Agriculture Committee on May 29th, 2007

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I have a point of order, and I think this is a genuine point of order.

Barry is generalizing when he says that opposition members on the committee have done a one-eighty on this. I would like him to read the press release I put out when the program was announced. David Anderson actually quoted me a few times, and the quotations were absolutely accurate. I said that this program did not deal with the farm income crisis—and that is what we were asking the government to do—but we obviously could not say that there were no farmers in difficult situations. Consequently, giving the farmers $500 million was an attractive option. So I would not want it said that I was trying to destroy this program. Once again, the member need only read the press release I issued when the program was announced to see that that is not at all the opinion of the members of the Bloc Québécois.

However, I did say that this was not the solution, that this program would not deal with all the problems. Saying that a program is not perfect does not mean that it should be destroyed. The government's decision to simply suspend the program is quite disgusting.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

A point of order, Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

We want to have a turn; I'd like to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay.

Mr. Devolin.

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

I stand corrected. I will be more precise in my language.

Specifically it was the comments that Mr. Easter made. I'd like to read one that was made back on.... That can't be the right date, but the quote is from Mr. Easter:

My concern also is that you see the low uptake. You see exactly the same questions coming from at least three of the four parties, saying that they've heard from people that it isn't working and it's still in its pilot stage. Can't we be flexible enough, even as a public service, to say, okay, with a 10% uptake, clearly it's not working? If we have to extend it and we're only going to get a marginal increase, why don't we re-examine the criteria? Why don't we re-examine what we're trying to do here? And, above all, does the farming community need a lesson in business management to do business plans now when they're thinking about surely just getting through the year?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The member doesn't know the date when that statement was made, but it was made last summer. The program was announced on July 31. I believe that statement was made sometime in the fall.

You have to keep in mind that the program was announced seven months after the end of the fiscal year for which the moneys would apply. Therefore, for people to take advantage of it this year...tax advisers then knew how to take advantage of the program.

So if the government was going to change—take my recommendations, which they should have done—then they should have done it well in advance of the end of the tax year, around which farmers were doing their financial planning. I believe the minister made his retroactive cancellation of the program on April 21, after they already did their financial planning.

As I said earlier, what would the uproar be if they did the same thing retroactively regarding our RRSPs? There would be a revolution in this country.

So I just want to straighten the member out regarding the date. The quote is correct, but it shows how poorly this government planned, and it failed to give advance notice to farmers to take advantage of a financial program that could have helped them but isn't there now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

He was correct on the date, so he clarified that.

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Devolin.

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

In fact, I misread the date here. According to my notes, it was November 7, 2006.

My point is that to go from that position to the point where that member is now suggesting that the changes be rescinded and that the program be reinstated in its original form is an unusual conclusion to draw from that series of events. That's why I disagree with this motion.

In his talk, my colleague Mr. Anderson drew on the broader context of what's been going on and what the government has been doing for farmers over the past year and a half. I'd like to take a somewhat different approach; I'd like to focus on the fact that the money initially allocated to this program is still there. I think a more productive use of our time would be to actually come forward with some ideas or recommendations on where those dollars should go. That's something we could be doing for farmers. I think the money is still there.

What I'd like to do is make an effort to persuade my colleagues to change their minds if they're currently considering supporting the motion--to actually switch them, so that if they were planning to support it, they would change their minds and oppose it.

I have a couple of ideas I want to put on the table, some ideas we've heard recently that maybe we should be pushing the minister on to get him to use some of this money to address some of these issues. For example, when we were doing our hearings in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec, in Montmagny, one of the ideas that came forward had to do with helping young farmers get some kind of capital assistance. We heard from young farmers that one of the real challenges of getting going was figuring out a way to actually get on the land and be able to buy a farm in the first place.

This is certainly something I've heard in my riding, and I'm sure we've all heard it in our ridings. That's something I think the government could look at. That's something we could look at as a committee. We could put forward a recommendation to the minister suggesting we take some of this money that's been allocated and earmarked to help Canadian farmers. Now some of it is available, given the change in this program, and maybe we could come up with something that would help young farmers.

Mr. Chair, in a previous life I worked in the real estate business and spent a lot of time working on financing deals for developments and for individuals to figure out ways to get people into owning property that, when they first went to the bank, the bank said they couldn't afford. When the young farmers were here that day, I thought to myself that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was created for young homeowners many years ago. One of the tools they put forward for home ownership was basically underwriting mortgages. About 30 or 40 years ago you had to have 25% down to buy a house; when CMHC came along, what they basically did was underwrite the mortgage for the bank. That way the bank would be prepared to go above 75% financing, to 80%, 85%, 90%--in fact, 95% in some cases. That allowed lots of young families to get into home ownership, ownership that otherwise wouldn't have been possible.

As a Conservative, I believe there's a limited role for government, but I still believe there is a role for government. I think some of the work CMHC has done with helping young families get into home ownership has been very good. I think maybe we could look at that. Maybe we could explore some similar structures to help young farmers. Whether that is underwriting mortgages with lower down payments--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

What the member is talking about is really not on the topic. Government members seem to miss this point, but the fact of the matter is that the motion is all about trust. It's all about a government that has thousands of people out there who made financial planning decisions based on the government's word, based on a pilot program. They did that financial planning, effective December 31, with their financial advisors.

Now the government has broken their word. They changed the program. The whole point here, in terms of the motion and rescinding it, is to ensure that those farmers, those specific low-income farmers who did the planning and who had seen $246 million disappear....

We're not talking about money for another program in terms of this motion; we're talking about keeping the commitment that was made to those low-income farmers specifically. We're not talking about a dream world or about another program. That's what we can discuss in terms of APF. We're talking about trust and the word of the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Devolin.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm considering the motion that's before us, as it's written. My purpose here today is to put forward some ideas that are so attractive and so compelling that my fellow committee members will seize on them and will say, Barry, that's a great idea and that's the type of thing we should do and....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Anderson.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think it's important that the members opposite, especially the person who made the motion, listen to Mr. Devolin's suggestions, because he's making some very good suggestions as to what could be done with the money on the farm families options program. I think it's important that Mr. Easter consider this, because he's not playing around here; he's trying to do something constructive and make some suggestions of what can be done to improve that program and the distribution of the money. I think it's important that Mr. Easter listen and maybe learn something from Mr. Devolin here.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I might say this, Mr. Chair. I'm willing to listen, but keep in mind I would like to know how he targets this money at the very specific people who had planned on utilizing the moneys. In fact, I really think the reason the government cancelled this program in the beginning is not because the opposition was opposed to it. It was because when the minister really did the calculations on how much it was going to cost, there was going to be greater uptake in the program than there were finances available, and the government just didn't want to see that money go out. If he did his homework, he should be able to tell us that--how much was going to go out?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller, are you on a point of order?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I think it is, Mr. Chairman, in the fact that Mr. Easter is trying to surmise something that's.... I don't know whether he dreamed that up or if that was somebody else's idea that the minister.... That's not the reason at all. He made the comment as well that people were planning on using this. This program, or any program, is set up for people who need it, not people who plan to use it. I think that's a point there. I've never met a farmer yet who planned to live out of the mailbox. He'd far sooner get his cheque someplace else. So to say that people planned on using it would almost say that people were cooking their books or something. I don't know whether that's what Mr. Easter meant or not, but that's what it sounded like. As a farmer, and a lot of people that do, I resent that comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We're getting into a whole different debate.

Mr. Devolin, you have the floor.

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

Great.

It's—

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I have trouble seeing the clock, but I would suggest it is 5:30, if the chair could see it that way.

We had it that at 5:30 we would adjourn. You can see the clock at 5:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

According to my time, it is 5:15.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Charlie's always ahead of time, Mr. Chair.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I don't see the point in going through all of this. It's a beautiful afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Devolin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have about a dozen here. I'll try to get one on the record before 5:30, and then if we have to come back, we can get through the other eleven.

I'm concerned, though, with what Mr. Easter said. He was suggesting that when an exit plan was proposed after 13 years of Liberal government, there were so many farm families in such terrible shape that there was going to be all this unanticipated demand for the program. I know he was the parliamentary secretary, and maybe he knows some inside information that I don't know, but that wasn't my impression.

Getting back to my young farmers capital assistance program, to a degree I lost my place. I don't want to have to go right back to the beginning; I think we were discussing how the CMHC had made it possible for a lot of young families to get into home ownership, and that maybe we should be discussing and proposing to the minister the idea that we come up with something similar that works for young farmers, perhaps with the federal government assisting with interest payments over the first number of years. Basically the banks love the CMHC home ownership loans because the government takes the risk off their hands, and that's why they're willing to lend money. If something in a similar vein could be done for young farmers, they would be able to actually go out there and borrow most of the money that's needed.

As we all know, in the short term, Mr. Chair, being able to manage the interest on your debt is your first challenge; the second challenge is figuring out a way over the long term to actually pay off the capital on that debt. But the first hump you have to get over is managing interest, and I think there's possibly a role there for government.

My wife's family comes from Switzerland, and there are farmers in their family over there. I can tell you that farm loans in Switzerland are often 30-, 40-, or 50-year amortizations, because the price of land has gotten to the point that it takes that long. As overwhelming as that might sound to us in Canada, where we are used to 20-year mortgages, that's the way they do things over there--yet people still do it. Actually figuring out a way to help them manage that is one of the ways to keep people on the land and to get young people into agriculture, and as I said before, when we were in Quebec, that was one of the questions that came forward.

Mr. Chairman, before I leave this idea, I'd just like to clearly put that on the table. Maybe we should be going back to Minister Strahl to say that we heard a good idea when we were in Quebec, and we think we'd like to make it work. Maybe we could have some witnesses in from CMHC or from other organizations, such as Farm Credit Canada or people like that, to help us come up with something like that.

Another area that I think is really interesting and that presents a lot of opportunities has to do with Canadian genetics and exporting, whether it's semen and embryos or live animals. Unfortunately, I learned about this subject largely through the BSE crisis, and it wasn't happy news coming from genetics exporters; unfortunately, it was sad news. The beef guys were hit, and we were dealing with them, but the dairy guys and the sheep and goat producers were also sideswiped by it. I had a sheep breeder in my riding who was exporting high-end, high-value breeding stock. He had a big contract set up to send a bunch of animals to Mexico and was sideswiped through BSE. It didn't wipe them out, but it wiped out a lot of their capital, and he ended up sending some of those animals off to the slaughterhouse. It's a real shame to have high-value breeding animals sold.

Maybe what we should be proposing to the minister is a program to help our genetics people--those who raise animals as breeding stock or who export semen or embryos--to help get them back on their feet. That's something we could put forward to the minister as a way to spend some of this money, if it's available. We could help with that.

I can tell you that in my area some of the smaller dairy farmers in Ontario tell me that obviously the milk cheque is their primary cashflow, but that selling genetics was an important secondary income stream to them. While it might not have paid the monthly bills like the milk cheque did, it was what they used to invest in their facility or maybe to buy a new car or truck.

Given the way supply management works--and there are a lot of farmers in this room who know more about this than I do--one of the interesting consequences of supply management in dairy is that it has created a large incentive for farmers to work on their herds and to develop higher-producing animals. There's a good reason for that in Canada, but an ancillary benefit is that those are much in demand; there are countries around the world that want to import Canadian genetics.

Just last week we had one of the first exports to Russia. We sent 2,000 animals to Russia. We've started down that road, but maybe that's another idea. Maybe that's an idea some of my colleagues will grab a hold of and say we should be talking about--talking about how to help our genetics people in Canada, how to help our genetics exporters to take advantage of some opportunities and quite frankly give them a fair shake that they haven't gotten as a result of the BSE. They're some of the hidden victims of BSE, and I think that's something we could work on.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Bellavance has a point of order.