Evidence of meeting #43 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Okay, I'm going to let Mr. Eyking ask the question, and I think we'll get an answer to that from our departments.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I know we're good buddies, Mr. Hoback, but you cut me off when I was ready to ask the question—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
—but that's fine. It's a good thing you're watching my back.
I'm asking about the advances. Are they eligible or guaranteed under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act? Can it be higher than $400,000 when it's fixed by regulation?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Business Risk Management Programs Directorate, Programs Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Chair, it would be our position that, yes, they can be raised above the $400,000 through a regulatory process.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
So, the answer, Mr. Eyking and Mr. Hoback, is that, yes, through regulations, it can be done at committee, it can be done at this stage, without taking it back to the House at report stage.
Mr. Eyking, are you done?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Well, I'll wait, because I have my comments to ask. But I'm hoping that my colleagues will vote for this. This has been brought to us by organizations. It's admissible under the Treasury Board guidelines.
This committee went through the whole rail act and we put a lot of work into it, especially the opposition amendments. The government was set on not approving any of our amendments when we were doing the rail act. Now, I think this is one of the last amendments here. The minister came forward and said he was very open to our making amendments that made sense and that fit in the act. Up until right now, the government has not entertained any of the amendments from the opposition. This one makes sense, and it's right there. I'm just hoping that the government finally, in good faith, like the minister told them to, looks at some of our amendments. But if they're not, it'll just be a continuum of where the rail act went. We, the opposition, are just wasting our time coming here with amendments when the government is set to denounce them.
I'm jumping the gun, but I'm hoping that the government will see it in good faith. Committees work together, and sometimes an amendment makes sense, especially with the witnesses who came forward. Sometimes the government makes a bit of a mistake, or not quite a mistake, but it didn't hit the target where it should have been. I'm hoping that the government will vote for this amendment.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Well, Chair, I guess I'm going to back your opinion on admissibility. I question it, though, because it is going to have an infringement on the crown and it does have financial implications.
But, even with that being said—and you've ruled on that accordingly—we're seeing the numbers here since 2006: on average, only 20% of the participants receive advances over $100,000; and, on average, only 2% actually hit the $400,000 limit. Now, our witnesses here have said that they can change that number through regulatory means if they so choose somewhere down the road if it is required. So I think they do have the flexibility and the ability to do that down the road if they see that need. Again, I don't think we need to have this amendment come forward. It's basically sitting here right now. It's a $400,000 limit, nobody's hitting the $400,000, and there's lots of flexibility if, for some reason, somewhere down the road they need to raise it.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Witnesses have come forward, and I mean, the canola growers themselves. I think they mentioned the 20 million tonnes of product they're doing and the amount of money they're going through. I mean it's a reality. It's the reality of the numbers that changed in our industry.
I know the member says, yeah, well, we can change this on the fly. Well, it won't be changed on the fly. Do you know why? There's nobody who can deny that they didn't hear this from witnesses. It's a loan and it helps farmers get through the whole year.
The statements made by the government are just not washing here. I think it's blatantly saying they just don't want the opposition to have any say in this bill. It's the same as previously in the last bill we did on the rail issue and that's where they're at.
I'm not totally shocked. I talked to the NDP beforehand and I said let's give them a shot. They alluded to me that these guys were not interested in giving us any amendments.
I'm pretty disappointed that's the way you guys are going to roll. It's not the intent that the minister had when he came forward. He was wasting our time by telling us that we can come with amendments. We've put a lot of work in these amendments and you guys shot them all down.
So, this one here is a no-brainer, but I mean the government has the majority at this committee and they can continue on and do what they did, but we spent a lot of time.
Chair, I've got to commend you for the job you did, because we're one of the only committees that got up and running when we came back in September. We all did a lot of work. We had witnesses come right from across this country. I was proud that our committee got up and running when others didn't. I was proud of all the people who came forward. I think that to not change this amendment is just a kind of a slap in the face not only to the opposition members, but also to a lot of the people who came forward with these recommendations.
It's in their purview. It's affordable. It's the right thing to do. I think it's just a shot at the opposition to say, opposition, you have nothing to bring forward in legislation in this country. There you have it right there and it's evident right now and I can see where the government's going with this.
November 4th, 2014 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's just a couple of things that I'd like to go through. When a person takes a look at the size.... A lot of time you discuss family farms and helping out small farmers and that type of thing, but I think you'd be surprised just how big the farm would have to be in order to meet that $400,000 that could come to that operation.
I think sometimes the numbers that were given before, it was a small percentage that even get above the $100,000. I think that's a significant aspect of it. I think I heard numbers of 2% to 6% were pushing the $400,000. There are a lot of aspects to it. When we first started talking about the advance and making sure that it had some flexibility, that did happen while we were talking about the grain delivery issues we were having.
So I think if a person's trying to put two of these things together, then it was important to make sure that farmers understood that it was there and that they could have used this as a program to help them out as far as their operation was concerned.
Having said that, yes, the Canadian Canola Growers did come and suggest that it wouldn't hurt increasing it. They are the administrators of the particular program that we're speaking of. I think they may have been speaking to their capacity to be able to handle that. But as far as the reality as to what is required out on the farm, you take a look at, if you are big enough that you would be entitled to a $400,000 loan through this particular program, you're dealing with other financial institutions as well and the question is whether or not the federal government should have to deal with that.
I think the $400,000 is where it should be, without the other dramatic aspects of it.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Chair, let me just start my comment by saying I really do take exception to Mr. Eyking's comments, that somehow we owe him or we owe the NDP an amendment. We've gone through 20 amendments, they haven't had one passed, therefore we should just pick one and here....
I take exception to that because that's not the way this works. We have amendments in front of committee. I feel that we've had very constructive dialogue back and forth about the amendments. Every amendment that's been submitted has been reviewed thoroughly, and there has been good conversation back and forth. I'm not saying everyone agrees with what everyone is saying about the amendments, but what I'm saying is that no one has said that's a Liberal amendment, we're not voting for that.
Instead we've discussed the content of the amendment: what are the implications on the bill, what are the implications on stakeholders, why would someone be in favour of it, and why would someone not be in favour of it. Every single amendment that we have discussed has been reasoned, there has been intelligent discussion, and there have been well thought out comments made. I don't buy this “You owe us now because...”, which is basically what you were intimating.
The second thing I'll say is this. I want to go back to what Mr. Hoback was saying. We have to think about these numbers here. In 2006 the loan limits were raised. We're talking about eight years ago. When you look at the actual data, if you have 100 farmers who go for an APP, only 20 of that 100 are asking for a loan that's greater than $100,000—only 20. Only 2 out of 100 farmers even get close to $400,000. So when you look at the data and you look at the history of this, we already raised the limits and no one is bumping up against the $400,000 limit in any sort of large, quantifiable number and saying that this is failing farmers across Canada. It's not, actually. It's serving a need and only 2% are bumping up against the $400,000 limit.
I think the last point I'll make too, and I think it's a very important point, is that this is a tool in the farmer's tool box. It's meant to help him secure some financing. It's meant to ease the pressure of seeking some financing. In no way is this intended to replace all the credit he might need to run his farm. This is just a tool that's meant to be quick, it's meant to be accessible, and it's actually meant to be advantageous. With 0% interest on the first $100,000, it's advantageous. But in no way is it expected to meet all of the capital needs, or the loan needs, of a farmer. It's just a tool.
When you put that into perspective and you put into perspective the data that has been collected since 2006, I think that although the amendment is well intentioned, it's not actually necessary.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Well, Mr. Lemieux, you don't owe me anything. I think you owe me a bottle of wine, if anything. But I don't think you paid for that wine that I brought back from the Okanagan Valley, which was interprovincial by the way. But anyway....
No, you don't owe me an amendment. This is a good amendment, it stands on its own. I think it was discussed by some of the witnesses that yes, the uptake now is 2% to 3%. Looking at the numbers it'll be 10% next year, no problem, who will go over the $400,000.
You can't say just because a small group of farmers may need it or use it that we should not go for that group. If you're a big-shot lawyer and you're making a lot of money does that mean you shouldn't get your wages from being an MP? I don't know. That's the logic of saying that group should be left out because it's only a small group. It doesn't wash.
I'm not going to make much more of a comment on this. I know it's a good amendment and I know it's one that you'll have to revisit in a couple of years when the numbers of farming.... The farms are getting bigger. There are fewer farms, the numbers are going to be there. You're going to have to address this sooner or later so you might as well address it now. That's my take on it.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I appreciate what Mr. Eyking's saying, and I appreciate what the opposition's doing. I'm very aware what some of the witnesses have said.
But let me highlight the fact again. There are a lot of changes going on to AMPA in this piece of legislation. There are some drastic changes on the payment and repayment in that process. That may change the statistics somewhere down the road. I think we should wait and see what those numbers do.
When they do change, if they should happen to change, I understand—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Lloyd—you have the flexibility to not only change the interest-free portion amount, but even the total amount. So not only the $100,000 interest free, but you have the ability to say now it reflects $500,000 or $600,000. It's not something that we need to put in this piece of legislation at this point in time. You already have the flexibility to do that.
Right now I would suggest that we wait and see what actually happens with the farm gate and how they use the new rules that come into AMPA, and then make a decision somewhere down the road on what's adequate for farmers. The information we have right now says this is more than adequate and is not justifying a reason to raise it.
I think you're just a little premature, Mr. Eyking, on saying we should raise it before we have data that suggests we should be raising it. We haven't seen that data at this point in time.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Hoback, if you're saying that the department has all this flexibility to pick whatever number they want, why even have the $400,000 in here? Why don't they just base it on whatever the farmer comes up with? If it's $200,000, why even have a limit? If you're saying that they have the flexibility to do whatever they want, then take it out of the bill altogether.