Agriculture Committee on May 26th, 2009

[Greg Meredith]

Just to distinguish the issues, there's the guarantee on the loan, which is what the government does to ensure that there's a competitive rate for the farmer, but there's the percentage of the asset that the farmer can borrow against.

In the case of a beginning farmer, what we heard in our consultations was that the ability to borrow 80% of the value of land or the new building, for example, was not quite enough for a beginning farmer. They asked that we increase that, so we did, and we propose to do that in the legislation. For beginning farmers, we would increase to 90% the percentage that they can borrow against an asset. I am just going to ask my colleague to answer the question of whether the loan guarantee rate is the same for all players.

[Jody Aylard]

It is the same. It's 95%.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's the same. Okay.

On the interest rate question that I think Alex started into, can you give us a comparison on loans under this act in regard to what percentage rate they're at versus commercial banks on their own?

[Jody Aylard]

We would have to get back to you on that. Banks are all making their decisions on a case-by-case basis in terms of the credit risk of the individual lenders, but in terms of an average, we'd have to get back to you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, if you could, and can you answer this question as well? Because certainly there's a view--and I'm of this view--that although interest rates have gone down, Canada prime has gone down extensively. In borrowing from banks, Canadians and businesses are not getting the benefit of that reduction, because banks have increased their spread between Canada prime and bank prime.

Here's what I need to know. Could you, in your response to us, compare it to back a year ago or so? The banks seem to be doing very well in this recession. In fact, the government has given them guarantees, and we don't argue against that, but they are in fact, as interest rates come down, ensuring their profitability through service charges and through increasing the spread. And they are not all that anxious to make credit available to some sectors. They certainly seem to be doing quite well on the balance sheet. So any of that information you can provide would be helpful as well.

Also, is there any comparison with Farm Credit? I guess you're not connected with Farm Credit, but we are hearing some complaints that Farm Credit interest rates are too high as well.

[Greg Meredith]

We could include all of that in our response.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

I have no further questions except on one point, Chair. The parliamentary secretary indicated earlier that there were wide consultations. Can a list of who with and when those consultations were undertaken be provided to the committee?

We do question sometimes on this side who you consult with. You're pretty good at consulting your friends, but we want to know if it's a broad and wide consultation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You ought to know the consultation process.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

In proposing this bill, the parliamentary secretary said there was wide consultation. Caisse populaire was one that we know of. Could we have the list of who was consulted and when provided to this committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lemieux has indicated the answer is yes.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have the list here, Chair. We can distribute this to the committee. There are four pages of participants in these different consultations. And that wouldn't be listing people who were invited but not able to attend, people who submitted written briefs, or people who would have briefed regional directors directly. So I will happily share that information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

We can now move to the bill before I release the witnesses. That's just in case something comes up while we're going through it, if you wouldn't mind bearing with us.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I just want to put forward, for the committee's consent, a motion that we pass this bill with unanimous consent. I say that because we've distributed the bill. The bill has been read, and in the discussions I've had with my colleagues I believe—and I don't want to speak on their part—that the bill is considered to be a good bill. I believe we have witnesses waiting as well—but that's not the primary reason. The primary reason is that I believe it's a good bill. That's the feedback I've received, and we could just pass it with unanimous consent. I would put forward that motion to get my colleagues' input on this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We have a motion that basically all clauses pass. Do we have unanimous consent for that?

We do. Thank you, everyone.

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Should the chair report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Thanks again to our witnesses.

There are just a couple of things that I did want to talk to committee about just briefly while the new witnesses are coming in. On our Washington trip next week, a reminder to everybody to book your flights. Our intention is to leave on Wednesday, June 3. If there is any information that you don't already have on that, I'm sure if you talk to Isabelle she would have it.

Alex.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I have a question. Is it just our agriculture committee that's going? One of my colleagues has been approached. I think David Anderson approached my colleague, Niki Ashton, to see if she would like to go to Washington because she's kind of the rural critic. I don't understand if there are other people going besides those on the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

To my knowledge, we have funding approved for the committee. They would certainly be paying their own way. It's not included under the committee travel.

If any member of the House wants to go down there, that's their prerogative, if they can get it approved by their whip or whomever. But they are travelling at their own expense.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Second to that, Mr. Chair, they may travel down at their own expense. Maybe David Anderson could bunk up with Randy or something.

I've heard the same rumour, Alex, about people being approached by Mr. Anderson to go down on the same trip. He might be down there talking about the Canadian Wheat Board, I don't know.

In any event, if others show up, will they be attending the meetings with the committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

My understanding is the agriculture committee is going and this is agriculture committee business. I guess I'm open to direction from the committee.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to state my point of view, and I think that of my colleagues, that if we're going to travel down there as the agriculture committee, then we should go as the agriculture committee, not the agriculture committee plus, plus, plus. I think if there are other members who want to go, the normal procedure is that they would swap out with somebody on the agriculture committee. We're either planning a trip for the number of people who are on the agriculture committee or we're planning a trip for twice that number, I'm not sure which.

I just think if we're the agriculture committee and we're travelling down there on agriculture business, then it's agriculture committee members who should be involved. If there is a particular MP who wants to be involved, then he would swap out with the regular sitting agriculture committee member.