Agriculture Committee on May 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Unfortunately, we can't act on that suggestion, because we are not in camera and this is a confidential report. We would have to go in camera to deal with it. We're debating a motion, and this is on the record.

With that, Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I object to the notion that we're filibustering here, Mr. Chair.

That would be a long way down the road from here—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

—because clearly we're laying out some of the agriculture initiatives that we've taken. The farm families options program is one of those initiatives. It's important for people to understand that we're talking about the important initiatives this government has taken in trying to set the framework to talk about the farm families options program.

Mr. Bellavance brings up an interesting point, because his producers benefited from a quick response from this government. When the issue of the golden nematode hit an area in Quebec, this government responded very quickly with a $5.5 million commitment to federal potato producers in Quebec. This situation was handled quickly and well by the new government that was willing and able to respond to producers who needed help.

Another commitment we made was an additional $1 billion in the 2007 budget, and this came with some new direction in the farm program and planning. As you can see, this minister has been very proactive. He's bringing forward a contributory style of producers savings accounts as part of the business risk management program. Rather than just saying that we're going to do this, he put $600 million into that program to see that it gets started.

That wasn't enough, because the minister announced another $400 million, Mr. Chair, that would be paid directly to producers to help address the cost of the production issues they're facing. So as the cost of production goes up, our producers find themselves in a situation where they are gaining some extra money from this government to face those costs of production.

Mr. Chair, I could go on for quite some time. Maybe we can come back to some of this later, but I want to make an amendment to Mr. Easter's motion. I think it's important to do this. So rather than deal with the motion as it is, I'd like to amend it to say:

That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food commend the minister for taking the advice of the three opposition critics who unanimously criticized the farm families options program, and that we express our thanks to him for committing to deliver this money through programs that will benefit a wide range of producers.

We're talking about the farm families options program and the changes that are being made to it, so we need to make that amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Can we get a copy of that, so the clerk can take a look?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're calling into question whether or not it changes the intent of the motion and if it would be out of order.

Unfortunately, we are going to rule that out of order.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, that is indeed unfortunate. It would have been nice to add on the record that the parliamentary secretary is congratulating the opposition parties. They are indeed to be congratulated for their work, while he continues to filibuster the work of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Anderson, you have the floor. Your amendment was out of order.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a second amendment then to the motion, in that the minister be commended for making changes necessary to the farm families options program so that the money can be redirected to programming that will benefit all producers.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll take a look at it here quickly.

Again, we're going to call it out of order for being contrary to the overall scope of the original motion.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'll continue then with my discussion, but I respectfully--

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have a point of order from Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am having some difficulty. The parliamentary secretary has been talking to us about the benefits of agriculture and the things that government has done for an hour and a half now. So how is it that farmers are not satisfied? Would it be because we are talking about a defective policy?

He mentions millions and billions of dollars in expenditures, but I have the impression that this money has never left the government coffers. In fact, from year to year, we always talk about the same billion dollars, but it never comes out of the coffers. However, everyone seems happy. I am really wondering if he has not become like his minister, if he is not some kind of a joker. I am tired of talking to jokers. Even during question period, he acts like a clown. I do not want to deal with a clown, I want to do something specific to help farmers.

Currently, everything is rosy. The parliamentary secretary says that the government has paid out millions of dollars. Then why aren't farmers happy? That is what I want to know. I do not want to hear them tell me that his minister is wonderful and intelligent, because we know that is not true. I want him to tell me that farmers are happy with our government. Whereas currently, that is not what they are telling us. In fact, he says that his minister is wonderful and intelligent, but it is not true, he is not wonderful and he is not intelligent. He is a joker. Therefore, I do not want him to table any other similar motions, because we will take him for a joker as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That wasn't a point of order.

Mr. Anderson, you have the floor.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Actually, I'm more than happy to address that question at the beginning, because you want to talk about where the money has gone out. I think we went through some of that, but $755 million has gone out to more than 120,000 farmers, so that's significant. Three-quarters of a billion dollars has gone out from this government that was never delivered before. It was promised but never committed. That's a significant commitment by this government.

The $900 million has gone out through retroactive change to CAIS inventory evaluations, and that was asked for by the industry. That money is flowing out. I think all of us know that CAIS has not been as smooth as any of us would like, but the money is going through there and it is going out to farmers. There was $50 million that was committed to the negative margins coverage. That money is going out as well. There was $137 million that went out through the farm families options program last year.

The cash advance program is a place where people can directly get credit from the government, and we've expanded that program to the point that farmers find it's a significant part of what it is they need to do. There is a federal commitment of $5.5 million to potato producers. There's $2 million in federal support through a golden nematode disaster program and $3.5 million that went out through CAIS in the renewal program. That's money that's being delivered to producers as well.

The $1 billion extra that was in the 2007 budget, as I said, is being split between $600 million through the contributory-style producer savings accounts, which are just being set up, so that money hasn't gone out yet, but it will be going out; and the $400 million is going out this summer and fall to farmers to cover their extra costs of production.

Those are just in the areas of the business risk management that we've--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

On a point of order, Monsieur Gaudet, go ahead.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The parliamentary secretary says that $755 million has gone out to 125,000 producers. Do you know how much each producer received? They received approximately $6,100 each. If we calculate that agricultural producers have assets that come out to $2 million or $3 million, $6,000 in comparison with $3 million in investments is not very much.

It is all well and good to say that we gave out millions of dollars, but the fact remains that 125,000 producers received an average of $6,000 each. That is not very much for someone who invests a million dollars per year. Six thousand dollars will not fill the pockets of a producer at the end of the year, I can guarantee you that. They will not be able to pay their taxes with that amount.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

On a point of order--

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I know some payments are not being made, but apparently you do not know that.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

That's certainly $6,000 they didn't have without the program, and we stand behind that program. We think it was a good investment in our farmers. I don't know if the member opposite thinks that or not, but we do believe that.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to continue going on here. I have some other things we could talk about and hopefully we can come back to it later. We've only spoken for about 25 minutes on this, and it is important to let some other folks have the floor for a while as well, so I want to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Devolin.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion as well, which has been brought forward by Mr. Easter regarding the Canadian farm families options program.

I oppose the motion Mr. Easter has brought forward. I suspect that comes as no surprise.

In fact, I'm just going to read the motion back onto the record here in case some have forgotten it:

That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommend that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food immediately rescind the changes announced to the Canadian Farm Families Options Program on April 20, 2007, and restore the provisions of the program as originally announced;

Mr. Chairman, I remember when the announcement was made about this program and I remember at the time having mixed feelings, because on the one hand I recognized that farm families need to have options, and for some of them, staying on the farm is what they want to do. There might be others who would like to move on and do something else. I could see the logic of the program and the intent of the program, but at the time, I guess on an emotional level, it made me uncomfortable, and from a communications point of view, I was concerned that it might be sending a message that we, being the government or the Parliament, were actually encouraging people to leave the farm.

That's something that made me very uncomfortable, because in my area in central Ontario, the Kawartha Lakes area and Brock Township and parts of Peterborough county, we have a lot of small farms, a lot of mixed farms. Farmers are struggling to make a living, and they're pressured from all directions. In our area, ironically, one of the pressures is urban development. The price of land is going up, so that small farmers can't really afford to buy more land to expand their operations. It's tough for them, and I certainly wouldn't want to do or say anything as a member of Parliament or as a member of this committee or as a member of the Conservative caucus to suggest that we were actually encouraging people to move off the farm. I was concerned at the time that that is how this program might be interpreted, even though, clearly, that was not the intent.

It's interesting that I also remember at the time listening to other members of Parliament, and those from outside Parliament, with their comments on the program and their complaints about the program. I have here a list of some of the comments made by colleagues sitting at the table here today. I'm not going to read them all, but the thrust of a lot of those comments was that they didn't support this program.

I don't remember opposition members saying that, by and large, it's a good program, but we should fine tune it. What I recall people saying was, it's a bad program and we should get rid of it and we should do something else with the money.

At the time, I remember feeling a tug back and forth between this program that I thought would help some families that were ready to shift gear in terms of their family and their life and the business they were in, how they made their living, versus, as I said, this concern about sending the message that maybe we were encouraging people to leave the farm. That was where this message sat. At the time I certainly thought the complaints that were being raised by opposition members were sincere and that they truly had the best interests of farmers and farm families at heart, and that was why they had brought these concerns forward.

I'm relatively new in this place, but it was interesting to see that the minister reacted to that, and when Minister Strahl made the announcement that he was making a change, it seemed to me at the time pretty clear that he had obviously been listening. He made the statement that the money was still on the table, so to speak, that those dollars were still there for Canadian farmers, but that he was going to free those dollars up to do something else and that there were going to be significant changes made to the program.

I remember thinking at the time that the reaction I was initially expecting to hear from the opposition was that he hadn't gone far enough. Given that they had been saying it was a terrible program and never should have been introduced in the first place, and he made a partial change, I presumed the calls would be for the minister to cancel the thing totally.

So I can't say how surprised I was to hear the opposite: that the opposition members basically did a one-eighty, going from savaging the program and saying it was terrible—and when an announcement was made that there was going to be a substantive change—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bellavance.