Agriculture Committee on May 30th, 2007

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

They are absolutely true. It was an ill-designed program. And worse yet, you cancelled it.

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

There was a skills part of that program to try to get some help out there to the people. Again, some key criticism of this program that the minister used to make his decision came from a former minister. Obviously the minister of the day has listened to comments like Mr. Easter's in making his decision.

Mr. Easter also goes on to say on August 1, in a news release, that this announcement is a clear demonstration that government is blaming farmers rather than farm policy for low incomes. Of course that's not true, but a typical comment from Mr. Easter. I'm quite sure there's no partisanship involved there in any way. More criticism is coming.

Mr. Easter also condemned the program for implicitly suggesting low farm incomes are the result of unskilled or inefficient farmers. If I were a farmer, I'd be a little disappointed in hearing from a member of the agriculture committee that he actually thinks there are that many unskilled or inefficient farmers out there.

I know this government and this minister certainly don't—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Miller takes those words very much out of context. The fact of the matter is the way the program was originally designed--and keep in mind it was designed seven months after the end of the tax year--was as a program that had a “blame the victim” context to it. But after farmers finally figured out what the government was really all about and started to utilize it, then 110 days after the fact, the government cancelled it.

So back to my original point, you started off by blaming the victim, which is the farmers, and now you've broken your trust with the farm community again.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm going to read out of Marleau and Montpetit, on page 541. It does state the following here, in chapter 13:

A member may not...engage in debate by raising a matter under the guise of a point of order.

That's what we're doing here. Everybody is raising points of order, and really just engaging in debate. So if we're going to raise points of order, make sure they're points of order. Otherwise, Mr. Miller has the floor.

Mr. Bellavance, on a point of order.

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

Yes, I have a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, we can quote Marleau - Montpetit, but we need to understand one thing: when the governing party refers to something we said and names names, then we can raise a point of order to explain the circumstances in which these statements were made or, at the very least, to defend our actions a little.

As my colleague Roger Gaudet was saying earlier, these proceedings are recorded. At the very least, we must be given the chance to respond. That is what the members on the other side want as well. It is good that we have the opportunity to do just that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Breitkreuz, on the same point of order.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Point of order. Marleau and Montpetit is exactly right. The members can make a speech, if they wish. They don't have to raise these things on points of order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Point of order as well, Mr. Chair.

I take what Marleau and Montpetit says, but are the rules any different when the government itself is involved in a filibuster? Are there any different rules that relate to that, rather than to regular committee business?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Easter, as you're aware, unlike the case when we're in the House, there are no time limits on speeches. We're a little looser on the rules. You are put on the speakers list just by notifying the chair through a hand signal or direct communication that you wish to be put on the speakers list. I have a speakers list that's prepared. Mr. Miller is on that list right now. He has the floor, unless we're going to raise exact points of order.

I would encourage people to get on the speakers list if they want to engage in debate.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I have a point of order in relation to what Mr. Easter just raised.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Breitkreuz, on that point of order.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

You may have to take time to answer this. I'm not sure.

At the end of this motion it says that they're going to vote on this, and that this motion then will be made a report to the House.

My question for you, on my point of order, is if this is referred to the House as a report, can the House then take and debate this for a length of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

As you are aware, any motion moved in the House as a concurrence report is a three-hour debate.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Is this not the opposition trying to throw sand in the gears in the House to take the government off its agenda?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I don't believe that is a point of order. Again, guys, we're getting bogged down in the debate. A point of order is a question raised by a member who believes that the rules or customary procedure of the House have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the proceedings. So we're talking about process of debate as it's described by Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 13, page 538.

I would suggest we allow Mr. Miller to have the floor and finish off his speech and debate.

Mr. Miller, you have the floor.

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

Another comment I have to point out that Mr. Easter said on August 8 last year in the Ontario Farmer magazine, which I subscribe to, says, in Mr. Easter's words, “While any effort to assist struggling farmers is welcomed”--so he recognized there was an attempt to assist farmers--“the announcement made clearly demonstrates that government believes the principal reason for low farm incomes are the farmers themselves.”

How can it be that...? I go back to that terminology that you're never almost pregnant; you either are or you aren't. So if this is an attempt to help farmers, how can it, on the other side of the coin, be the opposite? Comments like that are knocking themselves out a little farther down.

I'll give Mr. Easter a break for a while. I've got a lot more criticism that I could point out.

Mr. Steckle, on November 7 last year, said:

I'm hearing from a number of farmers who have called me about the program, and they immediately draw their conclusion that this is an exit program from farming--getting out of agriculture. It's a welfare program. Once farmers in the business, if they call themselves truly farmers, realize that their incomes are at that level, then they're basically not farming anymore. So this is an exit program.

Of course I disagree it was an exit program, Mr. Steckle, but those were your comments. I don't know whether that view has changed today, but certainly last November that's what you said.

Another comment that you made: “Certainly when you look at the second year, reducing that by a further 25% or whatever, then really it is moving that person onto the welfare roles.” I don't understand. You're saying 26,000 farmers would be eligible for the program. We can pretty much determine that 26,000 farmers are going to be off the roll of legitimate farmers probably in the next five years. I'm not sure of your intent with that comment, but it clearly was criticism of this program. It says, "If you've deemed these farmers by their income tax returns to be at that level, we're writing 26,000 off the list.” Maybe that is explained.

And the last comment on that is, is that an assumption we can make? I don't know. The part in there about income tax returns.... I think there has been a certain amount of discussion on that. I'm going to leave that up to somebody else.

Mr. Bellavance, some comments that you had made last year: “When this program was created, of course the Bloc Québécois said that it was not enough to solve the farm income crisis, but one cannot be opposed to helping the producers who are the most in need.” So there's a bit of criticism in there, and then you turn around and suggest that maybe they were helping. But I know I have some other comments in here by you that I think are a little more scathing, and I know I'll come to them at some point.

For the sake of time, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to, rather than go through these.... If anybody wants to see any of these comments that they made, I'd certainly be more than happy to show them.

With that, I'm going to give up the floor.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I was given to understand yesterday that this would come to a vote today in the regular time. Is this still on today, or is it not?

That's to the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Anderson, on that point of order.

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

I believe it's going to come to a vote today. I don't think that's a point of order.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Today before midnight, or before 5:30?

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

I don't think we have anyone on the speakers list on our side except me. The only comment I was going to make is that Mr. Easter, as Mr. Breitkreuz pointed out, requested that this be made a report to the House, which means that he is requesting that the House debate this for at least three hours.

We have debated it just over three hours at the committee, so I guess I resent the fact that we've called that a filibuster, unless Mr. Easter is prepared to do the same thing in the House and accept that same label. We felt it was important to have a discussion about this motion, and we feel we've made many of the points that we think are important, and we're prepared to vote. I know you have other people on the speakers list, so it's up to the opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I have Garry, Charlie, Alex, Ken, and Wayne.

Mr. Breitkreuz, you are here as a substitute.

Mr. Breitkreuz, you have the floor.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I realize there are a lot of other speakers, so I'm going to try to be as brief as possible.

I don't normally sit on this committee. It's been a couple of years since I've been a part of the agriculture committee, and I realize it's one of the committees that has the potential to do a lot of good work and it usually works together very well.

My concern with the motion, and I've already somewhat hinted at why I do not like it, is that I think it's a tendency to look backwards. I think we should continue to refine programs and so on.

I know that the member for Prince Edward Island who moved this motion has come out to my area. I wish he were listening right now, because I was going to say that I have appreciated the fact that he did come out and listen to the farmers in my area. The agricultural farm forum that the member from Prince Edward Island attended was attended by many farmers. He had an opportunity to hear from those farmers. I appreciate that he did come out there, and he participated in a very non-partisan way. I thank him for that. I'm still looking for something that I can give him as a token of appreciation. I found some Corner Gas mugs the other day, but I don't know how he would take those. Anyway, I want to thank him for that.

I also want to say that in recent weeks I have met with a lot of farmers in my area. Of course, we've had some severe flooding problems, 40 inches of rain last year in some areas, and this year again, a high snowfall and so on. I was out there visiting and talking with these people, and a group of farmers wanted a special meeting with me. I got together with them, expecting to hear criticism of some of the Liberal programs that we were trying to make work, like the CAIS program. Instead, they had not one negative thing to say about this government.

I want to put it on the record. They said that we have not had this much attention paid to agriculture since the days of John Diefenbaker.

I was quite surprised at that, yet I think it's important that people know they want us to continue to improve farm programs. They appreciate what this committee does when they investigate how to improve things. That's why I would appeal to the committee to look forward, not backward.

One of the things they're excited about is the biofuel strategy and the potential the biofuels industry has. I guess some of them are complaining about gasoline prices right now. We're caught in an international marketplace, but they also see that as a potential for the biofuels industry to maybe help farmers out. There may be a bit of a silver lining in that cloud. Anyway, it's no secret all the things that this government is doing.

They're also very excited about the changes to the Wheat Board. This is kind of an aside, and it has nothing to do with this discussion, but they are planting barley like never before. I think it's good for this committee to know these things.

I just wanted that brief comment to be on the record. I appeal to the committee to try to look forward and not to throw sand in the gears here by passing this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is the third meeting in which we've dealt with this motion. If we look at some of the facts that were presented to our committee, we see that in that period of time we've lost over 200 farmers in this country. In fact, the evidence in our own report indicates that every year we lose 10,000 farm families who give up.

I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, I heard a good number of long talks, but did anyone bring to this table the number of farmers that would be hurt as a result of the cancellation of that program? Was it 10,000, was it 20,000, was it 30,000, or was it nobody? I thought the parliamentary secretary might have brought to this committee a brief statement of the four, five, six or maybe fourteen reasons, as Mr. Devolin had in his talk, as to why that program was cancelled. But we didn't hear that.

It's rather disconcerting, Mr. Chair, that in addition to all of our time, we spent over $200,000 of the taxpayers' money travelling across Canada to make a report for the future of how the government would deal with agriculture. The report is apparently needed no later than next March. We have not made any progress on that whatsoever. I believe that our researcher has done a very good job in presenting a report, but I'm concerned that probably the most important part of that report is in recommendation 27. I'm disappointed that it isn't recommendation number 1, because without some idea of succession and some idea of someone being able to have enough money to invest to own a farm, the future of farming in this country is pretty well depleted.

I'm not sure what the parliamentary secretary has said about how long we are to continue before we are able to bring this so-called motion to a conclusion. In view of the talks we've had today, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that for tomorrow's meeting we should have the clerk check with the rooms in the Centre Block and perhaps we should have these great debates like this televised so that the farmers across the country can appreciate all the discussions going on. If you, Mr. Chair, could instruct the clerk to do that, I'm sure that Room 253-D or one of those rooms would be open, and tomorrow we could continue this debate on Mr. Easter's motion or that of Mr. Atamanenko, and then the people across this country, the farmers who believe that this committee is doing something productive, would certainly be able to assess that belief.

Also, Mr. Chair, perhaps I'm one of the older ones on this committee, but years ago we had The Benny Hill Show. I don't know how many remember The Benny Hill Show, but Benny Hill was a great entertainer. I know that we have another document here by a Hill. I'm not sure if it's Benny who wrote the document, but that's the way we're following a procedure to screw this committee up. Maybe the clerk or researcher could look at Benny Hill and see if Benny wrote that report or not. Apparently there are about 200 pages floating on the Hill here that someone wrote on how Parliament can be upset and how we might achieve very little.