Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kings—Hants, with whom I enjoy speaking every day. A budget is a complex set of measures. Yes, this budget contains a few minor measures that may be good for agriculture, and I have already applauded them.
However, I would invite my colleague to reread his budget, especially the part where the government announces funding for the AgriStability program. When we look carefully at the budget lines, we that they include investments of $8 million or $23 million. I would have to double-check the exact amount. Then on the next line, we see the exact same amount being deducted because the government is taking the money from inside the system.
The government is making nice announcements and promises, but Canada, a G7 country, is still dedicating less than 1% of its budget to support agriculture. Meanwhile, it is planning to invest 5% in defence. We agree with putting money toward defence, but only to a certain point. Can we eat before we start fighting? Can we ensure that we are self-sufficient when it comes to food?
There is a lot of work to be done. The government could make the advance payments program permanent by setting a limit of $350,000. I would like to hear the government talk about permanent measures, but instead it is implementing temporary measures. Do members know why? It is because the government likes it when farmers have to come and beg to have the measures renewed every year. That makes the government feel powerful. If the government really wanted to help people, it would implement permanent measures.