Bob Bromley

Thank you, Madam Chair. It sounds like a good discussion and good consideration may be on its way here for these dollars. Just picking up on the Minister’s mention of early childhood development funding, the phenomena we are dealing with extends into that; for example, paying for child care inspection services. It was obviously a routine part of this government’s responsibilities and commitment under the Auditor General’s program. So I assume that his willingness to discuss this and have significant committee input extends to all new dollars. Is that correct? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Minister. Really we are talking food security here as well as an economic function. I know we are addressing these things and Anti-Poverty Strategy and other aspects, but food security is really about lower costs. This weekend our local chicken cooperative would have ended up calling out the roosters. We had to go to sources in Ontario to find out questions we needed answered. Given solutions needed to involve many departments in a strategic cross-departmental approach to food supply, will the Minister commit to development of a food strategy as an...

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that $300,000 be deleted from the activity community health programs, operations expenditures.

---Interjection

Thanks to the Minister for those comments. As I also mentioned in my statement on Wednesday, availability of land is a challenge for the expansion of agriculture. In response to my written question of February 16th, the Minister said that ITI will provide municipal governments with expertise, assistance and support in matters related to agriculture as and when requested. That’s fine, but what about increasing the supply of agriculture land outside municipalities? What is the department doing to identify and free up some of the vast amount of arable land that could be made available? Mahsi.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your comments on the term sleight of hand. I’d like to try and use that appropriately, because I do agree with your comments that it is kind of accusatory. This program, the Minister’s Forum on Addictions, was clearly in process as part of this year’s fiscal budget. We were participating in it. We had been invited to participate in it. We were participating in it. Committee recommended 900,000 new dollars for new programs. Cabinet has shifted that request and allocated those new dollars into old, existing programs. I’d like to know from the Minister why...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to acknowledge and congratulate my constituent Marie Wilson on her recent recognition as an Honourary Doctor of Laws by St. Thomas University in New Brunswick. This distinction comes in tribute to Ms. Wilson’s lifelong contribution to the quality of public discourse in the North, in Canada and the world. Her work in CBC, our WSCC, and now in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is a model of public service. I invite you to join with me in saluting and congratulating Ms. Wilson on the conferral of this honour.

Thanks for the Minister’s remarks there. I guess my last question is on the Minister’s forum of addictions. I’m a little bit surprised at the budget there. I know committee travelled extensively for the Wildlife Act and certainly didn’t run up a bill like that. I’m wondering if there’s an explanation for that cost.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The budgetary process just completed has led us to modest new appropriations and realignment of funds and response to Regular Members’ fiscal priorities.

The newly allocated funds amount to $3.728 million, one-quarter of 1 percent of the total $1.411 billion budget. There are $1.25 million in funds re-profiled internally and perhaps $140,000 in foregone revenue. That’s a total change of $5.118 million or 0.36, one-third of a percent of the total.

The government has fiercely defended its position that there should be no additional expenditures, because “we don’t want to...

I’ll just rephrase that. The guys worked hard and well. They drilled 300 great bore holes, but we are disappointed they didn’t find the gravel they were looking for. If I’m correct, the next step is to find the gravel or to go somewhere else for it. Three hundred sounds like a lot to be disappointed with. Would we start looking elsewhere, like further afield, or is there some anticipation that we can drill another 300 and find it in the same area?

So the earlier reports of the unsuccessful 300 bore holes were false, just to clarify?