Just before the budget was tabled, Minister Ritz made an announcement. Once again, it had to do with an Agricultural Flexibility Fund, and there was absolutely no mention of excluding income support. Unfortunately, when the budget was tabled a few weeks later, we saw that it excluded income support, which, obviously, does not live up to your expectations at all or take into account the concerns and needs you expressed well before the previous election campaign.
A government will often tell the public that it is worried about the costs associated with a program. And so, when you say you need an Agricultural Flexibility Fund that makes up for the shortcomings of the AgriStability program, the government's response is that it has to respect the ability to pay Canadians, that it is not a bank and that it cannot necessarily afford to do it.
But I would like you to explain something to me. I understand that the federal government has been spending close to $1.5 billion on ad hoc programs for years. That money could go towards a program such as the Agricultural Flexibility Fund in order to make up for the shortcomings of the AgriStability program. That would not require any additional spending. Is that correct?