the devastation experienced by the individual farmer in southern Manitoba, Quebec or Ontario.
The Liberal government is proud of the compensation given to the part time farmers affected by the Saguenay flood as it was the first time part time farmers have ever been included in a disaster relief agreement.
However, this move is only commendable if it is applicable to farmers across Canada under similar circumstances. Otherwise, it is little more than a divisive tool that deepens the gap and increases regional tension among Canadian provinces.
The divisiveness of federal policies was one of the primary reasons for the formation and continued existence of the Reform Party. Any policy or legislation that allows one farmer to be helped while another is ignored under identical circumstances hinders Canada's growth as a strong and united country.
Therefore in order to ensure equality, legislation should be in place to prevent the need to negotiate on a case by case basis.
Let me give an example of one of the many part time farmers who would stand to benefit from this motion. I received a call from one farmer who started a grading business on the side to supplement his farm income. This farmer is by no means wealthy or a foreign investor or keeping a hobby farm for investment purposes. Rather, he is a farmer with 200 head of cattle who wants to raise his income in order to be able to keep his farm going so he took an extra job. Unfortunately, because more than 50% of his income comes from his grading business, this farmer is ineligible to apply for assistance under Disaster Relief Canada.
The farmer's hay and alfalfa fields were the only feed he used for his cattle. His other flooded fields were used for grazing his cattle. Without some sort of relief, this farmer was faced with selling or slaughtering his cattle because of his inability to feed them. Flooding also resulted in limited work for the graders.
Therefore this farmer, like so many other affected part time farmers, felt that he was financially destroyed. Certainly this is only one example among hundreds of similar stories from my constituency as well as Peace River to the west of my constituency.
In a letter to one my constituents, the executive director of Alberta Disaster Services expresses his dissatisfaction with the current criteria for qualifying for assistance. He too has received many phone calls from frustrated farmers forced to give up their farming business. The eligibility criteria are outdated in light of the current reality.
The current reality is that the agricultural community has changed significantly and has come to depend on the contributions of part time farmers. It is becoming increasingly difficult for families to live on farm income alone.
In the last three years over 300 part time farmers in northern Alberta have applied for disaster relief funding and have been denied eligibility under the program. While the numbers seem to be dropping year by year, I think that is more a result of farmers becoming more aware of their ineligibility for the program than a drop in damages.
The recent ice storm reminded Albertans once again that everyone is not treated equally in this country and certainly not under Emergency Preparedness Canada guidelines. This needs to be remedied.
The only clear solution, therefore, is to distinguish between hobby and part time farmers and businessmen and to amend the guidelines to ensure equal assistance for all part time farmers and small businessmen in the event of a natural disaster. This assistance should be automatic as it is with full time farmers and businessmen and not decided on by a partisan body like the Treasury Board.
At this time I would like to point out that even the hon. members opposite have noted the need to reassess existing eligibility criteria. In the fall of 1997 I was told that Emergency Preparedness Canada was in the process of reviewing eligibility criteria in consultation with a working group from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. I sincerely hope these discussions are progressing quickly.
Changes need to be made as soon as possible because, as we have been recently reminded, one can never be certain when or where another natural disaster will occur. I also sincerely hope that the hon. minister of agriculture, as he has assured me, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are actively pursuing equitable access to relief for all farmers.
It is most important that all members of this House, especially the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, give this motion fair and serious consideration. Through the division of a single classification into two separate classifications, this motion will do two things. First, it will ensure fairness. It is unfair to continue to lump part time farmers with the owners of recreational farms. Part time farmers need to be recognized for their unique contribution to agriculture and must be protected against natural disasters that will adversely affect their farms.
This motion will also establish equality between part time farmers no matter what the disaster or where the farm is located. It will prevent the bitterness and resentment arising from perceived regional favouritism.
To emphasize this equality it is also important that the government retroactively compensate those part time farmers and businessmen overlooked since the Saguenay agreement with part time farmers, including those denied assistance after the northern Alberta flood. I believe this motion addresses the suffering of all part time farmers and businessmen affected by the natural disaster and it is an important step in securing the future of part time farmers in Canada.
Therefore I conclude by asking every member of this House to give this motion his or her full attention, consideration and support.