AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 2, 2000

• 1530

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)): Members, would you be kind enough to take your seats.

Even though the minister is not here, I have one little piece of housekeeping duty that perhaps we can deal with before the minister comes. If he's not here by the time we've finished this motion, I would hope that we'd simply suspend proceedings until he does come, if that's okay.

You have in front of you a budget motion. As you know, we're going to have the study with respect to the issue around labelling of GMO foods. That type of study of course requires a budget, and the clerk has been good enough to prepare a budget. We need a motion in support of that budget.

Let me just read to you what it says:

That the budget relating to the committee's study and report to the House of a clear and mandatory labelling mechanism for genetically modified organisms, totalling $62,400, be agreed to

If you've looked at the budget, almost all of it is for the cost of witnesses to come in. I think it's pretty straightforward, ladies and gentlemen. Are there any questions?

Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, because of the importance of this topic, and it being in the news so much, I move that this motion be adopted as presented.

The Chair: We don't need a seconder.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have any problem with it, but I wouldn't mind knowing how the figure was arrived at. Was it based on previous expenses? Were there inquiries of this sort?

The Chair: Yes. It's based on the anticipated number of meetings and witnesses who have to come before the committee. We have a formula to determine that, Dick, and that's pretty well how it is.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: If there are no further questions, is everyone in favour of this motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Joe.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, there was mention yesterday about the royal society and the study they're doing into GMOs. Are they on our list?

The Chair: The royal society from... Are you submitting it as a possible consideration?

Mr. Joe McGuire: Yes. Apparently they're doing a study into GMOs.

The Chair: Are they on that list? I can't tell you, Joe. Perhaps the clerk can check. This list we have is not final anyway.

No, they're not on the list yet. Is it something you're suggesting? We can talk about it further.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Okay.

The Chair: The minister is not here, so I would suggest... Aha! The minister is walking in as we speak.

Mr. Larry McCormick: A dramatic entrance.

The Chair: I must say, Minister Eggleton, you have impeccable timing. We had one little piece of housekeeping work to do and you walked in as we finished it.

Are you prepared to go to work, Minister?

Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Emergency Preparedness Canada): All set to go, Mr. Chairman, members of committee.

The Chair: All right. Let me just say, on behalf of all the committee members, welcome. We have been anticipating your visit. I understand you will be with us for about one hour, is that right, if we need you that long?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: That's correct.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I don't have to tell you that this issue around the incessant rains that cause flooding in southwest Manitoba and southeast Saskatchewan has been on our minds for almost a year now. Those rains occurred back in May and June of 1999. In my home province of Manitoba, it meant that about 1.1 million acres could not be sowed. For a lot of those farmers who depended on that acreage, it meant to a great extent their livelihood. When farmers can't put seed into the ground, it generally means disaster.

A lot of us have seen this as a disaster, but of course we've recognized that when it comes to DFAA, the agreement for which you are responsible, they haven't been able to find assistance.

• 1535

The Province of Manitoba, in the case of my province, and the federal government have been able to help all farmers to some extent because of the crisis in farm incomes. But to some people, Minister, it has been seen that these farmers who suffered unduly because of the incessant rains have suffered grievously and excessively. Perhaps they do deserve greater recognition than what they've gotten so far.

Anyway, that's all I'll say.

Welcome. If you have a short statement or whatever, Minister Eggleton, we'll go to the usual questions afterwards. You know the format around these committees.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to discuss with you today this subject, which you've outlined in your preliminary remarks.

With me is Ann Marie Sahagian, executive director of Emergency Preparedness Canada.

By coincidence, this happens to be Emergency Preparedness Week in Canada, so it's particularly fitting to be here in my capacity as the minister responsible for emergency preparedness.

[Translation]

I intend to discuss my role as Minister responsible for Emergency Preparedness as well as to say some words about the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements.

[English]

This year's theme is “Together we prepare the family, the community, the country.” This is especially apt given the joint responsibility for emergency preparedness of the federal, provincial, territorial governments and indeed the local governments across our country.

Let me begin with my role as minister responsible for emergency preparedness so we can understand the context of this matter. My responsibilities are laid out in the Emergency Preparedness Act as well as the federal emergency policy. Together these constitute the framework for emergency management in Canada.

As minister, I am responsible for advancing civil preparedness for emergencies of all types. This includes the development and implementation of civil emergency plans through coordination among government institutions and in cooperation with provincial governments, local governments, foreign governments, and international organizations.

In pursuing its policy on emergencies, the federal government aims: one, to provide leadership in working toward improved emergency preparedness; two, to develop a credible national capability to meet emergencies of all types; three, to work towards adequate and reasonable uniform standards of emergency services across the country; and finally, to be sensitive to humanitarian concerns.

I will devote the rest of my remarks to describing how this policy is implemented through the emergency management framework. The Emergency Preparedness Act provides the essential framework for the support and coordination needed to implement civil emergency plans. The act also defines the responsibilities of federal ministers regarding emergency preparedness within their respective areas of jurisdiction.

For example, during the 1998 ice storm 20 federal departments and organizations were involved. That's a lot of coordination. In the 1997 Red River flood, 25 of them were at one point engaged in the relief efforts. As you know, during the transition to the new millennium 28 federal departments and agencies worked collaboratively to ensure that the country's critical infrastructure was bug-free. So there's important coordination work.

These efforts are a primary example of the coordination and readiness role I have in this context of the Emergency Preparedness Act. This shows you the importance of having a framework for coordination within the federal government, but the Emergency Preparedness Act recognizes that the provinces have specific interests in relation to the federal assistance provided during a provincial emergency. The act confers on the Governor in Council the judicial authority to declare that a provincial emergency is a matter of concern for the Government of Canada and the authority to deliver financial or other assistance to the affected province. So that's the beginning, when you get into the DFAA, of the action required.

Within my portfolio, I am responsible for Emergency Preparedness Canada, a civilian agency administratively located within the Department of National Defence. It is within this organization that we find the Government of Canada's emergency operations coordination centre, which in the most recent disasters has served as the nexus of coordination for assistance.

Maybe you should come over and have a visit sometime. You'll be quite impressed with what you see.

• 1540

In addition to education, training, and public awareness, Emergency Preparedness Canada is also responsible for administering the disaster financial assistance arrangements, or DFAA, and its related guidelines. As I noted earlier, the Emergency Preparedness Act provides the authority for the Government of Canada to provide disaster financial assistance to provinces and territories. We're essentially providing it to them, and they in turn provide the program to the people.

This of course allows the various governments to share the economic burdens associated with responding to and recovering from disasters. The federal, provincial, and territorial governments all have distinct, mutually agreed roles and responsibilities in the administration of disaster financial assistance. Provincial governments are responsible for designing, developing, and delivering disaster financial assistance to the victims of emergencies and disasters.

That's an important principle. They design the programs. They get assistance from us, but they can design it to do much more than what we may be able to provide if they so wish.

They also decide on the amounts and types of assistance to be provided, and this is how it should be. The provincial governments are better positioned, after all, to design the kind of assistance that will best match their individual needs and respond to the circumstances of their local regions, municipalities, and individual residents.

The disaster financial assistance arrangements were thus established with the principle of assisting the provinces in their expenditure and emergency response activities. The Government of Canada's role is to help the provinces meet the basic costs of response and emergency recovery when the size of the cost is larger than what a province or territory could reasonably be expected to bear on its own.

There are some clear guidelines as to what areas are covered. The DFAA will cover costs associated with an immediate response period to an emergency or disaster and reimbursement to individuals for damage done to their principal residence, essential furnishings, appliances and clothing, and for the restoration of small businesses and farmsteads. So it's largely the infrastructure, largely the basic restoration as opposed to the income loss, which is not covered, in terms of what is happening in these disasters.

They will also reimburse the costs associated with restoring public sector infrastructure—roads, sewers, etc. But it is important to keep in mind that the DFAA are not insurance programs. Under them, the Government of Canada reimburses provincial governments for expenditures they have already made. Federal financing does not go directly to the victims of an emergency or a disaster.

The DFAA do not cover such things as assistance to large businesses and industries; normal operating expenses for government departments and agencies; damage to non-primary dwellings such as cottages or chalets; or damage costs that are covered in whole or in part by another government or insurance program.

This is in keeping with the principle that the first line of emergency preparedness is the individual. Where insurance exists, individuals are responsible to possess it. This chain of responsibility continues upward. Provinces, for example, are responsible to have in place insurance programs that are responsive to their local needs.

[Translation]

Since 1970, when the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements were introduced, over $1.1 billion have been distributed in the aftermath of disasters.

[English]

This does not include other assistance, both financial and in-kind. Federal assistance is based on a cost sharing formula developed with the provinces. This in turn is based on a per capita approach.

Basically, federal disaster financial assistance begins whenever the eligible expenditure of a province exceeds $1 per person based on their population. That's $1 per person. When those expenditures are between $1 and $3 per person, then we get into the sharing. It's on a 50% basis at that point. On the next $2 after that, when you get above $3, we're talking about 75% reimbursement. When you get up to about $5, then we're reimbursing 90% federal dollars.

Guidelines for the implementation of DFAA ensure that all provinces are treated in a fair, equitable, and consistent manner. That's important when we talk about Manitoba or Saskatchewan. It's important in terms of dealing with this matter equitably.

At the same time, disasters will have different effects in different communities. To address those particular concerns, the Government of Canada has implemented ad hoc and supplementary programs. While these programs are outside of the emergency preparedness portfolio I have, I can give you some indication of their nature and their scope.

• 1545

In the last few years some extraordinarily large-scale disasters have occurred in Canada. These include the 1996 Saguenay flood, the 1997 Red River flood, and the 1998 ice storm that struck parts of Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick.

For these disasters, the affected provincial governments have to date requested and received a total of $772 million in DFAA assistance. The forecasted total of all three of these disasters is $1.4 billion in DFAA only. As I previously mentioned to you, prior to that we were dealing with $1.1 billion distributed in the aftermath of disasters since 1970. So here you can see just how much it has increased just with these three last disasters.

This assistance does not take into account the deployment of the Canadian Forces, I might add, or other assistance provided by ad hoc government programs or in-kind contributions by various federal departments—for example, the provision of Health Canada beds for some of the hospital accommodation needed or any mitigating measures that might have been made.

The federal share, for example, for the 1998 ice storm is now estimated at $958 million, and the federal share for dealing with the Red River flood is almost $300 million. For the 1999 floods that struck Manitoba and Saskatchewan—and let's not forget this—the Government of Canada is already committed to providing assistance under the DFAA.

In Manitoba there is an estimated $16.4 million in eligible expenditures under the DFAA, which will result in a federal share of approximately $12.75 million. So already we're up to three-quarters of the money involved in that disaster, which I know you're most concerned about, Mr. Chairman.

In Saskatchewan, the eligible expenditures are estimated at about $2.5 million. This means that the federal government on that sliding scale I talked about will reimburse the province about $750,000. These amounts reflect only the DFAA-eligible costs.

There are other programs, though, that are in place to meet the local needs of the farming community following those 1999 floods. Compensation for loss of income is provided by such programs as NISA, the net income stabilization account, or AIDA, the agriculture income disaster assistance program. Both fall under the responsibility of our colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

These programs, plus the crop insurance program, have all been changed to help further assist those affected by the disaster. The Government of Canada has provided a total of more than $2 billion to assist farmers affected by the 1999 floods. As you know, there was in February an announcement of a supplementary amount of $240 million federally to the programs for the flooding in 1999 in those two provinces.

Although the disaster financial assistance arrangements have served Canadians well over the last 30 years, the fact remains that we haven't made any changes to the program in that 30 years, and we have had a succession of extraordinarily high-cost disasters, as I pointed out, in the last three or four years. With the prospect of more pronounced weather extremes in the coming years, we are reviewing our current programs and policies for disaster assistance. This is under way now.

We want to ensure, after all, that these programs, these funds, will be effective in responding to future disasters. We are considering, for example, the relationship between the DFAA and the various supplementary assistance provisions. We brought in part-time farmers, for example, through the supplementary provision. Well, maybe we should have that in the DFAA—maybe, maybe not. We're looking at that kind of thing.

We'll also examine whether the DFAA might have their scope increased, or, alternatively, have more emphasis placed on separate and distinct disaster recovery programs.

As well, we're looking at whether the DFAA should be linked to emergency policies on reduction and mitigation of disasters. I personally would like to see us develop a program that deals with mitigation and deals with the reduction of the impact of disasters. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as far as I'm concerned, and I think we need to look at that.

We can, by some of these mitigation means, help prevent some of these disasters, or certainly cut down the cost of the federal contribution to them, not to mention the fact that we would be saving lives and saving economic disaster for a great many people.

So I think that makes a lot of sense. Of course, we have to determine how the money is going to be provided for that and who's going to pay what. It's a situation that's going to involve all of the players, governments as well as individuals, and the private sector as well.

• 1550

[Translation]

However, I can assure you that we are committed to consultations with the provinces and territories prior to implementing any possible changes to the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements.

[English]

In 1988 we received provincial views. They signed a consensus document on DFAA reform. You may have seen it. We did not proceed with it immediately. We decided we wanted to wait out the year 2000 efforts. We are now picking up where we left off. That will be one of the documents that will be there for our discussion and consideration. We'll be engaging the provinces in further consultation.

In the meantime, I'd be pleased to hear any recommendations you may have with respect to this matter and any questions you may have, because we want the broadest possible consultation on these issues.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Eggleton. I appreciate your comments.

Just before I go to Mr. Bailey, I think, Mr. Minister, there might be one possible correction in order at the top of page 8, if I might refer you to your written script. That line reads:

The Government of Canada has provided a total of more than $2 billion to assist farmers affected by the 1999 floods.

I don't think that would be correct, Art; $2 billion to address the entire farm income crisis, but not the floods.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I don't know what document you're referring to.

The Chair: I'm referring to the top of page 8, the written script.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Oh, I see. Well, I didn't use that. I have my own. I said “overall”. I didn't say for the 1999 floods.

Is it over that?

A voice: It's overall.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Whatever.

The Chair: Okay. So we're straight.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Chairman John.

The Chair: It's seven minutes, by the way. We'll have to adhere strictly to the guidelines, speaking of guidelines.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing.

I don't know that I can say I've ever been more happy to be at a committee meeting, simply because I wanted to share with you during my time some of the things that I believe have to be redefined.

It's over a year now that I've lived through the human tragedy of the flooding in southeastern Saskatchewan, in my constituency. I've seen the results for people of the human tragedy. I'm still watching that human tragedy unveil before my eyes. I'm still seeing the foreclosures because of payments brought on by this flood. This flooding has cost people the same as three droughts put together. Part of that is due to our inability to deal with such terms as “flooding”, and so on.

Mr. Minister, I want to quickly give you a broad description. You see, in “flooding”, it's moving water. I believe that's part of it, but in our area and indeed in the Souris, my neighbouring constituency, it's a fact that there was no drainage. Huge acres lay under water, a year ago now, and that land never did get seeded. It was impossible. So that was one problem.

The next problem, Mr. Minister, was that crop insurance, which is administered by both the province and the Canadian government, gave orders that the land as it dried up into June must be seeded.

Now, there's a little difference between seeding land in June and crops that they do seed, but here's a catastrophe from that particular government program. These farmers, without seeding, would not be able to claim any insurance, so they seeded this land. I want to tell you, Mr. Minister, some of these operators of grain have up to 50,000 bushels in bins that nobody will buy. Barley being combined, weighing 40 pounds and less, oats—nobody will buy it. The elevators won't buy it.

So that was a terrible expense, and when they applied for AIDA, they had to count that as grain for sale, a saleable commodity. But nobody will buy it.

The next item on this, as we progress through the year, Mr. Minister, is that by the time we reach August, the summer fallow was 3 feet to 4 feet tall. Again, crop insurance said, well, if you don't clear the land, you don't qualify.

• 1555

Now, those of you who live in the west will understand this. I went out and tried to help some of them. I was on a 20-foot swather and broke three swather heads. You couldn't swath it.

What did we do? You people in the east will understand this. We had to put 12- and 16-foot hay-binds on. Then they had to go through the expense of hauling aside tonnes and tonnes of this rotten material, hoping to burn it. They then had to go through the process of trying to get the land ready for the spring.

Mr. Minister, as a result of that and as a result of the expense brought about by this natural disaster, simply because it didn't quite qualify under the terms that you presently have, a lot of young farmers have left my community. A lot of the older farmers have no more line of credit. As a result, we are in a depressed area because of that one year.

Mr. Minister, the flooding in my constituency cost many of the agricultural people their lives.

If you compare that with the Red River flood, John, that was moving water.

On that type of land you can get out there, and you'll stay buoyant with a vehicle, with a tractor, and they did get their crop in. We had more acres in my constituency unflooded, over 80 times as much as in the Red River Valley. As a result of this, many of these people did not qualify for crop insurance because they did take off a crop. Many of them did not qualify for AIDA. Less than half of the AIDA program has been paid out to date.

So I think what we have to do, Mr. Minister, is get together with the agriculture people and take a look at what constitutes flooding. We need a clear definition of that term. What constitutes a disaster area?

You mentioned how the province must make the first step. Have you, Mr. Minister, ever received any requests from other people, the agriculture committee... I'm on this committee, but I'm also on other committees, and I don't often get here. I think the agriculture committee should sit down with the disaster fund across Canada and take a look at what constitutes a disaster.

I don't want to see any area in Canada go through the human tragedy that I am still facing. You would have to double your input to save some of these entrepreneurs now.

I mean, it's not just because of low grain prices. It's a whole other expense on top of it. Whether we will recover or not, I don't know, but I do think we weren't ready for this. I think it's incumbent upon the agriculture department, your department, sir, and other departments to be able to meet these catastrophes, whether they occur in my area, in Manitoba, or indeed in Nova Scotia. I don't think we are prepared to do that.

I think, Mr. Chairman, it's of absolute necessity that we do come to terms and draw up a program.

I thank you for listening to me. It's been a tough year. It's been a tough year on me. My people have been good to me, but we mustn't let this happen again. You could wipe out an entire section of 100,000 acres and more, just taken out of production. Our young people are gone, and I don't know what I'm going to do to have any of them return to farm this land in the future.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, you've used more than six minutes of your time.

If you want to take 30 seconds to answer, Mr. Eggleton, you can, but we're going to stay at seven minutes.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I appreciate the points that are being made. Certainly the federal government wants to do its fair share with respect to dealing with catastrophes. Indeed, in catastrophes, as has been demonstrated over the years, the lion's share of the funding that goes to people in these cases comes from the federal government.

I think we need to bear in mind that while the DFAA doesn't cover everything, and perhaps doesn't cover some of the things that you want it to cover, there are other programs that come into play here that are part of the federal assistance and part of the cost-shared programs. I've mentioned them—NISA, AIDA, the crop insurance program. You may say that none of them completely fit the bill, but I think you have to look at them in the total context.

At the same time, I open the door to your suggestion, as I did in my opening remarks, that we look at changes to the DFAA. We are quite willing to do so. That's what the current examination is all about and what our future dialogue with the provinces and you and others will be around.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Bailey, you did mention that you're not a member of this committee.

Mr. Roy Bailey: No, I am a member of the committee; I just don't get here very often.

• 1600

The Chair: Then maybe you should know that as a result of our trip across the west before Christmas last year, we did make a recommendation in our report to the minister. I'll read it to you:

Your Committee recommends that the criteria used to determine whether a natural disaster exists be reviewed and clarified, so that all events considered natural disasters are treated with equal fairness and consistency.

That recommendation has already gone to the minister.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Have you heard back on that recommendation?

The Chair: No, we haven't yet.

Monsieur Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): The questions that I would like to ask today have to do with GMOs. My colleague, Hélène Alarie, would have liked to have asked them herself, but she is presently held up in the House of Commons for an opposition day, which is focussing precisely on this issue.

Therefore, Mr. Minister, I have a few questions to ask you about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, and their potential risks. In March 1994, Emergency Preparedness Canada released a report on the management of biological risks. This report was updated in March 1995.

As you know, the biotechnology field is advancing rapidly, with new developments every month. Do you intend to carry out regular assessments of the risks that biotechnologies may represent?

[English]

The Chair: Let me just say, Mr. Desrochers, that the minister is here to speak about the flooding that occurred last year in southwest Manitoba and southeast Saskatchewan. I have no idea what bearing your question would have on that particular situation.

I'm not going to rule you out of order, even if I could. I don't know whether Mr. Eggleton wants to answer, but you have to remember that the minister is invited here to address a certain issue, and this, I think, is coming right out of left field.

If someone wants to respond... but don't feel bound to.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: The only GMO I know of is genetically modified organisms—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: —and that has nothing to do with my portfolio.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: To whom does Emergency Preparedness Canada report?

[English]

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Me.

The Chair: It comes under Mr. Eggleton.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I was asking questions about it. If you are saying that I am out of order, I will accept that. We have not had any disasters in the Quebec region, but there may be a disaster one day because we are not dealing with this issue. I will let you continue, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I'd need to hear a lot more from the member as to what he's thinking of, but that's not something I could respond to further today.

The Chair: I think to be fair to the minister, Mr. Desrochers, if you're going to come up with that kind of questioning you should provide some kind of a warning. Do you have any further questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: No. My questions were on that subject, Mr. Chairman. I respect the fact that you try to get questions to address the topic on the agenda. I will yield the floor to someone else.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, you've said that there have been no changes made in DFAA for around 30 years, and you asked for some direction as to what we feel should be incorporated into it. I would like to put forward that you have a better definition of “infrastructure”.

Right now, if we use the Red River flood of 1997, you had moving water, and definitely there was infrastructure destroyed. In southeast Manitoba and southwest Saskatchewan, you had water that wasn't moving, but the farmers couldn't get on the fields. The infrastructure was basically the preparation of the soil that was in there, for which I would say a reasonable value would be between $50 to $60 an acre. Our chairman has said that 1.1 million acres of land weren't able to be put in, and that's well above the $10 million that would go to trigger it.

So what we have to do, I feel, is to first off recognize the fact that the farmer's input to prepare the land, with fertilizers and herbicides, is all infrastructure. If that's lost, that should be part of the triggering mechanism.

The other thing is that whether the water is moving or not, if the farmer can't get on the land, you can't put the crop in. That definitely is putting small business in jeopardy.

• 1605

The final point, after which I'll stop so that you can comment, is that once this land dries out, you have weeds and everything coming back up afterwards where the farmer is in fact, by other laws, forced to turn around and put extra cost into maintaining that land even if he isn't going to put a crop in that year.

So you have all these issues right now that face those farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Quite frankly, if you're going to redo this, I think these should all be addressed.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: What we do in future could be different, but in relation to the way the program stands now, those are not eligible under this program.

One of the provisions of the DFAA is also that if it's covered under another program—and of course we do have these other programs, as I've mentioned, plus the $240 million that was put in during February—then they wouldn't be covered under the DFAA. This is including the crop insurance as well as these other programs that I've mentioned, AIDA and NISA.

I'll ask the executive director to further expand upon that, because I know this question of the still water versus the moving water is a point of concern for a number of people.

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian (Executive Director, Emergency Preparedness Canada, Department of National Defence): First of all, in the case of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, exclusions or inclusions of certain expenditures in the DFAA are not predicated on the moving or non-moving of the water. It's based on the fact that these costs are covered in whole or in part by other government programs.

The DFAA excludes any costs for which provision is made under any other program of government, whether or not it covers the whole cost, in order to avoid duplicating or undermining the operation of those programs. This provision applies particularly in cases where crop damage has occurred that could have been covered under the umbrella federal crop insurance program. Whether or not the province has opted in or a farmer has elected to inscribe in the program, crop insurance explicitly includes indemnities for unseeded acreage. Therefore, automatically the DFAA is not applicable in this case.

It also includes indemnities arising from floods, drought, and so forth. Crop insurance may be used for production loss, asset damage, cultivation costs, and fertilizer replacement costs. It is a non-specified, non-directed program available to be used by the farmer at the farmer's discretion. Therefore, by the very nature of the fundamental premise of the DFAA, because there is already federal funding available, whether or not it covers the full extent of the damages incurred, the DFAA does not apply.

However, in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan the Government of Canada has agreed to provide assistance under the DFAA for those things that are eligible under the DFAA criteria. As the minister has already mentioned, in Manitoba, for items such as road repairs, culverts, damage to buildings, and damage to inventories and stocks there will be a federal share of approximately $12.75 million provided under the DFAA. In Saskatchewan, again, estimated eligible expenditures are at about $2.5 million, which would have a federal share of about $750,000.

So between the existing coverage plus the changes that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has announced to the crop insurance program, plus the additional $240 million that was provided to the provinces to assist with the breadth of situations that the farmers are facing, these resources and these programs are in place. As the DFAA is only a program basically of last resort, where there is nothing else provided by the federal government, the DFAA does not apply.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thanks very much.

The Chair: Mr. Proctor, for five minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks very much.

There is a debate going on in the legislature in Manitoba right now on this very issue to try to get some compensation or to get this government to reconsider.

I have just a couple of points. The Minister of Agriculture has asked the minister responsible for the DFAA, Mr. Eggleton, to provide compensation to farmers. There was apparently not only an indication but an indication by letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs that there was going to be money available a few weeks ago, and then all of a sudden that rug was pulled out from underneath the farmers and, I guess, Mr. Axworthy in that case.

• 1610

Is there any prospect of hope for farmers who were affected in Manitoba and Saskatchewan last year or are they just completely out of luck? If you change the rules for the next disaster, that'll be one thing, but these folks will be down and out as a result.

Mr. Art Eggleton: There's lots of help, lots of federal help, being provided, not only under the DFAA but also under the other programs I've noted. The rug wasn't—

Mr. Dick Proctor: But—

Mr. Art Eggleton: No, listen, you let me finish the answer here. The rug wasn't pulled out from beneath anybody. You're misleading people when you make that kind of comment.

In fact, additional money was provided in the middle of February to help cover off any other circumstance that wasn't already covered off in the provision of funds that were made. Everything that possibly could be covered is being covered under these various programs.

What you're asking for, and what some people may be asking for, is a duplication. You're asking for additional money to cover things that are already covered by programs that are in existence, whether it's the DFAA, as it's applied with its rules...

I can't imagine that you're saying we should violate the rules. Is that what you're saying?

There's the DFAA funding, there's the NISA funding, the AIDA funding, and there's the crop insurance funding, together with this $240 million of additional funds provided. The situation is covered very extensively with federal funds. We want to make sure that we are helping to contribute to the needs of the farmers. These are the people who have suffered from these floods, and that's why we are providing the vast majority of the funds.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm not suggesting that the rules are changed. Are you suggesting that the farmers affected are financially equal because of all the other funds that have been provided? You've heard Mr. Bailey's testimony, which very eloquently described the problems that are out there, and yet you're somehow saying that AIDA and crop insurance and all these other things...

Why are they having an emergency debate in the Manitoba legislature about this if everything is so grand?

Mr. Art Eggleton: Well, maybe they don't want to contribute as much money as they are, but I think they and everybody else involved in this have some responsibilities. I'm saying the federal government has a very key responsibility but not the only responsibility. Most of the funds that are going to relief of this flood situation are federal funds, when you look at the programs overall.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Just for the record, Mr. Minister, the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba was quoted yesterday as saying that, so far, the federal government has refused every cost-sharing proposal offered, whether it be 90:10 or 50:50. You haven't agreed to anything.

Mr. Art Eggleton: It's not true. We have various programs with cost-sharing arrangements; in the case of the DFAA, 90:10 for anything above $5 per capita. We also have 60:40 cost-sharing programs.

We've been very aggressive and instrumental in the provision of these programs and the funds that are necessary for people in the area by the amounts of money we've provided.

The Chair: Is that it, Mr. Proctor?

Mr. Dick Proctor: That's it.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, thank you to the minister for appearing before the committee today.

Mr. Eggleton, I won't go through the explanation, as Mr. Bailey did, because I know you're aware of what's happening in southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan and the devastation currently there. A lot of my constituents are not going on the land because they don't have the financial wherewithal to get their land back in condition to put it into crop this spring.

You indicated, Mr. Minister, for the ice storm, $950 million, with 20 federal departments involved; in the Red River Valley, $300 million, with 25 departments involved. In southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan, how many departments coordinated and were involved in bringing forward any other types of programs that could be made available to these individuals in this area? I'm referring to Western Economic Diversification, the JERI program, or any other departments with respect to agriculture.

You mentioned 20 federal departments, 25 departments. How many came together in the southwestern Manitoba flood?

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian: To my knowledge, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was the lead department, because most of the damages related to farming.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Isn't DFAA the lead? Aren't you the coordinator of that type of disaster? I'm just asking because I thought DFAA was the lead.

• 1615

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian: We are with respect to those things that are covered under the DFAA. Those will be administered through Emergency Preparedness Canada in consultation with the provincial disaster organizations.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: In the Red River flood there was a program put into place, cost shared, I believe, between the province and the federal government, that did cover lost inputs. I know that for a fact. Was that program coordinated with DFAA or did that come through some other program in the federal department?

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian: No. With respect to complementary programs, they are not the lead under the DFAA. They are normally the lead of the department responsible for the type of program that is being put in place. For example, some of the ad hoc industrial assistance programs would involve Industry Canada, WED—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Who would have been involved with the cost recoveries or the input recoveries in the Red River? Really, all my guys are asking for is consistency. If you had input recovery in one area, why could input recovery not be available in another area?

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian: Well, it depends on the nature of the gaps that exist in the coverage. For example, if something is being covered under DFAA for full-time farmers and if there is an existing situation for part-time farmers, then Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada would put in place a complementary program to deal with the component that is not covered.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Specifically on lost inputs, though, if I can, lost inputs were recovered or were in place in the Red River. Why could lost inputs not be in place for the southwest Manitoba situation?

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian: They would only be put in place if there was believed to be a gap in the coverage, and at this point in time—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So there was a gap in coverage in Red River?

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian: Yes, there was, and therefore the JERI program that was put in place was developed under the economic development assistance organizations.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But you're not responsible for that coordination, then.

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian: No, we're not.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That has to come from some other department. Okay.

Under Emergency Preparedness Canada guidelines, under post-disaster assistance to individuals, it states that payments will be made—and I quote—“to restore farmlands to workable condition where a farm operation has been seriously affected by flood erosion or land gouging.” Now, I appreciate that it says “flood erosion” and “land gouging”. Is there not enough flexibility within Preparedness Canada to stretch that to suggest that not planting 1,100,000 acres could have some coverage based on that type of infrastructure or that type of program?

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian: No, because it's already covered under crop insurance or other agricultural programs.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, we won't argue that one, but it's not, unfortunately. The crop insurance coverage in Manitoba would not cover unseeded acreage at this point. It is now. They changed it after the horse ran away, but not before.

Minister Wowchuk is right now in the legislature. If they came forward with a 50:50 cost share for input recovery, as well as a maintenance program to put land back into condition, if it was a 50:50 cost sharing, Mr. Minister, and that proposal came to the cabinet table, would you support a 50:50 cost sharing?

The money is not great. It's probably only about $30 million federally. Would you support, with your cabinet colleagues, that proposal?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: My understanding is that the programs we have in place here are sufficient to cover a meaningful federal contribution to this disaster.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And I'm suggesting, Mr. Minister, it's not there. We do require another $30 million to $40 million. If there was a 50:50, would you?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: The answer is no.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You would not. Thank you.

The Chair: The answer is no under DFAA or any program?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Any program.

The Chair: By the way, Mr. Borotsik, I have a copy of the motion being debated before the Manitoba legislature. Nowhere in the motion is this 50:50 proposition.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But that's not what I said. “If” the proposal was 50:50; that was the question.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: And I'm saying that we consider that this matter has been covered under these programs. We are open to examination of the DFAA, we are open to making changes, but clearly, if we're dealing with the DFAA, we're dealing with it in a future context, not to cover past situations.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Just before we go to Mr. McCormick, let me just say a couple of things, especially since I come from the province of Manitoba and have been somewhat seized of this issue.

• 1620

You're right, Minister, in saying that farmers, in my province or any province, have been given assistance under programs such as NISA, crop insurance, AIDA, and of course the $400 million program that was announced back in February for the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

The problem, Mr. Minister—and I know you're stuck with the guidelines, as we are—in the southwest corner of Manitoba—and I'll just talk about my own province—is the more than 1.1 million acres not seeded, with hundreds and hundreds of farm families affected. These people, who have been affected by those floods in 1999, have not really been singled out for special treatment. They've been treated more or less, Art, as if they came from Riverton, from Gimli, from Steinbach.

That's the problem. They have not been singled out for special treatment or special recognition. There was one program that was brought in by the former Conservative government, $50 an acre, which we shared, at the cost of AIDA. But that's the only special treatment these people have gotten.

It is, I think, disingenuous to say, well, you know, we came up with $240 million for those people in February. The fact of the matter is, they got that no more than anybody else, and the fact that they were flooded out was not recognized. That's one of the reasons these people come back to us over and over and over again.

You know, they suffered the farm financial income crisis like everybody else. They have bugs like everybody else. They have rust like everybody else. They have perhaps too much sunshine, like everybody else, or grasshoppers. But the one thing they have that nobody else had was those bloody floods of last May and June.

That's where we politicians have fallen down, Art. That's where we've fallen down.

One other thing. Again, this is not your fault personally, but you talk about “the guidelines”, and the fact that these farmers could have taken out crop insurance. It's very true. Perhaps they are responsible for their own individual disaster, but when you put hundreds and hundreds of farm families together and they suffer the same loss, that's not just an individual loss any more, or an individual disaster. It is a community disaster. In this case, it was a regional disaster.

Farm income programs, like crop insurance, were not designed to deal with regional disasters, and this is what it was—a regional disaster. Maybe we can't help these people, but by God, if we don't change those guidelines for the next time—and who knows, the next time might be this year or next year or whenever—we're going to be held accountable, Art, because it's wrong.

One of the reasons these people have not been justly treated is that they were lost in the farm income crisis. They were lost. Everybody was all in a lather over AIDA, as they should have been, and the people in southwest Manitoba were forgotten.

When you talk about 1997, Grand Forks, North Dakota, was burning. You had a six-foot wall of water coming down the Red River. Everybody was scared out of their wits. No wonder we responded. Those people in southwest Manitoba had this boring kind of disaster, where the water just lay on the soil. For some reason it doesn't seem to get through to us.

I'm not blaming you, Art, individually. I'm not blaming anyone individually. But damn it, it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong, and those people still, in my opinion, deserve help.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): As a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to ask the minister to stay an additional ten minutes so that all of the rest of us opposition members can get our questions in. That was a fine speech you gave, and I hope Manitobans are listening to it. We've heard your speeches and the reports in the media about your fighting for farmers down there, but there's no action from the government.

I'd just like the minister to stay an extra ten minutes so that I can get my question in.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to—

The Chair: Go through the chair first, please.

Art, can you stay an extra ten minutes?

Mr. Art Eggleton: I can stay an extra five minutes. I do have another appointment.

The Chair: Go ahead, Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'm sorry, Mr. Hilstrom; I didn't mean to cut in on that question.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here. I do want to put it on the record that there have been a lot of speeches here, and very good, but Mr. Bailey—and I want you to pass this on to him, Mr. Mark—certainly was there in the fields. I think he painted the picture exactly as I saw it when I visited the area last year.

You know, it's not just land under water. It's not a question of land flowing, which probably would be a better description of it than water flowing, because sometimes there's a lot of topsoil lost.

• 1625

When the sun comes out on the prairies, it gets pretty hot out there. In fact, this week it's 25°C to 30°C in some places. The land will look dry on top, and yet in that seedbed, it's too wet to plant any seed. If you do plant the seed, it will rot.

So for the future, and that's where Agriculture Canada has to help and we have to help, we have to help ensure that something can be done there. But it's not simple.

Of course, as all the people in the west, and some of us, have said so many times, it wasn't such a media opportunity; people didn't see it as a flood the way they did in Quebec and Red River. I mean, it was still a disaster, but if it doesn't get the same exposure... It looked like a disaster to the people from the west and to the farmers in Ontario who knew what a disaster was, but somewhere along the line the government didn't think so. We didn't do a good job.

Mr. Minister, do we have to have our farmers take out crop insurance for... Crop insurance is one thing, but not crop insurance against natural disasters. Should we have a FEMA-type U.S. program, where we take money in? I mean, again, are we just going to hand them money... and everybody has to have insurance against water before we can help them at all?

I just wonder if you would like to share your thoughts on that.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Look, I understand what you're saying, and I understand the passion of the chairman as well on the matter. I am not the designer of programs specifically for the farm community. That's the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. I do administer a fund that has to do with the broader community context in terms of disaster assistance, and that's the DFAA. We have looked very carefully at what qualifies under the DFAA, and we have determined, after several examinations of the matter and going over it a second time just to be sure, what qualifies and what doesn't qualify.

You get into a situation where you set precedents, and you then get into a situation where people who didn't get the funds from previous disasters come back and say, well, you're now covering that, so you should come back and reimburse us further.

A great many issues have to be dealt with here. They all relate to fairness and equity. We are operating this program in accordance with the agreements we have had with the provinces.

Yes, maybe there should be things covered that haven't been covered in the past. That's one of the reasons this program is up for examination at the moment, because it hasn't changed in 30 years. We haven't adjusted it for inflation, either, in that 30-year time period. Maybe all of these categories need to be re-examined in that regard.

Certainly mitigation, as I've indicated earlier, is something that needs to be brought into the picture in one way or another, through either the DFAA or some supplementary or complementary type of program. But that isn't the case today. We're operating the program and administering it under the guidelines that exist today.

Nevertheless, the government is very concerned about what happens in these cases, in these kinds of disasters, and how they affect the livelihoods of these people. We've endeavoured through either the DFAA or one of these other programs to be able to cover it. Certainly the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food does have that responsibility.

You know, when we added the $240 million into the $400 million shared program in February, there was discussion about the specific matters raised here that were not covered by the DFAA. It's the position of the government that this additional money helped to deal with those issues.

Mr. Larry McCormick: My closing comment, Mr. Chair, is that it's just unfortunate that we Canadians who benefit so much from a cheap food policy and the best and the safest food in this country do not react. I mean, who around this table will not say that was a disaster? I hope we don't have to visit those sites.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: No, I don't think anybody's saying that.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Certainly not, but...

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Most of the money that's going in to help out in this disaster relief is coming from the federal government.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

The Chair: Thank you, Larry.

According to my watch, Mr. Eggleton arrived at 3.35 p.m. He said he'd extend his visit by five minutes, so we have about ten minutes and three questioners. We'll start with Mr. Mark.

Perhaps you want to share. If everybody goes five minutes each, Mr. Hilstrom would be left out. It's up to you guys.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm here because this disaster has affected the south portion of my riding. I sat through some of the agriculture committee public hearings as well.

What is at risk, really, is much more than just what we're talking about. Rural culture is at risk, and I don't think this government's policies are helping to improve and sustain and protect the whole business of rural culture. We always talk about Canadian culture, but Canadian culture is really the whole of many different facets.

• 1630

The point we miss, I think, in our discussion when we're talking about floods and natural disasters is that in 1997 the determining factor wasn't the flood, it was the election. The federal election was on at that time. Remember that.

The message and the question I have for you, from the folks at home, the farmers, is why are they being treated differently from the way farmers were treated in 1997? The irony is that the situation in 1999 was actually worse than in 1997, because the farmers in the Red River Valley at least put in a crop and also got their help from the federal government. That's the difference.

The optics right now in Manitoba obviously point the finger at the federal government. Those are the optics, as fair or unfair as they may be.

My question is, why the unfair and unequal treatment? As well, what are you going to do as minister to deal with the provincial Government of Manitoba? I mean, they're blaming you and others are blaming you. What's the next move on your part? Are you going to get together with them and resolve this?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I've already responded to them with respect to these issues of what's included or not included in the DFAA. The other programs here, though, are all part of the picture, and they have to be considered as part of the relief effort.

You're saying that there's unfair or unequal treatment vis-à-vis the 1997 Red River flood. I say no, that's not correct at all. There are different programs being provided here from what was provided in the case of the 1997 Red River. Are the programs exactly identical? No. They are different.

We have developed in recent years on four occasions supplementary or complementary programs with respect to disasters of extreme nature. These were separately dealt with outside of the DFAA.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's not getting through to the farmers. That's the problem.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: We do have other programs, such as crop insurance, AIDA, NISA. There are these other programs, with $240 million provided to cover these programs. So it's not correct to say that there's an unfairness.

The Chair: Okay, Hilstrom, take two minutes and then we'll bring Mr. Murray to the finish.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Honourable minister, do you not understand that in this companion program—I'd ask Mrs. Sahagian about this as well—the AIDA program was set up for low income and low commodity prices due to foreign subsidies? That program money was for all farmers across Canada. By using it for a natural disaster, you've taken away from other farmers' pockets.

The ad hoc program you referred to, $400 million, was for transportation when the Liberal government threw out the Crow and caused a disaster for farmers on their transportation costs, which they couldn't afford.

Those programs were for specific uses. They were not for a natural disaster. That is why we're all sitting here today saying that this should have been a natural disaster that was over and above and separate from what those programs are set up for. What you've in essence done is stolen from these other programs and made it look as though you're doing so much when really you're stealing from other farmers to try to help these farmers. That is just not right, and that is the position I've taken right from the start.

Could you comment on that aspect?

The other thing with AIDA is that as the farmers get money from, for instance, this ad hoc money, it's going to lower the amount of money they get from AIDA, because they show it as income. So it's a two-edged sword on these farmers.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I don't administer those additional programs, but those additional programs, together with the one I do administer, the DFAA, go a very substantial distance towards helping to relieve this catastrophe. The additional money that was put in during February was, again, a move by the federal government, in conjunction with the provinces on a 60:40 sharing basis, to be able to cover all of the bases, to be able to do as much as we possibly could to help these people under the circumstances. And that's what we're doing.

The Chair: Mr. Murray, you have about three minutes.

• 1635

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.

Thanks for staying, Minister.

I want to change direction a bit here and pick up on your comments about an ounce of prevention in terms of future extreme weather we can expect and individual responsibility and ask if Emergency Preparedness Canada has looked at using technology perhaps to help forewarn people of problems that might be appearing.

I was watching a television program on tornadoes last week, tornadoes that happened to take place in Texas. They had a very effective series of announcements on television that were immediately sent out to people tracking the tornadoes.

We may not have the same tornado problem in Canada, but we do have tornadoes, we have hailstorms, and we have severe winter weather. I just want to know if Emergency Preparedness Canada had looked at using the technology that may be available today to perhaps immediately warn people with, say, flashes across television across any region or the country, if necessary.

Ms. Ann Marie Sahagian: First of all, the department with the primary responsibility with respect to weather warnings is Environment Canada. They have been very active in terms of looking at the available technology to provide warnings to Canadians about disasters in terms of their sophisticated radar systems and other types of sophisticated monitoring equipment.

We are aware that Environment Canada is looking with the private sector at possible options for improving the notification that can be made to Canadians about such impending activity as a tornado.

Of course, from our perspective, in terms of prevention and protection of lives and property, anything that could be done through new technology or other new ways of notifying the public that would improve safety and reduce loss of life and damage would be a very desirable thing to have take place.

The Chair: You have about a minute, Ian. Do you want to give it to Joe?

Mr. Ian Murray: Sure.

The Chair: Joe McGuire promises a tiny, tiny question.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is with regard to the point that Mr. Bailey was making on the loss of assets and the inputs that were made into the soil—for example, fertilizers, limes, organics, pesticides, herbicides, or whatever. These are not covered, but they were basically washed out because of the weather conditions. It's a grey area. It's not covered by crop insurance. Why couldn't that be looked at to see if those inputs could be covered in restoration of the assets?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Well, it was considered when the package was put together with the provinces on the $240 million to $400 million program. That was all on the table and considered as part of that at that time.

Now, as you point out, it perhaps is grey in some respects. We've clearly determined that it doesn't meet the DFAA, but whether or not it should come under some other program or should come under the DFAA, I mean, those still are open considerations in terms of the future.

Indeed, when we go through the examination of changes to the DFAA and we hear from the provinces, no doubt this is going to be one of the items on the table for us to consider. And it will get consideration.

Mr. Joe McGuire: It's now rejected?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: It is rejected, yes. Well, it's rejected in terms of coming from the DFAA, but it was considered as part of the package when the $400 million/$240 million federal contribution program was on the table on February 15.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Was that optional, then, at that point in time, Mr. Minister, if it was considered? Did the province have the option to be able to make some of those payments available for this particular...

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: The province always has the option of doing anything they want to do. The DFAA is not a restrictive program.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sorry, the $240 million—

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: Whether or not something comes within that, the provinces can still design the program any way they want.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But when considering the $240 million, though, did that mean that the provinces then could have taken a portion of that to allocate it to these particular lost inputs? Could they have done that if they wanted to?

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: I wasn't at the table when the discussions occurred, but I do know that in fact the discussions did involve this whole issue you're raising today. It was certainly our intent that anything not formally covered by the DFAA—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Could have been.

Mr. Arthur Eggleton: —could come under another program, including that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Fair ball.

• 1640

The Chair: The minister was good enough to stay an extra five minutes. Those five minutes have gone by.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Art Eggleton: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We appreciate your candour. I know it's a difficult issue, but you've been a pretty good soldier today.

This meeting is over.