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.