Agriculture Committee on Nov. 4th, 2014

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Lemieux has answered the question. I'm not going to ask the officials to reiterate what he has just said; a nod of the head will probably suffice. We thought it was a translation piece and we just wanted to be clear, and clearly the parliamentary secretary has said it is. I believe the officials are concurring.

Thank you, Mr. Ritchie.

He is nodding yes. One should always be careful how one moves one's head, Mr. Ritchie. We keep an eye on all of you down there, if you seem to be winking at us as if to say, “yes, we agree; we'll be letting you know”.

Thank you very much. We're fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Shall amendment G-3 be approved?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 128 as amended be carried?

(Clause 128 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 129)

We shall turn to clause 129 and amendment G-4.

Mr. Lemieux, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to move amendment G-4. It is lengthy. There is a lot of text here. We all have it in front of us so I will not read it.

I will say that this is an amendment being made to the advance payments program. It came out of consultations once again that were held with the minister and his officials and stakeholders.

I will just give a bit of explanation to it. The minister is responsible for paying interest on the first $100,000 in accordance with section 9. The amendment clarifies that the producer continues to be responsible for the interest on amounts over $100,000 in the case where, through no fault of the producer, the product becomes unmarketable.

In addition, the reference to section 22 clarifies that if a default occurs following the application of section 11, the producer becomes liable for all the interest including the portion for which the minister pays the interest on behalf of the producer.

So we certainly did receive some feedback from the administrators of the APP. In fact, one of them was here, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and made a comment that clarifying these types of clauses was helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Comments?

Mr. Eyking, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

To the parliamentary secretary, what does this change? The first $100,000 is interest-free, and after the first $100,000 you pay interest. Wasn't that already in here?

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

Yes. What was not clear, which is why the amendment is in place, was what happens in the case where a producer, through no fault of his own, is unable to market his product. There is interest on the first $100,000, it's just the minister in his generosity is paying it. This is just clarifying that the producer is responsible for the interest on the remaining amount that he's borrowed over $100,000. Then the second part is clarifying that should a default of loan repayment altogether occur, then the farmer is responsible for interest accrued on the entire loan, including the first $100,000.

I don't believe that's a change. I believe it's a clarification.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

It's been that way all the time.

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

Yes, it's just the act wasn't clear enough so it's been clarified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

It behooves me to say the minister is generous if he absorbs all of that interest. I actually thought it was the Canadian taxpayer. But if your minister is that generous, I would like to borrow the first $100,000 on the next home I buy, and I promise not to default.

But if I could put it to our folks at the end, is this clarifying or changing?

[Rosser Lloyd]

It's clarifying.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Further questions on amendment G-4?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 129 as amended agreed to)

There are no amendments on clauses 130, 131, and 132. We have a motion to accept those amendments as they are.

(Clauses 130 to 132 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 133)

That would be, Mr. Eyking, LIB-3, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

At the onset of this bill I thought $400,000 was enough, but as witnesses started coming forward many producer groups and farmers explained how farms have changed: the size of farms, and the amount of money it takes to get through a year. Sometimes it can take millions of dollars. They were saying the $400,000 limit was just not realistic in today's agriculture environment.

Many came forward. We had the Canadian Canola Growers and others, especially grain farmers who are dealing with a lot of money from the start of the year to whenever. It seemed to me that some have mentioned that it should be increased, and I heard $600,000 was a more practical amount.

So my amendment is straightforward. It states:

(b) for all agricultural products produced by a producer or a related producer, to the extent that advances for the agricultural products are attributable to the producer under subsection (2), $600,000 or the amount fixed by regulation.

So that would change from $400,000 to $600,000. Then it goes on and carries through with the maximum amount of all advances that are eligible for the guarantor, back to $600,000 again.

So there it is. I think we have witnesses to state that. It is a loan. It's not an outright grant. So I'm putting that forward.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

On a point of order, please.

Mr. Hoback, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I have one more comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Just a point of order, though.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Chair, I'd just like to ask the clerk about the admissibility of this, because it's actually a money request in an amendment. Is that actually allowed, an amendment to do that, in light of this bill? Would it not be beyond the scope of the bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I think we may want to get some comments.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

If I could finish, that's what I was just going to do, Mr. Chair. I was going to ask if—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Address my point of order, though, Chair. I'm asking about the admissibility of his actual amendment, because he is requesting an increase in funds.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I was just going to ask that, but, go ahead. You asked my question.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm looking for clarification from the clerk on whether this is actually admissible or not.

[David-Andrés Novoa, Procedural Clerk]

Let him ask the question.