A point of order, Mr. Chair.
I think the point that Mr. Anderson is making goes to the heart of the issue. It was on July 31, 2006, that the minister made a two-year commitment. Thousands of farmers, based on that two-year commitment, made financial planning decisions under the family farm options program. Then, after the fact, on April 20 of this year, the minister cancelled the program. So the fact that the minister talks cost of production or $600 million for anything else, how can we trust that it's going to be there? The proof is in the pudding. In terms of the family farm options program based to low-income farmers, the minister broke his word on his original announcement.
That's what this debate is all about. Those farmers are short money, advised so by their financial advisers, and the minister cancelled the program. This debate is about trust. It's not about the other programs they're talking about; it's about trust in the minister's word. When he announced a program last year, financial planners advised farmers to take use of it. Four months after the fact, the minister's word is broken by cancelling the program. That's what this issue is all about.
The parliamentary secretary can dream in technicolour all he likes, he can announce $5 billion, but does it mean anything? This is what we're talking about here.