Where did the BSE compensation money announced by Ottawa really go?
Last week, the House of Commons agriculture committee decided to follow the BSE money trail by asking the government to account for the spending.
Then, the auditor general will be asked to audit the government claims to find out if the money ended up where the government said it was destined.
Saskatchewan Conservative David Anderson proposed the motion March 22 and the opposition-dominated committee approved it.
Liberal MPs on the committee were divided.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
“Does anyone have any reason to oppose it?” asked Edmonton Liberal David Kilgour.
“I do oppose it and I oppose it fairly strongly,” replied Wayne Easter, parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister.
“I don’t believe it is necessary at this time. I think the opposition is trying to play politics with an issue that we don’t need to play politics with.”
Easter said the government already has indicated how much has been spent and where it has gone.
Anderson said that is not good enough. The government has announced large BSE spending but farmers have received little of it.
“I am questioning whether the government is spending taxpayers’ money efficiently,” he said in a statement after the vote. “Although the government announces and re-announces funding and programming to respond to the BSE crisis, this money doesn’t seem to be filtering down to producers.”
Anderson wants the investigation to figure out administrative costs, distribution by province and whether the announced spending actually was delivered.
Audit continues
Meanwhile, auditors continue a forensic audit of packing plant books called for by the agriculture committee to find out how much of the federal money ended up in packer pockets and whether there was any profiteering by the companies during the BSE crisis.
Committee chair Paul Steckle wondered last week if another audit is necessary since some of that work already is being done in the packer investigation.
Anderson said his motion does not duplicate work already under way.
“It’s not true (that similar work already is being done),” he said during the meeting. “We have independent consultants working on where the money went after it left the government’s hands. This deals with it up to the point that it left.”
