AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 16, 2001

• 1537

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): I'll call our meeting to order. We're looking again today at Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We have before us, from the Farm Credit Corporation, John Ryan, Dale Canham, and Louise Neveu, who's been here before.

Larry, you're sitting at that end of the table today?

Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food): I guess it's just like home—sometimes you go where they tell you to go, Mr. Chair. But I'm sure glad to be here, Mr. Chair—not a bad seat in the house.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Could the other clerk send a little card to the clerk we had here to say that we're thinking of her as a committee?

The Chair: Maybe someone could go and pick up a card, and we could even sign that while we're here today. Would that suit you, Howard?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Sure.

The Chair: Okay. We hope our clerk today has a more fortunate visit with us. You be careful, Normand, in that chair. We don't want any...

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, would you just like to have the other clerk update us and tell us briefly how the clerk is?

The Chair: It's my understanding, Mr. McCormick, that we did contact her office yesterday. She did hurt her back and has back spasms, I guess, and hopefully she will be back to work this week.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We're looking today at clause-by-clause. We have some amendments, which I haven't seen yet, from the Bloc and from the Alliance, and the NDP too, Dick, eh? We'll try to go through clause by clause. If the movers of the amendments bring those up as we go to a particular clause, would that suit all members of the committee?

Clause 1 has been moved.

• 1540

[Translation]

Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): No. I said: give us time to gather up our papers before declaring "Carried".

[English]

(Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3—“Corporation”)

The Chair: The amendment that's presented here by Madam Tremblay in line 23 puts in a description of the family farm. So we have a motion for amendment. Is there discussion on the motion?

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I oppose that, because many farms are still family farms, but the people don't live right on that particular land. So I think it's not good.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: There is no mention of their living on the farm per se.

[English]

The Chair: Howard, are you suggesting an amendment, then, to the amendment?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No, just speaking against it.

The Chair: Is there other discussion?

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Can we find out what the Farm Credit Corporation thinks, or the parliamentary secretary?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We've heard from several witnesses who have asked us to define a family farm. If this definition is not correct, we should try and come up with a correct one, because the lack of a definition poses a problem.

[English]

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, just briefly, I certainly agree that we need a definition. We've looked at this, and I've heard about it since I came to this committee three years ago. I've seen a lot of definitions. This may be close, but I think I've got three or four in my desk now, and they're all excellent definitions. I think it's one of our challenges in the future, but we could debate a word here and there for a long time. It's my opinion only, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Bob.

Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Chairman, the only problem is that I would be afraid it might limit in some way how the Farm Credit Corporation would respond. I think in a lot of ways it's probably better to keep it open. It allows them to be able to respond to farmers' needs better that way. I would be scared that in law, somebody would say, you've got to be defined within this small compass. If you didn't have one, it would probably make it easier for the Farm Credit Corporation to respond to some of the particular needs of the family farm.

• 1545

The Chair: Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): I'd like to have John respond to this question. In calling it a family farm, is there any chance that we would be excluding other farming operations?

Mr. John Ryan (President and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Corporation): I think there is a chance of that. There is no common definition that we've been able to come up with, and quite frankly, when we make an assessment on whether we do a loan or not, we look at whether that's primary production or on the value-added side, not getting hung up on the definition. I think it would be great to have, but at the end of the day, I'm concerned that it would cause us more problems than it would overcome.

The Chair: Brian.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): I think this is a legitimate concern. A lot of farming operations are either in the form of partnerships or small business corporations. I think that is a very important point. In law, this may be very significant. Those people will possibly be deprived of access to farm credit, when they're just as much a farming operation as anything else. In Alberta, I'd venture to guess, half the farmers are either legal partnerships or limited corporations. I think it's an important point.

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chair, this is exactly what I was looking for. I'll give a hypothetical example. You have a partnership where the two partners are not related and they're carrying on farming. If we incorporated the definition of a family farm, would that exclude them?

Mr. John Ryan: If I look at this definition here, it talks about

a farming operation on which the operator and the operator's family live and in respect of which they make decisions, control the management...

I don't think in that situation you'd find them both living on the farm, as one example. That would cause some exclusions.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay.

Ms. Louise Neveu (Executive Vice-President and Chief Knowledge Officer, Farm Credit Corporation): You'd also have to define family. Would a single person be considered a family?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No, I think not.

Ms. Louise Neveu: We've made many loans to individuals who are alone.

The Chair: Have we finished our discussion on that? Are you ready for the question?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I don't understand the point Madam is trying to make. Just because we propose to define a family farm does not mean that large farms, corporations, non-farmers, single persons and so forth would be excluded. The objective here is to include a definition of family farm in the legislation. Would the definition apply to a large multipurpose operation or to a large hog farm owned by a numbered company? Of course not. The objective is to clarify the meaning of family farm.

This amendment doesn't exclude those who are not operating a family farm. Let's be serious for a moment. The clause reads “including family farms”. If we haven't provided a definition of family farm and you would prefer to give the lawyers some work, then that's not my concern.

However, a number of witnesses have asked us, including the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, to include a definition of family farm. If you're opposed to the idea, I won't keep flogging a dead horse. However, I'm not very convinced by your arguments. Just admit that you don't want such a definition, but stop beating about the bush.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division)

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No, I'd like a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: The records will indicate that Madam Tremblay voted against clause 3.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That's right, I'm voting against clause 3.

• 1550

[English]

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5—Purpose)

The Chair: We have a number of amendments, first BQ-2, moved by Madame Tremblay, with respect to line 18 on page 2.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): I don't know the exact protocol here, but I would suggest that our amendment number 2 is a clearer amendment than this one. I don't know how we go about dealing with two that basically say the same thing. Do we vote on one and then the other?

The Chair: Maybe. I just got these as they were stapled together, and BQ-2 is listed first. So I think we have to look at it first. Then we'll go on to the Alliance amendment, which is CA-1.

Is there debate on Bloc amendment 2? It would read from line 18

farming operations, including family farms, so that at least 80% of the business and financial services shall be provided to those farming operations.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Chair, I wonder if we could hear from Farm Credit on this, to get their reaction. Maybe at the same time they might indicate which one they would prefer to see, given the point that Mr. Anderson has raised.

The Chair: I'm just waiting a minute so everyone can read CA-1. But I'm going to go back to BQ-2, which we should deal with before we go to CA-1.

Mr. John Ryan: Do you want me to speak to that, Mr. Chair, now?

The Chair: Okay, go ahead, John.

Mr. John Ryan: Mr. Chair, our first point is that we would be opposed to putting a ratio in place of 80:20. We have several reasons for that. One is that it would very much limit the number of loans we could actually provide to businesses related to farmers, and we think that would be a detriment to the primary producer. What we've said before in committee here is that we think strengthening the value-added sector would be a benefit to the primary producer, giving them access in local markets and so on. So if you now start to limit what you want to do on the value-added side, it will actually work against, we think, the primary production side. It also may very much limit our flexibility in the future in utilizing appropriate balancing of our portfolio in respect of overall risk mix.

The other thing we want to look at here is that it may severely limit us in regard to what the market forces will be. It's perhaps fine to look at it and say, where are we today, does 80:20 work today? But if five years from now things have changed, what limitations does that put on the corporation?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly the point of this. We are concerned that the farm credit act is going to change the focus of the Farm Credit Corporation away from the primary producer and onto the agribusiness side. That is exactly the purpose of this. The FCC has stated that they'll continue to focus on primary producers. However, the meaning of the term “focus on primary producers” is not defined in the legislation, and this amendment really, I think, tries to correct that.

• 1555

The FCC itself has stated that 80% is their internal goal, and I think it's a reasonable limit that they should be under.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm not very impressed by the argument that's been made. In no way does this impede the work of the FCC. We're saying that at least 80 per cent of these services should be provided to primary producers. If they want to bring this up to 100 per cent, then they shouldn't restrict themselves. Our concern is that no more than 20 per cent of these services be provided to businesses merely related to farming. We're concerned that the FCC will change its mind and provide financial services to businesses other than primary producers to the detriment of our farmers who will no longer have access to credit. That's the crux of the problem.

By no means do we wish to stop the FCC from providing 100 per cent of its financial services to primary producers, if that's what it wants to do. If circumstances have changed too radically in five years' time, they will come before us again and requests changes to the legislation. It's always possible to amend legislation. However, they should start by giving us some guarantees that they will split their services down the middle. As we see it, small farming operations and primary producers may not be well served by this provision. That's our concern.

[English]

The Chair: Brian.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I'm speaking in a way in favour of this provision because of what I see in this section. It says “including small and medium-sized businesses, that are businesses related to farming”. In small-town rural Saskatchewan that encompasses virtually every professional and small business in those communities, from the accountant who does the tax returns, and so on.

I think this is way too sweeping a provision. The discretion there is just a mile wide. I don't know how in the world we as lawmakers could word something so loose and wide like that to let the Farm Credit Corporation run wild with this provision.

The Chair: We've been around two amendments here, and I think we have to get back to look at at least one of them specifically.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a point of order. I think the proper procedure would be to deal with the one first and then the other one second and not try to lump them together.

The Chair: No, I'm not trying to do that. I'm asking Madame Tremblay if she wants us to deal with hers first, or how we want to handle this. If she withdrew hers, then we could deal with yours, but maybe she wants to continue and to vote on each one separately.

Madame Tremblay, would you want yours put to committee?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like the limit to be at least 80 per cent. Whether we go with my amendment or with that of the Canadian Alliance, it makes no difference to me. The two amendments are substantially the same. “Not less than 80% of the Corporation's total portfolio” is just another way of saying the same thing. It shows that the clerks who drafted the amendments have creative writing skills. It's the same idea, only expressed in different ways. However, it's the idea that's important.

Therefore, if the Canadian Alliance would rather we go with its amendment instead of mine, by all means, let's get on with it.

[English]

The Chair: Are we satisfied at committee that we'd allow Madame Tremblay to withdraw her amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Larry, you have a point.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, Mr. Chair, I wanted to point out two things.

I think we were all here when we had our witnesses. Of course I understand that the Farm Credit Corporation talked about this in front of almost a hundred groups. But the CFA, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, did say they had no problems, that they would support it the way it is proposed.

I have another thought. I really appreciate the members all around the table, and right now I'm going to point to Quebec and the west. You know so much about the good work the Farm Credit Corporation is doing, but we've already agreed, nine out of ten of us, that we have no agreement today on what is a family farm. So that's already been decided. Therefore if we can't quite accept the fact of what is a family farm, that puts this out of focus a bit, Mr. Chair, in my opinion only.

The Chair: Further discussion, Murray?

• 1600

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes. John, I want you to clarify two things for me.

Without this amendment being put in where it's talking about 80%, is there a possibility with the current legislation we're looking at right now that a big equipment dealer or something like that, something that's related to farms, could come in and basically use up your loan capacity so that a farmer who is looking for a mortgage for a farm would be turned down?

Mr. John Ryan: I really don't think so. I think it's a very valid question, because it seems like the way the question is going it's an either/or situation. It's not that. We have the capacity to do both.

And to go back to Mr. McCormick's comments, this same discussion was held with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture right through to their board of directors, and we said to them, “You give us the words that give you the comfort and we'll put that in our legislation”. So we clearly do, very sincerely, take the fact that it's primary production that's our focus.

Getting into limitations like 80:20 may work well today based on what we see in the portfolio, but what's that crystal ball going to look like three to five years from now?

Mr. Murray Calder: Then my next question flips this on its head.

With this amendment as it's stated right now, would there be a chance that if a farmer wanted to go together with others and have something that would deal with value-added, for instance a number of chicken farmers going together and putting together a poultry processing plant, they could be turned down if this 80:20 were in place?

Mr. John Ryan: I don't think so. It gets down to if you're very close to your limits then you have to make a decision as to whether that is primary production or in the value-added side.

Mr. Murray Calder: Right.

Mr. John Ryan: And I think you could even complicate it further in saying some of it's value added, some of it's primary production, so where do you put it? Which bucket do you put it in? So it's the practical issues of trying to deal with that.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll tell you, we know exactly what a family farm isn't. There's no doubt about that. And a fuel dealership is not a family farm.

I know I have a neighbour who owns a fuel dealership and he also owns a farm. If he's applying for a loan as a farmer for his farming operation you very clearly will see that it's for land, cattle, or whatever. If he's applying for money for his fuel dealership, it's not the individual who is behind these companies or individual enterprises, it's the enterprise itself. So I don't think that Larry McCormick, in all due respect, should be getting hung up on the definition of family farm.

The idea of this amendment is to have it brought back so it's very clear that the primary focus of the Farm Credit Corporation is on the primary producer and that 80% of their loan money should be going to that purpose.

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I know I'm not a regular member of the committee, but I am concerned that farmers need to get market power. And the way to get market power is to be down further in the food chain to some extent. Therefore, having the ability to do some of the things Murray is talking about, creating cooperative movements or whatever the case is, is a way they can do that. Therefore I wouldn't want to see the Farm Credit Corporation's mandate restricted.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question? And I would suspect we want a recorded vote this time.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I can certainly tell you there are a lot of things I'm not sure of in terms of the family farm. We need to look at that.

Mr. Chair, I have a question.

The Chair: No. We're in a vote.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I want to clarify whether I am eligible to vote or not.

The Chair: Yes, you are. You are a member of this committee.

• 1605

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, I realize that. I just wouldn't want to take advantage of any of the opposition. I believe in voting and voting often.

The Chair: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I can't see how we can accept this amendment, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes or no.

Mr. Larry McCormick: No, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Looking at clause 5 again, we have another amendment, CA-2. Howard, I'm assuming you move this.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, I move this motion, seconded by the member from Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

The Chair: He moves that Bill C-25 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 2 by:

farming operations, including family farms and the value of services provided to businesses related to farming shall not exceed one million dollars per business.

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: With this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we're trying to ensure that the majority of FCC lending is once again focused on the primary producers. This amendment would limit the FCC's risk associated with high-value loans to agribusiness. It would help protect farmers from interest rate increases caused by increasingly risky loans by FCC. This amendment would also limit FCC's ability to directly compete with other financial institutions, such as banks and credit unions. That's my submission.

The Chair: Larry first and then Brian.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, I mentioned to a couple of my colleagues here a new operation in eastern Ontario called cranberries. We're certainly looking at expanding that with many producers. I'm just using that as an example as I speak to this amendment.

I'm sure the intent is very good, but it just sounds very limiting. I would hate to see something written out per dollar and have that mean they weren't able to put together the package because the limit had been set. I don't know when this bill will come back in the future, but with the dollar and inflation changes, writing in $1 million today is one thing, but what about tomorrow or five years from now? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Brian.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: You can correct me if I'm wrong, but in this world there are unlimited expectations and demands and limited resources. The Farm Credit Corporation seems to be indicating there's no problem and that there's lots of money for everybody concerned. But in the real world I doubt that. I thought a great Liberal principle was the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

If there aren't some reasonable restrictions put on how much money can be allocated to farm operations, it again seems to me to leave a lot of leeway and discretion for the Farm Credit Corporation to funnel money whichever way they want. The idea is to help out basic farm operations across this country, not get into Wall Street-type ventures or venture capital things, like my friend Larry is talking about.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I have a point of order. One regular member of the committee, who is not here, Mr. Chair, has a multi-million-dollar operation, and it's a family farm. There are some large farms in this country today, and I don't think it would drain all the resources... I don't want to talk about our own millionaire here, but... Thank you.

The Chair: I'm having a bit of trouble now. You spoke twice. We'll go to Paul.

• 1610

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Ryan, historically, have you received requests for million-dollar loans on numerous occasions, or is it a rarity? What do you anticipate based on our historical record?

Mr. John Ryan: I think we have to go back eight years. In 1993 we had a limit of $600,000 in place, and that was causing us problems then. So the wisdom was taken at that point in time to make those changes. We have a number of family farms on the books today that would exceed $1 million. I think what you have to look at is the total commitment. If you start with a particular farming operation or value-added and you do a round of financing today, in 24 or 36 months from now they could be looking for a second or third round of financing. The worst thing that could happen is not being able to continue to follow or support that farming operation or value-added as they continued to grow.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I agree. Thank you. I'm satisfied. I think it's important for us to understand what has been the historical record, why we've done these things, and why we should perhaps be doing it in the future.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'd point out that this amendment is not with regard to farming operations. It's with regard to the value of services provided to businesses related to farming. Those are your own words, “businesses related to farming”. This motion does not restrict the amount of money that can go to a primary farming operation.

Mr. John Ryan: I think, Mr. Chair, my comments would remain in terms of you're looking at supporting the value-added side of things and that there are benefits in doing that for primary production. If you get into your first round of financing and they're looking to expand, the worst thing that could happen is not being able to support them in their growth mode.

The Chair: Howard, I wonder if Mr. Ryan could give another figure that might be acceptable. You've argued that the $1 million is not enough.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I would amend my own motion, I suppose, if you haven't put it out yet. I'd make the motion that the $1 million figure be changed to $5 million, and that would accommodate everyone.

Mr. John Ryan: Mr. Chair, in response to your question, the board of directors has that authority today. They did set the limit back in 1995 at $20 million. That's the maximum loan size. The board is made up of twelve in total, and nine of them are primary producers. They were comfortable with that, and we abide by what's set by our board.

The Chair: You're suggesting that we don't need it in law, but we have it in the minutes of the board.

Mr. John Ryan: The fact of the matter is it is in the minutes of our board of directors as to what the limit is, and we need to apply that on a consistent basis.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Once again, we're really concerned that the loans to the agribusiness side are going to be totally unlimited. I don't think that relying on the goodwill of the bureaucrats in the Farm Credit Corporation is good enough. We have a lack of ministerial accountability in this regard, and that's what we're trying to put into the legislation.

The Chair: We'll go to Brian, and then to Madame Tremblay.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: This place is supposed to be the place that makes law. We can just pass it all on to boards. We could all go home and let boards make the decision. I'm not sure that's the right way of making law. I don't think the people of this country believe that's the right way of making law, and the Auditor General probably doesn't believe it is either.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, what I just heard lends credence to our concerns. If we read the amendment carefully, it's clear that it provides for loans of up to $1 million for businesses related to farming, not for farming operations or family farms.

We've come to realize something over the past several months. The government looks upon farming as a business or industry. It is turning away from primary producers and is more interested in providing funding for large industries that turn large profits. That's not what we want. We want farmers to earn enough to have a decent standard of living. Imposing limits is a good idea as such, but to say that the board may provide loans of up to $20 million, well we may as well pack it in and go home. It's inconceivable to even think about it. As it is, $5 million is a considerable sum of money.

• 1615

[English]

The Chair: Bob and then Alex.

Mr. Bob Speller: Suzanne, it may be because of the interpretation of this, but I disagree with your analysis of it.

I think a lot of these operations are farmers. These are groups of farmers who get together and add value to their farming operations. These are the people the FCC deals with. These are the people we're talking about. We're not talking about somebody who is all of a sudden totally separate from farming operations. Most of these in these communities are farmers themselves. They're the ones who are doing this. So this is where the value comes in, in allowing the FCC to be able to follow them along, to be able to allow them to grow and expand and to profit.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Alex and then back to Suzanne.

I'm sorry, Murray.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I have just a quick question. What is the percentage of your portfolio that exceeds $1 million?

Mr. John Ryan: I'm not sure of those actual numbers. They would be small, but there are some over $1 million today.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Is it less than 2% of your portfolio?

Mr. John Ryan: Less than 10%. Less than 2%.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: That's not very significant, even though they have a $20 million limit. It's obviously not used exceedingly.

The Chair: Just a minute, David.

Suzanne and then Murray.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I like to respond to Bob's comment. Let's suppose we start importing chicken tournedos and create an over-processing industry for poultry. This industry's operations would consist of wrapping bacon around the tournedos, adding some parsley, carrots and pepper and marketing the final product. Do you call this farming? Quite frankly, this is not farming. That's what I mean. I don't want people setting up processing businesses here and adversely affecting the revenues generated by primary producers so that ultimately, all we're left with are imported chicken tournedos. I don't want that to happen. That would mean a loss of the entire chain of production. We would lose the grain growers and sellers and the trucks that transport the grain. You know as well as I do what this would mean. It's ridiculous and that's why we are calling for limits.

[English]

The Chair: Murray and then Claude.

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chairman, I want John to clarify this. What I'm concerned about is the wording of this right here. It's the last part, “shall not exceed one million dollars per business.” During my farming career I have borrowed well over $1 million and paid it back. So in this situation—and tell me if I'm wrong—this has an accumulative effect, the way it's worded.

Hypothetically, for instance, I take out a $500,000 mortgage and I pay it off. I take out another; I pay it off. I take out the third; I don't qualify. Am I right in saying that, John?

Mr. John Ryan: With a slight change. What we have to do is when we get to the second round we ask how much is outstanding on the first one. So it's cumulative, but if it's all paid off, then it wouldn't be applicable. You'd still look at $500,000 as compared to it being cumulative.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay. In other words, if I had basically a $300,000 mortgage and I was going after something that was worth $800,000, it wouldn't apply.

Mr. John Ryan: You wouldn't qualify.

Mr. Murray Calder: Good.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I agree with you, Mrs. Tremblay. You've raised some valid points. However, I don't see how this relates to limiting production.

The trend today is toward excessive regulations, judging at least from what I've observed as a member of a number of boards of directors. We don't know where we will be in one, two or three years' time. The FCC has proven that it does good work. I'm not aware of any concrete examples of discrimination. I'm going to oppose your amendment, because I want to see a stop to limits. I don't want to set the limit at 80 per cent, because we the legislators have no idea what the situation will be like four or five years down the road. What if, because of market changes, we have to take a different approach? I'm against limits. The FCC is doing good work and there is nothing to warrant the imposition of limits of this nature. While I share your views, I don't see what the connection is with a $1 million loan. That's why I will vote against your proposed amendment.

• 1620

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: This amendment is to keep the focus on the primary producer and on the family farm. If Mr. Calder would read the previous ten words, that is the key to this. The $1 million restriction is on the value of services provided to businesses related to farming, not to the farmer, as was Murray's example. It's to the agribusiness side, not the farming side.

The Chair: I have two more people waiting to speak.

Brian.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I don't know if this is correct, but I want a clarification from Farm Credit on this point. I know that there are many farm operations in which, because of the complexity of our tax system, farm operations are divided into maybe two partnerships. Three or four different types of private limited companies and various members of the family are involved in all of these operations. In law they're all separate legal entities. How does Farm Credit Corporation deal with that? Are each of these entities able to access full levels of credit? How do you deal with that problem?

Mr. John Ryan: Basically what we referred to within Farm Credit is the business connection. In other words, if they are interrelated and the results of one are dependent on the other—results good or bad—we treat it as one. If, on the other hand, they're completely stand-alone operations, we treat them separately.

So in this situation here, if they split it up for whatever reason and we saw that there was dependency, we'd treat them as one connection, and it would be the limit proposed here of $1 million.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: But just as a follow-up on the point raised by my learned friend over there, if we can make this country much less regulated and have our tax system much simpler, a lot of this sort of need for government wouldn't be there. You would have to make decisions as to who is all tied in with this, and that's the big point. Let's try to simplify this world instead of complicating it.

The Chair: Suzanne, I think you had another point, didn't you?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: The whole point of government being involved in farm credit at all is the idea that it's in the banking business. It should only be in that area of banking, which is not being served by the private sector or where the private sector is unwilling to do it or incapable of doing it. This is basic economic theory.

You talk about big government regulation. The mere fact that you're setting up a banking institution with the broad scope of this one is putting the federal government into banking just like the Business Development Bank. We now have the Farm Credit of Canada. Mr. Chairman, that is the economics of this. That's what we're debating, not about whether there is a little bit more regulation or not.

The Chair: Have we completed our discussion? Do we want a recorded vote again, or are we satisfied with on division?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: On division, the Canadian Alliance votes for this motion.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Moving on, then, Howard, to CA-3, also in clause 5.

• 1625

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Once again, the objective here is to limit lease financing to primary producers.

The justification for this amendment is similar to amendment CA-2, to keep the focus of the Farm Credit Corporation on primary producers. We don't see why the Farm Credit Corporation has to provide lease financing to non-farm business in such a big way.

This amendment would also limit the Farm Credit Corporation Canada's ability to directly compete with private financial institutions in the lease market, which is fairly lucrative and is being served by the private sector.

I believe this amendment would lessen the objections to this bill that have been brought forward by credit unions and the banking industry.

The Chair: Howard, your explanation of it means that, in terms of leasing, the leasing would only be dealing with farming operations. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, that's right. It's restricted to that.

The Chair: All right.

Larry.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, Mr. Chair, I have two things.

If all members recall, we heard the CFA spokesperson say we certainly need to have more options available for farmers and options available for farming operations with value-added. Again, this would limit it. I think our farmers and producers can benefit from value-added production, and value-adding of their products and agribusiness. I think it's a way of life that we need to grow.

Thank you.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion?

Howard, anything else before we vote?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Clearly, in an area where the private sector is quite capable and willing to provide the service, government shouldn't be pushing into that area and providing what really amounts to unfair competition, due to the fact that Farm Credit pays no taxes to this country and is simply a government policy initiative.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're moving on to amendment CA-4, moved by Howard again.

Howard, do you want to explain it?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes. This is to limit the equity financing to businesses whose majority owners are primary producers.

This amendment would help ensure the primary focus of Farm Credit remains in farming operations. Some of our witnesses have expressed concern that farmers may pay higher interest rates to cover the increased risks associated with equity financing, which is more risky.

The amendment would limit the Farm Credit Corporation's direct competition with other financial institutions, such as banks and credit unions. We've heard witnesses say how important they are to our small communities, in particular in the rural areas across the country.

I think our amendment would still allow the FCC to help develop farmer-driven value-added processing, but would limit their ability to lend to large agribusiness. Here again, it reinforces Farm Credit in saying the focus is to be on small and medium businesses that directly help improve the financial outlook for farmers.

The Chair: Is there any further debate? Suzanne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Just to clarify things, I'd like to ask a simple question, Mr. Chairman.

Consider amendment CA-5 which proposes a change on line 43 of page 2. It should read differently from amendment CA-4. What gives here? I'm talking about amendments CA-4 and CA-5a. I think some explanations are in order.

• 1630

[English]

The Chair: Howard, can you explain that?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: There are amendments here. Once again, it's a change to still allow the FCC to help develop farmer-driven value-added production. It would limit the FCC's direct competition with the financial institutions, banks, and credit unions. The banks and credit unions have made it quite clear they are concerned about the competition from a government company like the Farm Credit Corporation.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Mr. Chair, I know banks are concerned about some things. I believe the banks and the CBA said they welcome and actually look to the FCC to be there for the equity market and the capital.

We haven't all had time to read the news clippings. I believe the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, in the past week, has also welcomed this. They say it's a necessary step for the FCC. I just put that out. I can't question their desire to support their own province.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We didn't hear from them, I don't think. I wouldn't want this committee to rely on news clippings.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Oops. I won't go there at the moment.

The Chair: Claude, and then David.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: Which version is the correct one, since the French and English clauses are different?

[English]

The Chair: I would hope they're both the same.

A voice: The line numbers are different.

The Chair: The line numbers are different? Do the lines differ, though, in the text? Why do they do that, Normand?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Dauphin: They're on the page, but they're different.

[English]

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is it the French version that has run over onto the next page?

The Chair: We're trying to get that clarified.

Are you satisfied, Claude?

Mr. Claude Duplain: Yes.

The Chair: David.

Mr. David Anderson: I wanted to comment that it's no wonder both the banks and the credit unions want the FCC to be involved in this. These loans are too high-risk and they will not take them.

I think this is the most important amendment we have here. There is a potential for all kinds of boondoggles in this area. If you do not limit this to farming operations, you're going to bring in all kinds of people. You'll bring in speculators, who are not necessarily committed in any way to agriculture, because the high-risk and high-return loans are here.

I appreciate what Mr. Ryan's doing today. He is trying to get as big a mandate as possible in terms of his ability to lend money. I think we have a requirement to show some leadership here. This is a very good area for us to put in some restrictions. If we're not going to restrict the other areas, this equity financing is an area where we can show some responsibility and leadership and restrict it to primary producers.

The Chair: Anything further, Howard?

• 1635

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Once again, if you look at subsection 4(2), our concern is about businesses related to farming. We're trying to keep the Farm Credit Corporation down to its primary purpose, which is the primary farmers. Our amendment says “whose majority ownership is held by farmers”, so that's the difference. Are we going to have the Farm Credit Corporation move into any area they want, or are we going to try, as elected members of Parliament, to keep them focused on the primary producer? That is why we say “whose majority ownership is held by farmers”.

That's as simple as the amendment is.

The Chair: We're voting now on CA-4. From my understanding, CA-4 would limit—

Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chair, I would like to hear John's response to what David said. David raised a very credible point, and I want to hear whether or not in fact this piece of legislation covers that.

Mr. John Ryan: Thank you, Mr. Calder.

On the point you're making, David, as it relates to risk, I will agree with you that this is higher-risk financing. But by the same token, from the consultations we had right across the country, there is clearly a need recognized for venture capital or equity capital in the agricultural industry. Nobody is there taking that particular lead today.

We feel we have 40 years of experience under our belt in that particular area. We have no intention of going out and doing reckless or foolish things. We feel we have the capacity, working with others in the venture capital industry as a whole, to be able to deliver in this particular area.

I think the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has stated that the primary producers, on their own, are not going to be able to do it. They need others to come to the table to help on the equity side of things, and that's the gap we're trying to fill.

The Chair: Okay, back to Brian again.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I just want to relate one real disaster that I can recall in Saskatchewan. Maybe it's part of a legacy of the 1980s. We had a program called the community bond program. You could write a book on the very thing Mr. Anderson has referred to, about the people who got involved with things, got hold of money, milked the thing for what they could, and then were long gone. These businesses were not viable. It was a total disaster—90% of it was a total disaster.

Maybe somehow it is reassuring that you know better, but I've seen enough of these things come and go that I'm a little bit leery of them, without some proper restraint on them. This seems to be a common-sense type of proposal that would put some limit on this and try to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

The people who come along with these things are pretty fancy salespeople. They'll tell you they're the next Bill Gates or something, if you listen to them long enough. But I think we need to be careful; we're dealing with public moneys.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We'll go back to previous lives here.

I was in the RCMP, and I saw bureaucrats handling money and lending money out in the province of Manitoba. The point I'm going to make here is simply that the bureaucrats handing out the money are not under the same constraints and pressures to produce and take good due diligence of moneys, the way private corporations and private companies are. As a result, we've seen the influence of the federal government—right now it's a Liberal government, but there could be other governments and they would be just as bad—in regard to the Business Development Bank.

The Farm Credit Corporation is very much under the minister responsible. Mr. Ryan, you said in your presentation that the Farm Credit Corporation doesn't create policy, but they do take direct notice of policy, as handed down from the federal government. That's why we are trying to restrict your operations to related business enterprises, where the majority of ownership is held by farmers, so the direct primary producer is being helped in this, and it is not some scheme created, as has been suggested, by fly-by-nighters.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1640

The Chair: We will now go to amendment CA-5, still in clause 5, looking at it after line 43.

Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Just quickly, again it's not directed only at the Farm Credit Corporation, so much as it restricts the ability of a federal government to have the Farm Credit Corporation carry out policies that are not in keeping with good free enterprise and private enterprise. As a result, we would like to see farmland acquired through the normal course of operations disposed of at market prices as quickly as possible, and not held longer than five years. Market values go up and down, and surely in that course of time, even if market values have gone down, the primary producer would be able to buy that land at the lower market price, in that regard.

The second part of the amendment certainly ensures that the Farm Credit Corporation will not hold the land acquired through loan default for more than five years, and will get it back into the marketplace, where farmers can use it to produce the food we need.

The Chair: Bob.

Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Chairman, will we be voting on this in two different votes? I can see accepting the second part on the five years, but I'm not sure if I can accept the first part.

Mr. David Anderson: Is the first part that it's disposed of at fair market value?

Mr. Bob Speller: It's not clear. The fair market value is fine, but I'm saying it's between (a) and (b).

The Chair: I'll leave that in the hands of the mover.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: If I could just clarify that a little bit, we would like that first part to be in there because we don't want the Farm Credit Corporation to have the ability to actually go and buy land—acquire land through acquisition. We'd like to see them certainly lend the money for it, and if they end up as the owner because the land is their security for a loan, that's how they would come into possession of the land, as opposed to buying it.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Ryan: There are, I guess, two different points. Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom, for the clarification there.

I think on the first one, in dealing with the farmlands, it is clearly not our intent to acquire blocks of land and be in the land management or land banking business, as we talked about in earlier committee meetings.

However, I should bring to the attention of the members of the committee the point that was raised by the Canadian young farmers that maybe there's an opportunity, on the intergenerational transfer of farms, for you to be able to acquire land directly from family members and lease it back to them over a long period of time, so they can eventually acquire ownership of it. That's about the only situation I see.

I don't know how this is going to play out in the years to come, but as you're looking at it in the task force, the intergenerational transfer of farms is something you will have to address.

As it relates to this second part, (b), in terms of selling land at fair market value as quickly as possible, within no more than five years, we're quite comfortable with that because it's clearly what we want to do. I think it's consistent with the remarks we had at previous committee meetings.

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Once again, the Farm Credit Corporation, Mr. Ryan, is asking us to buy a pig a poke there.

The parliamentary secretary needs to address this issue. We certainly know that in the throne speech, and in Minister Vanclief's statements he's talked about this transition and how to get farmland from one generation to the next. But I don't think giving the Farm Credit Corporation an open book to do that is the right way.

I think the minister should show some leadership and ministerial responsibility by setting out clear definitions and a clear plan, as to how he wants Farm Credit to do this, as opposed to leaving it wide open. We vote it in and accept that maybe they'll do the right thing, and maybe they won't—that's not parliamentary responsibility to me, as an elected member of Parliament.

I'd like to hear the parliamentary secretary talk to that.

• 1645

The Chair: Just a moment. Kevin is on next. I thought Kevin had... or Brian, sorry.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: History would tell us we've been down that road in one province already, and quite frankly, it's not my concept or belief that in Canada the solution to our farmland is for the state to own the farmland and have our farmers rent the land from the state. I've seen other countries that operate that way, and if that's the way of the future in agriculture, sorry, I think you're dead wrong. That's not an avenue we should be pursuing.

The Chair: Is there further discussion then?

Mr. Larry McCormick: Well, Mr. Chair, I think you have to allow me a moment here, just because of the words thrown out there.

I, as well as other members around this table, have met with at least 100 farmers from three western provinces—all since Christmas, I believe. And we've all heard about the fact that in many of those rooms across the country we see hair that's almost as grey as mine is.

Now, three years ago, when the international plowing match was in the riding I'm fortunate to represent, the minister was there and announced an agri-start program. There are three prongs to that program, which I'm not an expert on. Yet today I still hear on the street in small-town Canada and on farms that we need even more flexibility to better allow young farmers into this.

So I think there's a great need for this legislation to be flexible enough that we can make more adjustments so we can have more farmers in. I'm sure the intent's good, but I think it could backfire on what we want to accomplish here, all of us.

Perhaps the mover might split it, but otherwise...

The Chair: David's on next.

Mr. David Anderson: I find this conversation and the comments of the last few minutes quite a bit more interesting and enlightening than the changes to the FCC, because if we're potentially moving to a land bank situation, we have a whole different issue to take a look at here. We've already tried that, as Brian said, in Saskatchewan, and we don't need to be doing that again.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Who said that?

Mr. David Anderson: If you're talking about using FCC financing to lease land back to young farmers, then I think—

Mr. Larry McCormick: I didn't mention that.

Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Ryan did. Let me finish.

We have a whole different situation here from what we've had. FCC will be doing a completely different job from what it's done, and we will find ourselves very much in a situation such as we had ten years ago, with you holding a massive amount of land for the public.

I don't know, I don't think you're going to get support for that in western Canada, anyway. We've already tried it in Saskatchewan. It didn't work once and it won't work again.

The Chair: Bob Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller: I just want to ask—it looks like we're getting near the end anyway—if Howard is willing to split it, in his comments when he talks about that, whether or not he can't...

The Chair: Howard.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, I'll answer that question in just one second.

Clearly, the problem with this is that the minister and the Prime Minister have not seen fit to be up front with Canadians and Canadian farmers about what their plans are. They have talked in generalities about the vision and the future of rural Canada, and now we're finding out in committee at this late moment that it appears very likely that some transition plan is going to be delivered through Farm Credit Corporation that the minister has never told us the details of, and we can't vote for that.

Just to clarify, I will not split these amendments. I want those amendments to stay together and I want them passed.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Ryan: Mr. Chair, I would clarify that this did not come from the minister. All I was trying to do was illustrate or indicate this is what a group of young Canadian farmers said when we started to talk to them about what other things we should look at doing. They asked us to look at that. We've had no request from the minister, nor had any discussion with the minister as it relates to any kind of transitional program, as we're talking about here. It was for information and to put it on the table for committee members only.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Ryan, I thought this legislation was drafted by the government. I didn't think that Farm Credit drafted this legislation. Of course this came from the government, this Bill C-25. It didn't come from Farm Credit.

• 1650

Mr. John Ryan: No, except what I was trying to get across is we had consultations right across this country. What we tried to do was bring back the views we heard on a collective basis to say what changes should be necessary for the Farm Credit so we're relevant on a go-forward basis.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: And the minister has never divulged to us and the Canadian public what he and you were talking about, to prepare us for this and explain how it's going to work, what some of the details are, what their vision is, and how it's going to help agriculture and young farmers. That's what we're missing. We're being asked to vote and buy something that is a big question mark, something the minister never even saw fit to explain to us.

The Chair: Now, Howard, do you want—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I want a recorded vote on this one. This is really important.

The Chair: A recorded vote then, with a yes or no.

Mr. Murray Calder: It's unfortunate that this isn't going to be split, so I have to vote against it.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Next is amendment NDP-1, moved by Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: If I could speak to it very briefly, Mr. Chair, we're trying to put some regulatory power into the act where we don't think it currently exists.

We've heard it here today. How do you define a “business related to farming”? We think the amendment would give the Governor in Council an opportunity to define what constitutes the business of farming and whether Farm Credit Canada is still focused as it should be, on the family farm.

More importantly, it would give everybody, all of the people in the industry—banks, credit unions, producers, including the FCC and agribusiness—an opportunity to be consulted before regulations are made. We think it's very important to give the stakeholders input into defining “business related to farming” and the “primary focus” by requiring these definitions.

I think it would address one of the objections we heard yesterday from the credit union representatives who were before the committee.

The Chair: Did I see two hands over here? Madam Tremblay? No.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Again, I'm going to refer to my past life. I cannot possibly believe we're going to start making laws where the key terms are going to be passed off to somebody else to define.

If you want to read an act and understand it, surely at the beginning of the act the key terms should be defined and clearly set out. To pass something like that off to somebody else seems to me to be extraordinary. That's the key to interpreting any act or piece of legislation.

There's enough stuff passed by the Governor in Council and regulatory groups and boards like yours without us taking key legislation, taking key terms out of it, and passing it off to somebody else to define. That's our job. We're parliamentarians. We are here to make the law. We're passing the buck on to somebody else if we do that.

So I can't see supporting something like that. I find it an extraordinary suggestion.

• 1655

The Chair: I'm looking for advice on this. The way it's presented, it says “regulations”. The advice I have is that we should deal with clause 5 as a whole, before we look at this amendment coming before the table.

Does everyone agree that we should carry clause 5 before we come to this?

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Clause 5.1 deals with advice in terms of regulations. Is there further debate on this new clause 5.1?

Mr. Dale Canham (Vice-President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Farm Credit Corporation): Perhaps I can comment briefly on the concept.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'm Dale Canham, general counsel with Farm Credit. From the legal perspective, I would just offer that adding this type of reference to a consultative process may be cumbersome, and may result in a loss of flexibility for the corporation.

At present, the corporation is governed by legislation that doesn't have a similar regulatory requirement. I submit that adding this could result in a more complicated and cumbersome process, which would perhaps remove the flexibility the corporation now has.

The Chair: Is there any further debate? Dick, would you like to speak further to this?

Mr. Dick Proctor: We put it forward because nobody here today can define what a family farm is, or what “business related to farming” is. We think that if something is approaching, what we've proposed here would give stakeholders an opportunity to come back. It wouldn't be up to the Farm Credit Corporation alone to determine that.

The Chair: So the advice I have is that it could be written in.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

The Chair: We have a Bloc amendment on clause 7.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm not certain that now is the right time.

[English]

The Chair: I'm having some difficulty with this too, Suzanne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can be of some assistance.

This provision was copied verbatim from the National Parks Act, the legislation that established Parks Canada. It was inserted immediately before the consequential amendments in the National Parks Act.

It would be an addition as such and could be inserted before or after the "Transitional Provisions". However, I don't see why it should be inserted in clause 7.

• 1700

[English]

The Chair: Madame Tremblay, would you like to withdraw that now and bring it up later, before we conclude?

Unless I'm mistaken—and maybe the Farm Credit Corporation could clarify this—I understand that under federal legislation, the Official Languages Act applies to all our operations.

Mr. Dale Canham: That's correct.

The Chair: Is there some concern that it doesn't, Suzanne?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, it was added to the National Parks Act when Parks Canada was created. This was done in response to a specific request from our colleague Mauril Bélanger who was very adamant that this provision be inserted.

I've just returned from a one-week trip to the Maritimes during which time I met with people from the four Atlantic provinces. People from the New Brunswick region told us that since the merger with Halifax, they have had problems receiving services in French. Yet, the department's designation is Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Therefore, since this legislation will affect farmers and since there are Francophone farmers across Canada, I would like the FCC not to lose sight of its obligations in the official languages field. It wouldn't do any harm to remind it of its responsibility by including this provision in the bill. It would simply serve as a reminder. Besides, a similar provision was included in the legislation resulting in the creation of Parks Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Our legal counsel says that according to page 654 of Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, an amendment “must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or the clause under consideration”. As members know, the section reads as follows:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee, or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

That suggests, Suzanne, that as the chair, I would have to rule it out of order. I regret that. It does say that with some acts, if we're looking at a total bill, but this is merely an amending bill, so we wouldn't be looking at that.

I hope the committee is satisfied with that ruling, and I guess that's the ruling we have to take.

So this completes our amendments.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand what you're saying and I really do want to understand.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have another copy en français?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We could include it if it were a complete bill, but these are merely amendments, and all we can do is propose amendments to these amendments.

Mr. Claude Duplain: Why haven't you simply proposed an amendment?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I can't. It's not a separate act. It's amending legislation. Montpetit-Marleau... In any event, what's the point. This is a useless exercise.

[English]

(Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to)

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We're against every clause.

(Clauses 9 to 22 inclusive agreed to on division)

• 1705

The Chair: We're all in a bad mood today.

Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I request a recorded vote.

[English]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 4)

The Chair: The bill has been carried by the recorded vote. Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you for your time this afternoon.

For being such good members of the committee, we will give you tomorrow morning free of committee.

I declare the meeting adjourned.