Evidence of meeting #64 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farmers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I call this meeting to order.
Mr. Bellavance isn't here yet, but we'll get going.
For everyone's information, the liaison committee met today and approved our travel to Washington next week. We need to get it reported back to the House and approved by the House, which I think will happen tomorrow.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It's for everybody's information.
Our first order of business is to deal with Standing Order 81(4), which is the main estimates for 2007-08.
I know Mr. Easter had some questions. I believe the minister's office has replied to those questions, and it has been circulated in both official languages.
Are there any questions from that circulation?
Mr. Easter.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, Mr. Chair. I don't think we want to take time away from witnesses, but the answer, especially as it surrounds the Canadian Wheat Board, is an absolute non-answer.
The fact of the matter is, when government is involved and forces anyone to lose money, to violate contracts, or to undermine that organization's reputation, there is a cost, and the government should be obligated to compensate for that. We have in fact seen it in many instances, on everything from blood to the Arar issue to other incidents. I would say that at this point, and not to get into a long debate on it, the answer is absolutely unsatisfactory.
As far as the explanation on the options program, Mr. Chair, there is bit of an explanation here. But I have a grave concern that in the estimates, when they were originally tabled, there was a program in place for low-income farmers. Farmers did their financial planning on December 31, based on discussions with accountants and financial advisers, using the options.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
It's one thing to bring up the answer and the reasons for it. As Mr. Easter has said, I think the answer is there. He now wants to debate whether or not it should happen.
I would suggest it's out of order. I'll leave the decision up to you.
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is, the farm options program is even named in the estimates in the notes. When the government tables estimates, you expect them to be reasonably abided by and not to have the program cancelled in mid-stream.
Mr. Chair, maybe the best way for me to deal with it is this. Since the estimates have been tabled, the minister has unilaterally cancelled the program. I'll even admit it was a poor program in the beginning, but regardless of that, a lot of farmers did financial planning and expected the program to be there.
I am tabling a motion before the committee. The clerk has it. I would like it to be discussed at the next meeting. I won't get into the preamble. It basically says that the committee recommends that the minister immediately rescind the changes announced to the family farm options program on April 20 and restore the provisions of the program as originally announced.
It's a little longer than that, because it explains that farmers have used financial accountants to take advantage of this program to deal with their financial hardships.
I know the government seems to be in haste to deal with the estimates today, and we will in fact deal with the estimates, but I table the motion to discuss the farm options at the next meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It won't be at the next meeting. A 48-hour notice would take us to Thursday's meeting, and it has to be translated and circulated.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'd like to make a motion that we move on to vote 1.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Okay.
Shall vote 1 for the amount of $605,886,000, less the interim supply that's been granted of $151,471,500, for a total committee examination of $454,414,500, carry?
Mr. Easter.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could tell us under which vote is the Canadian farm families options program? Is it under vote 10 or is it under vote 1? Do you know?
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I think we're beyond debate and questions here. If you look at the rules of order, we are voting on it, and it's voted on without discussion.
I'd also make the point that we had the minister and the bureaucrats here for two hours and that would have been an appropriate time to raise that question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Until the vote takes place, there is still time for discussion on these issues. So I'm looking at going into it in more detail.
Vote 1 is on operations.
Vote 5 is capital expenditures.
Vote 10 is grants and contributions, and that would include...which programs?
Vote 15 is everything under the Financial Administration Act, including our cash advance programs.
Vote 20 is the Financial Administration Act, authorizing the minister in terms of guaranteeing payment of amounts not exceeding, at any time.... This is for line of credit agreements with FCC and the national biomass ethanol program.
Vote 25 is Canadian Dairy Commission expenditures.
Vote 30 is CFIA operating expenditures and contributions.
Vote 35 is Canadian Food Inspection Agency capital expenditures.
And vote 40 is the Canadian Grain Commission program expenditures.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes. I believe it falls under the grants listed in estimates and contributions. That is vote 10.
So we're on vote 1, which is operating expenditures for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I already read it in.
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA
Department
Vote 1--Agriculture and Agri-Food--Operating expenditures..........$605,886,000
(Vote 1 agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Vote 5 is for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the amount of $28,631,000, less interim supply that's been granted of $7,157,750, for a total for committee examination of $21,473,250.
Vote 5--Agriculture and Agri-Food--Capital expenditures..........$28,631,000
(Vote 5 agreed to)
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I have a question on vote 10, Mr. Chair, to the parliamentary secretary, if he can answer.
In the note from the minister's office, they have indicated here that of the $550 million originally in the farm income business planning and skills development, “The revised total is $304 million. The difference of $246 million will be redirected to other agriculture priorities--$230 million for new programming and $16 million to increase existing programming.”
Can the parliamentary secretary give us any idea of where that spending is going? I know both he and the minister spent a lot of time propagandizing against the Canadian Wheat Board. I'm wondering if any money is allocated to that area or will it be spent constructively.