Debates of March 18th, 1998

Small Business Loans Act

[The Speaker]

The next recorded division is on the third reading stage of Bill C-21.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you will find that there is unanimity that the hon. members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, Liberal members voting yea.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in this fashion?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote no on this motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote yes on this motion.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of our party vote yea on this motion.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the small business community in York South—Weston I will be voting in favour of this bill.

(The House dived on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 111

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Hobby Farmers

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

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.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is also responsible for emergency preparedness and the disaster financial assistance arrangements. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence I am pleased to speak to the motion before us today and I welcome the hon. member's suggestions.

I would like to take members a few weeks and remind them of our most recent disaster, the ice storm of 1998. Although this storm had a devastating effect on so many people in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick it also showed us Canadians at their very best, banding together in times of trouble to assist their friends and neighbours. This was a national crisis requiring a national effort. People worked together to overcome adversity. I am proud and I know Canadians are proud of their efforts and the high level co-operation between the federal government and the provinces, local authorities, community groups and scores of individual Canadians.

I also want to mention the role played by Emergency Preparedness Canada. This Department of National Defence agency worked closely with other federal departments and provincial governments to ensure that the emergency response was there when it was needed. A federal emergency operations and co-ordination group worked basically around the clock to locate, buy and transport emergency materials in response to provincial requests for assistance.

Emergency Preparedness Canada also co-ordinated public information across all federal departments and agencies participating in the relief efforts. But we were not only reminded of Emergency Preparedness Canada's value during the recent ice storm, it was also there during the disasters in Saguenay and Manitoba, Peace River and Athabasca.

While provincial authorities were in the lead during these emergencies, the federal government was there for support where and when needed. When the federal government was taking steps to ensure that we can provide support for future disasters, and in response to disasters in recent years, the President of the Treasury Board asked the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Industry to undertake a review of federal financial assistance to provinces and territories following natural disasters.

This review is under way and has been carried out by an interdepartmental working group with representatives from Emergency Preparedness Canada, Industry Canada, Western Economic Diversification and the Economic Development Agency of Canada. For the regions of Quebec the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the privy council and Treasury Board secretariat are also involved in this.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will be among the other key federal departments consulted. They will also consider the findings of the working group that presents the recommendations to Treasury Board.

Provincial and territorial governments will have the opportunity to comment on the working group's findings. They will also be able to make their own recommendations on any changes to the disaster assistance arrangements before a final version is adopted by the federal government.

As part of its review the working group will examine the disaster financial assistance arrangements as well as eligibility criteria for disaster relief to farmers.

I want to assure the hon. member proposing the motion and all members in the House that the economic recovery of the agriculture sector after a major disaster will continue to be a major concern of this government. The financial assistance provided by the federal government in response to the January ice storm is a recent example of how the government helps the provinces, their citizens, including farmers, to recover from natural disasters.

A share of the $25 million the federal government has already provided to the Ontario government and a share the $50 million to the province of Quebec under the disaster financial assistance program arrangements are destined in part for full time farmers in these two provinces. However, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has announced that part time farmers in Quebec who were hardest hit by the ice storm can look forward to $50 million in further federal assistance to help get them back on their feet.

The fifty million dollar federal ice storm recovery package for part time farmers, although outside the disaster financial assistance arrangements, addresses the main concerns put forward by the hon. member in his motion, namely that part time farmers, including so-called hobby farmers and the junior farmers category defined by the member's motion, will receive financial assistance from the federal government to help them recover from the ice storm.

Without going into the details of the program administered by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, let me point out that this special ice storm recovery program provides part time farmers in Quebec with $1,000 toward their eligible ice storm related costs for each full week they were without power.

The minister responsible for emergency preparedness and the Ontario ministry of municipal affairs and housing have announced the joint financial assistance program that will help part time farmers and rural communities in Ontario to the tune of $20 million. This assistance is being provided without changing current eligibility criteria or definitions in the longstanding disaster fund assistance arrangements.

We all know how devastating the ice storm was for so many people, including many farmers. We all want to do our part to help these people get back on their feet. This private member's motion reflects the very Canadian desire to help our neighbours when they are need. But because we are currently reviewing the eligibility criteria for farming operations and there is a special program for part time farmers devastated by the recent ice storm, I believe this motion to change the current definition of hobby farm under the disaster financial assistance arrangements should be put to the interdepartmental working group.

I assure all hon. members that this government cares about all Canadians, including all farmers, who suffered major losses during the January ice storm and other major disasters that wreaked havoc on their homes, farmsteads and essential personal properties. This government stands on its record of providing financial assistance in disaster stricken provinces in a prompt and equitable manner. We have done this through the longstanding disaster financial assistance program and the arrangements that flow from it.

When circumstances warrant, as in the case of the recent ice storm, we have provided support outside these arrangements with a special ice storm recovery program for part time farmers in Quebec and Ontario. We are consulting and reviewing these arrangements to ensure we can continue to help people when disaster strikes.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca for bringing Motion No. 11 before the House. It enables us to speak to the very crucial and important area of part time farmers.

We recognize farming in general as one of the stronger frameworks of Canadian society. That is where the permanent settlement is. These are the people who come into an area and make a commitment, not to stay for a year or two or three but perhaps in many cases for generations.

As my friend from Athabasca indicated these are extraordinary families. Farming is not a job. It is a life. It is a lifestyle. It is a career where one works in a sense 24 hours a day. Not only does the farmer work but the entire family works, friends probably join and extended families become part of the operation. It is one of those aspects of economic development that does not fit the usual economic model. We are talking about people who are prepared to devote their lives to developing a farm.

As others have indicated, obviously for many this starts off as a part time operation. That is the way, particularly these days, for young people to get into farming or in British Columbia, in my area, what we normally call ranching. One cannot afford the money to simply take over an operation on a scale that will enable the making of a decent living.

Consequently most farmers or ranchers I know have to seek off farm work to make a go of it unless it is a huge corporate operation. Those running the typical family farm or ranch are inevitably driving a school bus, working at part time teaching, running a gravel pit on the side, or who knows what.

In other words, it does not take much for farmers to find themselves in situations where they consider themselves to be full time regular farmers but find out that half their income has to come from someplace else to make a go of it. That is the nature of the business and I think we acknowledge that.

My hon. colleague from Athabasca has provided a very valuable service to the country. I have had consultations with my colleagues from Winnipeg—Transcona, Winnipeg North Centre, and the leader of the New Democrats in Manitoba, the member of Parliament for Provencher.

In the area of Manitoba that experienced serious flooding problems there are still hundreds and hundreds of farmers who have not received any support as a result of all types of jurisdictional disputes and in my judgment some rather insensitive political leadership in that province. That is the area I know best in terms of the details.

Let us look at the disasters that have befallen many food producers, farmers and ranchers in Alberta, northern British Columbia and elsewhere. When these folks apply for support in recognition of a natural disaster that has occurred in their region, they are told that there is no support, that there are no programs available. Yet, when the same thing happens in other parts of Canada, lo and behold there are all kinds of programs, all kinds of support.

As my friend has indicated even then there they have problems. If one point becomes clear today, it is that the whole area of farmers dealing with natural disasters and receiving some kind of support or encouragement to get them through these difficult periods has to be re-examined.

We have the interdepartmental task force but that is not where the answer will lie. It is a cumbersome process, to begin with. The agricultural committee, as my hon. friend has indicated, might be a place to begin. My suggestion would be that the next time agricultural ministers from territorial and provincial governments across the country get together with the federal minister of agriculture, one of the items on the agenda should be how to deal with this issue in the future.

Flooding will not stop this year. Ice storms may not stop this year. We certainly hope they do but they will probably come back. Some form of natural disaster will occur.

If there is one thing we have learned it is that existing programs do not work well. They do not treat people fairly. They are not offered in an equitable and fair way. Some farmers are eligible; others are not. Some parts of the country seem to me to be treated different from other parts of the country when it comes to farmer support during natural disasters.

The whole thing is kind of a hodge-podge and we need to acknowledge that. There is a serious problem. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture in his speech today acknowledged that point. While we send the issue off to the interdepartmental task force, that is one step but it is not good enough.

We owe the member a great deal of gratitude for bringing this matter to our attention today. The issue of farming and the fact that people have to seek off farm employment to survive as a legitimate farmer these days has to be acknowledged.

We are moving into a whole new world of hemp cultivation. The federal government announced that regulations were in place so people could start growing what I call industrial marijuana or hemp. This is a new enterprise. When we consider that there are 50,000 identified uses for hemp, this will provide an awful lot of marginal farming operations with one other crop they can pursue as long as those markets are developed appropriately.

Let us deal with the whole issue of what is a legitimate farmer. What is a legitimate part time farmer? What is a hobby farmer? We acknowledge that hobby farming is a reasonable category as well. Then let us identify appropriate ways to compensate farmers for natural disasters, when, where and if they occur, in a fashion that is fair, justifiable and equitable to all.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give a long speech. However, I listened very carefully to the member for Perth—Middlesex, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

I thought he explained particularly well the role of the federal government in dealing with natural disasters and how the special nature, magnitude and focus of a particular event and the nature of the farming community affected by the ice storm encouraged the federal government to move into the area of assisting part time farmers. We have great sympathy for the very large number of people in that category in eastern Ontario and Quebec. I think it was the particular circumstances and I think the member explained the federal government's position with respect to disasters.

The member opposite who raised this issue knows that we cannot anticipate the nature, scale or even location of disasters. Therefore we have to be flexible. In this case the needs of part time farmers were particularly strong.

I happen to know from personal knowledge that the member for Provencher has been working hard to get the province of Manitoba to amend its agreement. He has been encountering great difficulties at the level of the provincial government. I encourage the member for Provencher to continue doing that.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour to stand in favour of my colleague's motion. There is no doubt that the challenge to farmers these days is higher in all likelihood than it has ever been, although I remember as a youngster growing up on a farm in Saskatchewan that things were not very easy then either.

In the year I was born the farm had produced nothing for two years in a row. When I said in another speech in the House that I grew up very poor, it was because of that fact. When I came on the scene in 1939 two things happened: the drought came to an end and the war started. I do not know how we would correlate that.

Let me turn to the motion and the definition of farmers and the need for government help when they meet disaster. The speech of the parliamentary secretary gave one of our grievances out west. There seems to be an immediate program for disaster in some parts of the country. In no way are we insensitive and unsympathetic to that. However, we observe that when we have similar disasters in our part of the country the federal government seems to be much less sensitive to them. It seems to be very difficult for us to obtain help for those who need it.

There are many areas in which there seems to be a discriminatory attitude. I had an interesting case reported to me in my riding. A young farm couple was having a great deal of financial trouble making ends meet. It was tough. Income was slow and there were many pressures in terms of higher costs and the need to work long hours for a very low rate of return.

This couple found that there was federal legislation stacked against them. She had to take a part time job to pay the bills and keep the farm running. Lo and behold, she got in what we call euphemistically the family way. She is now eligible for UI, as most people are, having taken a job in one of neighbouring towns. It is one of the benefits under that program.

Because she also had an interest in a farm, the government applied some very stringent and unreasonable rules in computing their average, forcing them to take 15% of their gross income and apply it as income to the family. She only wished they could make 15% of their gross income; it was much less than that. As a result, she is ineligible for the UI benefits that everyone else receives. They were and are a family that is struggling financially.

In the north end of the wonderful constituency of Elk Island there are farmers who for two years in a row have not had a crop, either because of too much rain at the time of seeding or too much rain at the time of harvesting. They have not been able to get their income. As a result they are facing tremendous financial pressures.

Is there help for them? No. It does not seem to come from anywhere. Their financial distress is as severe as those who suffer from more immediate and sudden weather disasters, which we have heard a lot about in the last couple of years.

I emphasize again that I am neither unsympathetic to them nor saying in any way that they should be cut off. What I am saying is that there ought to be a system of equity applied so that different members of society and the farming community are treated equitably. Those with financial difficulties because of circumstances totally beyond their control as in the case of aberrant weather should have assistance from a government program as do others in different parts of the country.

A lot of people are part time farmers and part time everything else. Some farmers in my riding and elsewhere who among other things went into trucking because there was not enough income from the farm to keep the farm going. Consequently they get involved in trucking or some other part time business. They take employment in the oilfields or in my riding in some of the chemical plants. Some farmers in Saskatchewan had to take jobs in the potash mines just to supplement the farm income and keep on farming.

As a result they are ineligible in their farming operation for some other benefits. Even with the passing of the Crow rate there was some tremendous inequities because of the application of certain rules that apply on the federal scene.

I urge members of the House to support strongly my colleague's motion. Action should be taken. The motion was not drawn for being a votable motion so it appears, having had the pleasure of getting this off our hearts, nothing will be done about it. That is wrong. Action should be taken.

The motion is one of great importance and urgency. If we cannot vote on it in the House and bring in an act that will result in some changes, at least my colleague has brought the matter to our attention, to the attention of the government and to the attention of ministers who are in a position to do something about it.

If the government were to bring forward a bill to address the issue in the way my colleague is suggesting, it would receive the attention the House would be willing to give it. Certainly our party would support it, provided that it met the criteria my colleague is suggesting. We should do that.

I challenge the government and the minister to look at it, to treat it as a matter of urgency and to do something about it. It is not sufficient and it is not satisfying to me as a member of Parliament for farm families in my riding, in Athabasca, in some cases who have been in the farming business for years and for generations, to face the loss of their property at this stage. I urge the government to do something about it and to bring in a government bill that will bring this matter to a resolution.

I sincerely hope this will not have been just an hour of debate but that something will result from it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the hon. member for Athabasca speaks he will close the debate.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how to express my disappointment at the response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence to this issue. Either he misunderstood issues in the motion or he chose to ignore them almost totally.

It is wonderful news that the Department of National Defence and other departments are considering changes to the way disaster relief funding is provided to small businessmen and to farmers.

Another fundamental issue that he refused to even acknowledge was that there was a flood in northern Alberta and that the Alberta government applied for special funding for disaster relief for part time farmers and small business people. That request was denied to farmers and small business people in northern Alberta on two occasions, once the same summer and now this winter, for whatever reasons. I have to assume because they were in a different part of the country that special funding was provided. That was a sad day for Canadian unity, for equality and for fairness across the country. I was certainly disappointed.

While the flood in my part of the world was nowhere near the magnitude of the Saguenay or of the ice storm, certainly I know of farm families that were destroyed and are no longer families. I know of farmers who committed suicide because of the economic and personal hardship they suffered because of the disaster. To simply brush them off as not important and not worthy of the same kind of consideration as farmers in Ontario and Quebec is simply wrong, unfair and unworthy of a government that has responsibility for all Canadians.

I heard from the member of the Bloc Quebecois Party and others that there was some desire to have the issue go further. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to refer this subject matter to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for further study and recommendations to the minister.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the proposal of the hon. member for Athabasca. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent. The period for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, over the last few months I have had the chance to familiarize myself with the reality of immigrants and refugees trying to settle in Canada in hope of a new life.

Without a doubt, starting a new life again in an often entirely different social and cultural environment is a long and difficult process. I thus believe it is our collective role to facilitate the adaptation of newcomers who wish to participate fully in our society.

Let us not forget that most of us are immigrants or descend from people who decided to settle here two years or two centuries ago. Canada, as we all know, is a country of immigration. We are all immigrants except for the aboriginal peoples.

Over past decades immigrants have made enormous contributions to the success of our economy. The mix of people of various ethnic origins has enriched our national life tremendously.

Following the release of a report from an advisory group in January 1998, the minister announced her intention to review the Immigration Act. We agree that our immigration policy and practices need some refreshment. People seeking protection in Canada are often waiting more than two years before their case is settled.

I recently had someone calling me, saying that her family was separated since 1991 because of complications in the sponsorship procedures.

Another dramatic example of the limits of the system is a case I was personally touched by, a drama that took place in my own city of Halifax. I am referring to the four Filipino seamen who courageously reported an incident of three Romanian stowaways while their ship, the Maresk Dubai , sailed toward Halifax. These four courageous men asked for Canada's protection after their families in the Philippines were harassed and intimidated due to their testimony against the captain and five other crew members who allegedly forced the Romanian stowaways overboard.

Although going back to the Philippines appeared to be a threat to these people and their family security, they were denied refugee status by the Immigration Refugee Board. The board's two member panel concluded that the harassment was not sufficient to be considered persecution. Now their only chance is through a request to the minister for exceptional humanitarian consideration, but that same minister refused to allow the seamen's family members to come and testify during the refugee board hearings. What chance do they have? Under basic justice principles these men and their families truly deserve our protection.

This is the kind of example that makes me worry about the changes coming to the Immigration Act. The government seems to think of immigration as an economic tool with people seeking protection as a secondary category.

We will also remember this Liberal government as the government that imposed the infamous head tax on newcomers. This $975 right of landing fee imposed on all adults becoming permanent residents is reminiscent of the head tax that was used to prevent the establishment of Chinese Canadian families at the beginning of this century.

The new head tax is disproportionately affecting refugees and families immigrating through sponsorship. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees raised some concerns that refugee access to protection might be affected since many are coming to Canada with limited financial resources.

When I asked the minister to remove this offensive tax she responded: “According to our studies we have penalized no one wishing to settle in this country”. When I asked her for those studies I was informed they did not exist. People working closely with immigrants clearly told me that there was an impact on low income families. It is time for the minister to realize this tax, the resource from which does not even serve to help newcomers settle in Canada, was a mistake.

The current review process is a good time for this government to give some indication of the future direction of our immigration policy. Will that direction be toward a restricted view based on cold economics and fear of differences or rather toward an open policy that recognizes both the positive impact newcomers have on our collective life and the humane dimensions of immigration?

The Canadian government must live up to its commitment and change its current policy of giving priority to investors and economic immigration over family reunification and humanitarian cases such as the case of the seamen from the Maresk Dubai . Removing the head tax would be the first step in that—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, family reunification has been and continues to be very important for this government. There are no limits. It is strictly on demand. There is not a cap nor is there a quota on family reunification in this country. There was none before, there is none now and there will likely be none.

The report of the advisory committee to the minister is not a government report. The minister has said that she has concerns with aspects of that report. There are also interesting and useful aspects of that report. If the hon. member wants to participate in that discussion it is important that he does so at this time. It is important when the decisions are made that they be the right decisions for Canadians and for immigrants.

With respect to the issue of fees, as we are all aware, certain fees are associated with obtaining permanent residency in this country. The government recognizes that some individuals, specifically refugees, may have some difficulty in paying these fees. That is why a loan program is in place to offer financial assistance to these individuals.

I do not understand my hon. colleague's concern about this program or his implication that it does not work. In every respect it has been a major success story. First, there is no evidence to suggest people are being unfairly penalized by our fees. The loan program ensures money is available to individuals in genuine need. In fact, 95% of the beneficiaries of loans are refugees. Second, we are not simply giving this money to people. It is a loan. I am pleased to inform the House that over 92% of the loans have been paid back. Repayments to this revolving fund in 1996-97 totalled $10.2 million.

This not only demonstrates the government's commitment to helping immigrants and refugees enter Canada, it also speaks well of the integrity of newcomers who are coming to our country to start new lives.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on February 24, I asked the Minister of Finance on the eve of his balanced budget to address the serious concerns about funding for post-secondary deaf students in Ontario.

Beginning on April 1, 1998 funding for post-secondary education and disability related post-secondary school support will no longer be the responsibility of vocational rehabilitation services in the ministry of community and social services.

Currently students in the VRS program receive financial support to cover direct costs such as tuition and books as well as indirect costs such as a living allowance, interpreters and note takers.

Through VRS counsellors these students also receive advice and support in planning their educational and vocational careers.

As of April 1 these students will be required to seek assistance instead through the ministry of education and training's Ontario student assistance program and through special needs offices in colleges and universities.

The Ontario Association for the Deaf has identified a number of specific concerns around this new formula. First, eligibility for financial assistance will be based on a family's income as determined by a needs test. It is anticipated that many current VRS students will not be eligible for OSAP and that will impose immediate and significant financial burdens on families.

Second, special needs offices in colleges and universities are already overworked and understaffed. In addition, they do not have the experience or expertise to meet the unique communications needs of deaf and hard of hearing students. Although a total of $4.9 million is being transferred to meet these students' access needs, no details have been announced about how much is being allocated to each institution and how these funds will be used.

Third, the valuable consultation and support currently provided to students by VRS counsellors will cease on April 1. No provision has been made to replace this essential vocational planning support.

Finally, many deaf and hard of hearing students are not academically ready for post-secondary studies. No accommodation has been made for the funding of upgrading and retraining programs.

Parents and students are extremely upset, confused and angry with these new developments. The domino effect for deaf students and all disabled students continues as the government continues to balance its budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Disabled students are being short changed in their educational opportunities. This will seriously weaken their employability and this will perpetuate the cycle of unemployment and underemployment that has plagued people with disabilities historically.

I ask the government to seriously consider the additional cost of education facing deaf students and all students with disabilities. I ask the government to keep the promises it made to the disabled in its 1996 task force report “The Will to Act” and to start doing the right thing for the disabled in this country.