The Rural Voice, 1990-05, Page 45the farmer and his creditors. Then
that's the end of our job."
Under the heading of "successful
arrangements" come not only cases in
which the debt load was restructured,
but also cases that resulted in farmers
leaving the industry. And some ad-
vocates of farmers complain that only
$30 million has been offered but not
committed over the next five years.
"The bulk of the funds have not
been used, and the bulk of what has
been spent has not been spent on
restructuring," MacKenzie says,
adding that applications to the FDRB
are not being restructured under the
It is misleading, says a farm consultant, to claim that 80 per cent of
FDRB cases are dealt with successfully. "If your purpose is to clear
the land of 80 per cent of the people, then you're being very successful."
a small percentage of the cases han-
dled are resolved in a way that keeps
farmers in farming.
Bob MacKenzie, for example,
owner of the farm consulting firm
MacKenzie and Associates, says only
between 13.2 and 21.2 per cent of
FDRB cases involving the Farm
Credit Corporation (FCC) are being
restructured with concessions that help
to keep a farmer on his land. Statistics
show, he says, that only 13.2 per cent
of cases result in a write-down of in-
terest rates, and only 21.2 per cent
include a forgiveness of arrears.
It is misleading, MacKenzie says,
to claim that 80 per cent of cases are
dealt with "successfully."
"If your purpose is to clear the
land of 80 per cent of the people, then
you're being very successful," he says.
But farm debt review was meant "to
salvage a segment of the population
that should be salvaged for the good
of the country."
In fact MacKenzie, who chaired
the pilot debt review project back in
1984 and 1985, has grave doubts
about the effectiveness of the system
that was eventually set up. He says he
wonders if taxpayers' money is being
used effectively. Is the farm debt
review process really helping to keep
farmers on the land, or is it being used
"to prop up the bottom line of the
FCC?" he asks.
Using figures obtained from the
FCC, MacKenzie says that as of
March 31, 1990, the FCC had access
to $260 million in concessionary funds
(money made available through Ag-
riculture Canada for restructuring farm
debts through the FDRB). But so far,
MacKenzie says, less than $76 million
has been spent nationally, and another
FDRB the way they should be.
"The funds are to be used to
restructure farmers, not restructure
their (the FCC's) own bloody balance
sheet. Less than half the dollars being
committed here are going to the re-
structure type of concessions. There
are a hell of a lot of dollars kicking
around not being used."
MacKenzie also questions
whether the farmers who do leave
farming through the farm debt review
process are being given fair deals.
cently was an option for farmers using
the FDRB. Fast track allowed a farm-
er to deal with one creditor, indepen-
dently of other creditors, and to reach
an arrangement with that one creditor
quickly.
Jobin says the fast track method
was used for about six months, but
was not a good experience.
"All of the fast tracks, or the
majority of them, eventually came
back because after getting a settlement
with the Farm Credit Corporation (for
example), a farmer still had a loan
debt with the bank. And then the
farmer would eventually be served by
the bank, and we ended up taking him
all over again," Jobin says.
In one case, he adds, a farmer who
took the fast track then turned around
and complained that he did not benefit
from a complete review, and that the
agreement that was worked out with
the FCC is not what he wanted.
Fast track, Jobin says, "did not
serve the purpose of the act, which is
to solve the financial problem of the
farmer." Addressing only one cred-
"If you scare people away from debt review by threatening to notify
every creditor, spooking them all ... they won't go in for the review,"
says Jack Wilkinson.
What happens in the 79 to 87 per
cent of the cases in which farm debt
is not restructured to keep farmers in
business? he asks. "Where are they
now? What are they doing?"
Food production is in the national
interest, MacKenzie adds, and "people
are being dispossessed on a scale that
usually only happens in a revolution, a
bloody revolution."
"There's a lot of hidden chaos or
calamity that hasn't shown up in the
statistics yet." •
Statistics, notes Jack Wilkinson,
are open to interpretation. Even when
a "successful arrangement" is made,
he says, "that deal could fall apart the
next day, and I know some that have.
And that's still considered a success
by the Farm Debt Review Board be-
cause the file is closed and they've
put it away."
The use of statistics isn't the only
problem, Wilkinson adds. Take the
"fast track" program, which until re-
itor, he says, is only a bandaid solu-
tion, and it also doesn't allow for a
complete review.
For example, Jobin says, a farmer
may have a $60,000 mortgage with the
FCC restructured through the fast
track method. But the fast track might
by-pass a $200,000 loan at the bank.
"Jobin is twisting it though,"
counters Jack Wilkinson. "That case
would have never gone ... through
the fast track the way the lawyers and
everybody understands. I have a letter
from the Farm Credit Corporation.
Where FCC is the main creditor, they
are quite willing to use that process.
They would never agree to a fast track
under the circumstances that Jobin is
giving."
There are cases, on the other hand,
where the fast track is useful, says
Wilkinson. "On the flip side — and
there are lots of flip sides that I know
of — is a case where the bank has a
piddly line of credit with the farmer
MAY 1990 41