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My point is that to go from that position to the point where that member is now suggesting that the changes be rescinded and that the program be reinstated in its original form is an unusual conclusion to draw from that series of events.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--