Mr. Speaker, the motion on Disaster Relief Canada's definition of part time farmer is incomplete. Every time there is a disaster, there is the big problem of how to compensate these farmers who do not come under the program's very specific categories.
The motion introduced today would expand the definition of hobby farmers, without changing the surrounding text of Diaster Relief Canada's definition.
Even with a broader definition, part time farmers would not be better covered by the disaster relief program. From this point of view, the motion becomes almost pointless.
After the flooding in Lac-Saint-Jean, and in the context of municipal tax reform, Quebec looked at the definition of part time farmer. It includes some useful categories covering people starting out in farming, so as to allow them time to get up and running, as well as all forms of specialized farming requiring a certain number of years to become established. I am thinking, for instance, of orchards, which are not productive initially and where the operator must look elsewhere for money to get his enterprise going.
However, part time farming, or at least as I know it in Quebec, is vital. It is important, in my opinion, because in certain places it holds communities together and makes a major contribution to the economy, because people increasingly have to look for income from other sources to combine with what they earn in their business. Some communities would be changed drastically without all the part time farmers, who hold things together and provide support.
In such cases, the importance of part time farming cannot be denied, and the term hobby farmer is an insult to all those who play a vital role in supporting the community.
Obviously, it is in times of disaster that we discover the weaknesses in such assistance programs. At such times, there is a lot of co-operation and assistance, because it is a time of crisis. However, when things settle down, and it is time for action, for rebuilding and compensation, the questions begin. Action must be taken within the framework of the programs.
I listened to the suggestions earlier about the study undertaken by the ministerial task force, but I think their work should be reported to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and to us so we may consider all angles of it, because from the definition, we assess the criteria and then things get more complex.
Reference was made as well to the programs that were implemented, and I would like to return to the statement made by ministers Vanclief and Massé on February 17. These two ministers of the federal government announced unilaterally that they would be granting aid of $50 million to part time farmers in Quebec.
The federal government said that, with this program, and that is the crux, part time farmers will receive from the federal government assistance comparable to that provided to full time farmers under the disaster assistance arrangements.
When assistance programs are implemented after a disaster or some other difficult event, we can see the hardship experienced by the farmers and how important it is for part time farmers to be included in the group that requires protection and help to get back on their feet. However, as it stands, the agreement does not cover them.
Part time farmers were told on February 17 that they would be treated exactly the same as full time farmers. This has not been the case.
For full time farmers, the Government of Canada and the provinces share the cost 90-10, but in this program a 50-50 split was demanded.
I think that the intent of the announcement made on February 17 has not been respected, which creates another problem, which is a major one in my opinion: duplication with respect to the cost of administering the program.
I inquired how the implementation of the program for full time farmers was coming along and I learned today that some 9,000 applications had already been distributed: 6,000 for full time farmers and 3,000 for part time farmers. This information comes from Quebec agricultural information offices because we in Quebec are close to our farmers. They are registered with us.
But it is a system that is already in place and that, unfortunately, has some experience, because of the flooding in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. One learns rather quickly in this kind of situation, although one would have preferred not to have had to.
But the result is that farmers have already been surveyed and work is proceeding very quickly. We are prepared to sort out the problem of part time farmers.
But now another system is being introduced for part time farmers that goes through a different channel, that is therefore not as easily accessible to farmers, who are very familiar with their regional offices, and that, worst of all, increases this program's administrative costs.
In crisis situations such as this one, I think the need is not to increase visibility or administrative costs, but to meet the needs of these part time farmers as quickly as possible.
As my colleague pointed out, some of them are hobby farmers, but others are young or not-so-young people with growing agricultural operations. For those who know this sector well, in these circumstances, every cent counts.
So, a solution must be found. We must not wait for another disaster before finding a solution to this problem. In this sense, it is true that we must look at the definition of part time farmer or part time farming, as they would have it.
I would like to make one final point. The inflexibility with which the $50 million program is being implemented in Quebec is costing farmers dearly. A shared-cost initiative was discussed, without both parties being required to participate. It is rare for two parties to act together when the consultation is all on one side. This was the case here. The measure introduced in no way took into account Quebec's programs.
For all these reasons, therefore, and I would like to speak at much greater length because this is an issue that touches me deeply, the expression part time farmer must be redefined.