Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just spinning off Larry's comments, I have never had so many complaints about a cancelled government program from accountants as I had from that one. Accountants looked at that program and they legally, under the law, had designed their advice and recommendations to producers on how to do their accounting and whether to sell cattle in December or January—all above board, all legal—and whether they would qualify for that $18,000, or close to it. And three months after the fact the government cancelled the program.
I'm not blaming you for that. The minister has to accept full responsibility. But the accountants told me that for a government that lays out a commitment and then breaks its word and violates its word, that is absolutely wrong. He said he has never seen that happen before in terms of programs where accountants give farmers advice and after the fact it's cancelled. What the minister did in that program is a disgrace.
Let me come to the cost of production in AgriInvest. I'll read you two letters, and my question to you in the end will be on cost of production.
Letter number one is from Mary and Wayne Haugh, hog producers. They said:
Our share of the $600 million Kickstart is $287.85 for each of us. We'll try to spread this as thin as possible, but really what good is it, as it will only bring us up to the cost of production on six pigs each? Our share of the cost of production money that came in the week before Christmas was $39.39 for each of us. That equals a total help of $654.48 for our family farm.
The second letter is from Diamond X Ranch Ltd. in B.C. It reads:
In our mailbox the other day we received a check from the federal govemment for “cost of production”. Now we have, in the past three years averaged one hundred and sixty-seven head of cows to calve each spring. The check was for $316.32, which works out to approximately $1.89 per head. How do you figure the cow/calf operator can produce a calf for $1.89?
In Ottawa we can talk about the big numbers, the $600 million, which is nothing for the agricultural industry, and when we put out $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion, and $1.4 billion in the previous government it still wasn't a whole lot. The government talks about this $600 million as if it's the be-all and end-all. It is a good program, NISA was a good program, and AgriInvest will be a good program. I'm asking you this in all seriousness: How do you formulate the cost-of-production program? How do you formulate the cost of production?
In the dairy industry we have a formula in supply management. We have a formula that actually returns to producers the cost of production of the efficient producers in the industry. This one obviously doesn't. So is this program really dealing with cost of production, or is it only a name on a program to confuse the general public?
When somebody downtown hears about this program and it's announced as cost of production, they actually think, “My God, the farmer is getting cost of production”, because it's the name of the program. Is it just a name to confuse, or can you unequivocally tell me today that the cost of production is returned to producers?