Rick Borotsik

[Agriculture, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister just said that there was $3.9 billion in agriculture support from the provinces and the federal government.

In 1993, in the last budget of the Progressive Conservative Party, between provincial and federal contributions there was $7.1 billion in farm support. Will the minister please stand and say when he will put the rest of the money back into farmers' pockets.

[Division No. 45, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for being in the House this evening.

On October 18 I had the opportunity and the pleasure to rise in the House to question the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about an issue that is very close and dear not only to my heart, but to the constituents of Brandon—Souris as well as to agricultural constituents all across this fair country of ours.

As the House has been told many times, the minister of agriculture and his department have put forward this wonderful program called AIDA that is going to solve all of the problems of western Canada and western Canadian producers.

I had the opportunity to rise on October 18 to ask the minister of agriculture why it was that only $90 million had been distributed to the four provinces for which the federal government administers the AIDA program.

For those who do not know, and perhaps the parliamentary secretary does not know, there are four provinces that have the AIDA program administered for them by the federal government, and those provinces are Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

With the commodity crisis that we are now suffering throughout western Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are without question the hardest hit because they have a dependency on grains and oilseeds more so than other provinces and other commodities that are being grown and produced throughout Canada.

The $90 million is very important because as of October 18 that was the amount of money that was distributed to those four provinces. However, the minister of agriculture, in response to my question, suggested that in the four provinces where the federal government delivers the program well over $200 million had been delivered, as identified in Hansard . That, in fact, was not true and I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to me how a $90 million distribution of funds could be mistaken for a $200 million distribution of funds.

The reason I brought this up was because not only was the money not being distributed, the applicants for the AIDA program were being denied. In those four provinces, 8,000 applicants had been approved for the AIDA program and some 10,000 applicants had been denied.

Supplementary to that question, I asked the minister if in fact he thought that the 10,000 applicants who had been denied did not require any assistance with the farm crisis. Needless to say, it was question period, not answer period, and the minister decided to go off on some different tangent and he never did answer the question.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary would like to answer tonight. Did those 10,000 applicants who have been denied apply simply on a whim? Did they apply because they thought there was going to be $900 million distributed, which we have seen is not happening? Did they apply because they did not need the assistance? Or, did they apply and get refused because the program itself is flawed?

The program is definitely flawed, as we have found out. There are no negative margins covered in the program right now. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would like to explain why, when the program was designed and developed not to include negative margins in the process.

I should tell you, Madam Speaker, that the process of application is very—

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more that tariffs are not the answer. Certainly subsidies are not the answer.

My question is for the hon. member. In areas other than Ontario agriculture we recognize that approximately 45% of western Canadian farmers may well not be able to farm next year. Is the member suggesting that we simply negotiate the subsidies and the tariffs and not worry about those 45% of farmers who may not be able to make it into the next year. If he does not believe that, what are the alternatives?

What is his government's alternative, other than a very flawed AIDA program?

[Petitions, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 70 pages of signatures from residents of Saskatchewan in most cases.

The petition states that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has failed to protect the true needs of the western Canadian farmers, and that the federal minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has failed not only to meet with farmers but also with business people and concerned groups in his constituency.

Therefore the signatories would like the minister replaced with a minister who has a better understanding of the issues that are being dealt with right now by these people, western Canadian farmers and the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, would the member for Souris—Moose Mountain please tell me if it is Reform policy to issue $1 billion in subsidies to farmers in Saskatchewan? If so, how would he see that being distributed fairly?

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, maybe there is some foreshadowing there with respect to the Filmon government and the NDP government. The federal government also agreed to the AIDA and perhaps it may well be a former federal government.

Let us talk about the issues brought up by the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia. First, the GRIP was put into place and it was and is a good program in those provinces that still continue with it; FIDP in Alberta and the MRI program in Ontario.

It was to the government's detriment that GRIP was taken away in 1995. Had the government had vision, it could have seen that the commodity prices are very cyclical in the farming economy. One government and a provincial government suggested they did not want to have it for the opportunity of saving money, as the federal government did when it took away its contribution to the GRIP. Perhaps it should have seen down the road that this program was going to be necessary in 1999, 2000 or 2001, instead of getting rid of it. It was short term gain for long term pain.

As for the provincial government, yes, Manitoba did give $50 an acre for unseeded acreage. That came totally at the expense of the provincial government. The federal government has still not made its commitment to that $50 per acre.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously not listening. I never asked for more money to be added to the pot.

I suggested that the $1.5 billion, that has continued to be used as the number distributed to agriculture, should be distributed. The number now stands at $200 million for 1998. The reason the minister of agriculture is tinkering with the program now is because he is embarrassed. The criteria that were put into place in that program were so restrictive that it never had the opportunity of putting the money out that was necessary to get out.

I think the government should be embarrassed that $1.5 billion is available and only $200 million has gone out to desperate farmers who need it. When the government changes the criteria to reasonable criteria then the full $1.5 billion can be distributed to the people who really need it, not one out of every two applications being denied.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like, it happened on November 30. I have the transcript from CBC television.

The member from Winnipeg, who suggested that a wonderful job has been done by the federal government with respect to dollars allocated to this particular farm crisis, had indicated that over $200 million has already been distributed. However, remember that the minister of agriculture continually stands in the House and says that $1.5 billion has been allocated to the AIDA and farm disaster programs that we are now suffering. Two hundred million dollars being distributed to this date, October 25, is a far cry from the $1.5 billion he continues to use.

Let us look at the AIDA numbers. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have in fact received a goodly share of the $200 million that has been distributed thus far, but for every one application that has been approved there is one application that has been denied.

I asked the minister of agriculture earlier this morning if he believes that the people who have been denied do not require any assistance throughout the farm disaster. His answer was “absolutely not”. He said that not everyone was going to qualify and not everyone was going to get assistance from the $1.5 billion. To date, only $200 million has been allocated.

In Manitoba and Saskatchewan right now there are people who are in desperate straits. They do not qualify for AIDA. For what reason? It is because the AIDA program has criteria attached to it which will never allow them to qualify for disaster assistance or AIDA assistance.

Let us talk about some of those inefficiencies or deficiencies within the AIDA program. Negative margins was mentioned. When we first talked about this as the PC Party of Canada, we had a program set out that dealt with 70% of the farm income. We would also like to see negative margins covered. When the program was put into place negative margins were not covered. A substantial number of applicants need cashflow in order to put their crops in next year but they have been disqualified because negative margins are not allowed in the program.

A five year averaging of margins was not allowed. A three year averaging of margins was accepted by the government, a criteria that disqualified a number of people. Seventy per cent of nothing is nothing but that does not mean the producer or farmer does not need cash in order to continue the operation. A five year averaging would have been much better.

Let us talk about the bureaucratic nightmare of applying for the AIDA program. It is so complicated that in some cases it dissuades people from even applying. Beyond that, once a person gets an application into the AIDA bureaucracy, there is a whole different set of circumstances.

Why is it that in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where the federal government administers the program, almost one out of every two applicants gets disqualified? There are verifiers and the rules change every day. We can talk to five different verifiers or auditors and five different answers will come forward. That is not only frustrating for an applicant who has put in an application, but it is also to the point where other applicants will not even apply. Rules are changed on a daily basis. We need some consistency within the program to make it fair.

Another issue not dealt with in the existing AIDA program is that of year ends, a simple little bureaucratic nightmare. For a corporate farmer with a year end that falls outside of the calendar year end, the AIDA program is unfortunately backdated to a 1997-98 program as opposed to a 1998-99 program. We recognize that the 1999 crop year is going to have some serious ramifications on the farm economy. With corporate year ends, which have not yet been resolved, some corporate farmers may not have any option or opportunity to take advantage of AIDA in 1999. That is an absolute travesty because those particular producers as well as all producers need a 1999 support system.

I have the distinct displeasure of representing an area that has more than simply a commodity crisis going on right now. We have a natural disaster. Millions of acres of land could not be seeded in the spring because of too much water.

The minister of agriculture has tried to make the AIDA program everything for everybody. This is an extraordinary circumstance that has to be dealt with by extraordinary support from the federal government. It has not been forthcoming. Those producers in the area who do not have any crops and who do not comply with the AIDA criteria will not be farming in the next year.

I speak with some authority. When our party was in power prior to 1993, we came forward with some very strong programs. We implemented the NISA program which people throughout the House are now taking credit for. We came up with the GRIP program which is still in effect in Alberta and in Ontario and is doing quite well for the producers in those areas. However, it was the Liberal government in 1995 that decided to take a little short term gain for a long term pain. It got rid of the GRIP program. If it were in place today we would not be standing in the House trying to demand additional support services from the government.

Through the late eighties and early nineties the Progressive Conservative Party put hundreds of millions of dollars in support to farm communities and farmers with respect to drought assistance and commodity assistance. The federal government can take some lessons from what happened prior to 1993, and I wish it would.

The Reform Party talks simply of tax relief and getting rid of subsidies. That is very laudable. It should happen and it will happen, but it will not happen between now and next spring when farmers will need and demand some assistance to get their crops in.

I thank the Reform Party for bringing forward the motion. However, it has always stood in the House and said “If you can't stand on your own, then you had better get out of the way”. Our party says “If you can't stand on your own in this particular situation, we should be there as a part of the government to say that here are the services and support that is necessary to keep you going until the next crop year”.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak to this particular issue.

I agree with the assessment made by my colleague from the NDP on the motion put forward by the Reform Party. We also do not disagree with the issues put forward in the Reform motion. However, I suspect it must be difficult for the Reform members to keep turning those 180 degree turns all the time and making changes to positions that they had taken previously and putting forward resolutions such as we have today.

I would also suggest that if the Reformers really felt that it was an issue of great importance, then perhaps it could have been a votable motion as opposed to simply a non-votable supply day.

There are obviously some issues that the Reform Party, needless to say, has not been terribly forthcoming with respect to its position on assistance to agriculture. As a matter of fact a number of Reform members have indicated quite emphatically that tax relief and reduced subsidies are the only ways we should be going in industry. I could quote a number of members who suggest that the Reform Party does not really believe in support and spending through ad hoc programs to the agriculture industry.

In a debate with me on national TV, the member who put forward the motion suggested quite clearly that hog farmers should take a lesson from cattle producers and stop whining. That does not speak very well to the belief that agriculture is in desperate turmoil and needs some assistance.

I wish to talk about a couple of issues, the first one being AIDA. The member from Charleswood has indicated that the provincial governments are doing a wonderful job but that the federal government is not doing its job. The federal government takes credit for $1.5 billion which has been allocated to the AIDA program and farm relief.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture shows a fairly rosy picture but I do know that he recognizes it is not quite that rosy in western Canada.

He talks about the 14,000 to 15,000 people who have been approved for AIDA. For each one that has been approved there is one who has been declined.

I wonder if the minister of agriculture would please tell the House if those people who have been declined are simply on their own and should not expect any further assistance from the government.

Lastly, there are extraordinary circumstances with respect to some areas that have been dealt another blow of natural disaster. The AIDA program is not sufficient for those particularly extraordinary circumstances. Will the minister tell the House if there are going to be additional programs for natural disasters?