AGRI Committee Meeting

     Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.

    I must inform members of the committee that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order, nor participate in debate.

    We will now proceed to the election of the chair.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.

    I am ready to receive motions for the chair.

     Madam Clerk, reluctantly, I nominate Pat Finnigan, and I say “reluctantly”, reluctantly.

    It has been moved by Mr. Drouin that Mr. Finnigan be elected as chair of the committee.

    Are there any further motions?

    Pursuant to the House order of Wednesday, September 23, I will now proceed to a recorded division unless there is agreement.

    Do I see agreement?

    I declare the motion carried, and Mr. Pat Finnigan duly elected chair of the committee.

    I invite Mr. Finnigan to take the chair.

     Thank you, Madam Clerk, and thank you for the confidence of the committee.

    Francis, you do have a way with words, and I appreciate it.

    Madam Clerk, please proceed with the election of the vice-chairs.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the official opposition.

    I am prepared to receive motions for the first vice-chair.

     I'd like to propose Mr. Perron.

    I apologize, Ms. Bessette, but it's for the first vice-chair, which must be a member of the official opposition.

    Mr. Steinley.

     I would propose Ms. Lianne Rood.

    Are there any further motions for the first vice-chair?

    It has been moved by Mr. Steinley that Ms. Rood be elected as the first vice-chair of the committee.

    Pursuant to the House order of Wednesday, September 23, 2020—

    Pardon me, Madam Clerk. I have a question about how we operate.

    I thought that someone was going to nominate me to be second vice-chair.

    Currently, we're doing the first vice-chair. The second vice-chair will be in a moment.

    Okay.

    I am sorry. I thought that you had moved on.

    Okay.

    So we can proceed.

    For the position of first vice-chair, are there any further motions?

    Is there agreement?

    Seeing agreement, I declare the motion carried, and Ms. Rood is duly elected first vice-chair of the committee.

    Moving on to the position of the second vice-chair, pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.

    I'm now prepared to receive motions for the second vice-chair.

    I'd like to propose Mr. Perron.

    Are there any further motions for the position of second vice-chair?

    It has been moved by Ms. Bessette that Mr. Perron be elected as second vice-chair of the committee.

    Is there agreement?

    Seeing agreement, I declare the motion carried, and Mr. Perron duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.

    Admit it, you were scared, Mr. Perron.

    I was terrified, my friend.

     Thank you, Madam Clerk.

    I would first like to congratulate the vice-chair, Ms. Rood and the second vice-chair, Mr. Perron.

    Now we can go to the routine motions.

    Mr. Blois, go ahead.

    I'd like to move routine motions, which I will read for you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     Thank you, Mr. Blois.

     Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

    Thank you very much, Chair. Off the bat, it's great to see everyone. Welcome to the new members of our committee.

    I know there were some discussions among the parties at procedure and House affairs. I think 99% of what was read in is good to go. Some slight amendments were made. Kody has read out all of them so I'll start from the beginning.

    If we go to the section that's dealing with the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, my first amendment would be that instead of it saying “each party” it would be “each recognized party”.

    The substantive amendment I have to make would be going to the section dealing with the time for opening remarks and questioning for witnesses. Before I move my amendment, let me explain the rationale.

    As we know in this committee, we've often lost a lot of time to opening statements. We haven't got around to as many questions as we would have liked. I think we've lost some witness testimony as a result. Following the example that was made at procedure and House affairs committee, I suggest the following amendments to the routine motion that was just proposed.

    That first sentence would read, “That witnesses be given five minutes for their opening statements; that whenever possible witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance.”

    The other amendment I would like to make is in the section dealing with second and subsequent rounds. Here, I'd like the order to be changed so it goes Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and half minutes; New Democratic Party, two and half minutes; Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes.

    That concludes the amendments I want to make. Again, if you're looking for precedents, this was established at procedure and House affairs.

    Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

     Go ahead, Mr. Drouin. Is this related to the amendments?

    No, Mr. Chair, I want to speak to the routine motion. I thought this was a done deal. I don't think we have an issue with Mr. MacGregor. I'm not speaking to the motion.

    Merci.

    We'll hold your place there.

    Mr. Perron.

    I want to talk about the housekeeping motions as well. I believe I will support Mr. MacGregor's amendment, if I am right in understanding that, in the second round, the Conservative Party would have five minutes, the Liberal Party would also have five minutes, the Bloc Québécois would have two and a half minutes, the New Democratic Party would also have two and a half minutes, the Conservative Party would have five minutes and the Liberal Party would have five minutes.

    Did I hear what you read earlier correctly, Mr. MacGregor? I might have suggested that we ensure that every party can participate in every round, but it is six of one, half dozen of the other. So I am going to approve this proposal.

    I'm okay with the 10-minute rounds. I think my colleague was referring to the COVI committee when we had a ton of witnesses we had to get through in a very short time. They were stacked. We did not have sufficient time to hear from them. I think that, with the studies going forward, 10 minutes is a good amount of time. We have a lot of information to get through in this committee from our stakeholders. I don't believe that five minutes is enough time.

    I would like to stay with that 10 minutes.

     We have a motion and an amendment on the table. If there are no more interventions, we will vote on the amendment.

    Mr. MacGregor.

     I appreciate Ms. Rood's comments about the five minutes. I'm willing to meet her in the middle. We could go to seven and a half. I'm really interested in making sure as many MPs as possible get to that second round.

    Yes, I'm fine with that, Alistair. That's a good compromise.

    Any other comments on the amendment?

    If not, we shall vote on the amendment.

    Mr. Chair, could you clarify the speaking order that was suggested?

    Mr. MacGregor, would you like to clarify exactly what you're proposing?

    Yes, and this is also for the clerk's benefit as well. In the first sentence, it would read, “That witnesses be given seven and a half minutes for their opening statements and that whenever possible, witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance.” That concludes the substantive amendment.

    Going down to the section dealing with the second and subsequent rounds, the new order, as proposed by myself, would now read, “Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes; Bloc Québécois, two and a half minutes; New Democratic Party, two and a half minutes; Conservative Party, five minutes; Liberal Party, five minutes.”

    You've all heard the amendment. We're going to have to have two votes, one by one.

    The first amendment was to add the word “recognized”, so that it reads “recognized party”.

    Madam Clerk, do we need to vote on each individually, or can we get a consensus?

    If the desire is to pass all of the amendments, then you could pass them all in one shot. Otherwise, each amendment would need to be made separately, and voted on separately.

    I'll leave it to your discretion.

    Are we all in favour to pass everything in one vote, the total amendments that were proposed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Good. Those in favour of the amendments, raise your hand.

    (Amendments agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    Mr. Chair, could you clarify something?

    You say “raise your hand”, but is that on the screen?

    Yes, it is on the screen.

    Very good.

    Right. We've got to vote on the motion now.

    Mr. Chair, the amendment is adopted. If it is the desire to pass all the routine motions as one, indeed the motion as amended.

    We now need to vote on the motion as amended.

    (Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Before I move to Mr. Drouin, I want to welcome the whole committee. I'm really looking forward to helping our ag sector, and good co-operation from all. Welcome to the new members. I'm really excited to move on to some of the things we want to do in agriculture.

     Mr. Drouin.

    Mr. Chair, first, I want to congratulate Ms. Rood as vice-chair. I know she's not new to this committee, so it's great to have her here as well.

    I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Perron as well.

     I'm trying to seek the committee's willingness. When we last ended the committee, we were speaking about BRMs. Through luck, I would say, Saskatchewan is now in an election and this actually gives us an opportunity to establish and finish the business risk management report.

    I'm trying to get a sense of whether the committee would be willing to get the draft report back to committee, so we can finish as soon as possible.

    I'm not moving anything now. I'm just trying to see whether the committee would be in agreement to do that over the next few weeks while we are back. Perhaps, at a later date, and depending on what we decide after that, we could discuss other matters and perhaps even the subcommittee could decide on what it wants to do later on.

    Thank you.

    You have the floor, Mr. Perron.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Actually, that is sort of tied into my question. I was wondering if we could introduce motions today. I believe the clerk said earlier that we could not. Of course, I would agree with Mr. Drouin.

    If we can introduce motions, I have some too.

    Mr. Perron, I believe that it was not possible to do so until the chair and vice-chairs were elected.

    Now we can receive motions.

    Madam Clerk, is that right?

    Yes, sir, that is correct.

    Okay.

    First, I support Mr. Drouin's idea. It is one of the motions I wanted to put forward. The clerk has the three motions that I wanted to propose to the committee.

    May I read them now?

    It is up to you, Mr. Perron. We can also pick up the discussion about continuing the study on business risk management programs. It is up to you.

    I do not want to lose my turn. So I will present the other two motions.

    You have the floor.

    Okay.

    Here is the first motion:

    

    The second motion is as follows:

    

    I believe that the second motion, in particular, may address the concerns of several members from a number of the various parties present.

    The third motion simply asks that we do what we intended to do before prorogation.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Perron.

    Mr. MacGregor has the floor.

    Can I just clarify something?

    Are you moving the other motion for the BRM?

    I understood that Mr. Drouin had recommended that we take up the report again and continue the study. That is essentially what my motion says.

    I can read it again. Here it is:

    

    So we have a motion on the floor.

     Mr. MacGregor, please go ahead.

    Yes. That's what I was wondering about. The procedural part of me is now happy because I believe we finally have a motion before us about formally continuing the BRM study. I think it includes all the language we need to include and all the witness testimony we've heard.

    The majority of us have that draft report, so if this motion is authorizing us to pick up where we left off, I'm good with it.

    I think we would be in agreement as well to pick up where we left off on the BRM study, provided that the language has all of the necessities in it to be able to take into account all of the previous testimony and the draft report that's already written.

    I see other hands up. We do have a motion on the floor. Put your hand up if it's to discuss this motion, and then we can vote.

    Mr. Blois, do you want to comment on this motion?

    I'm just seeking a little bit of clarity. What I understand is that we have a motion right now to basically bring back the BRM study from where we were in the last session. Is that correct? Am I fair in saying that's what Mr. Perron just brought forward?

    That's correct, yes.

    Okay.

    Now, the secondary ones, I think, have merit, but I wonder whether or not they would be best suited.... We've just established the subcommittee under routine motions. Obviously, we have work to do right now on the BRM for the next couple of sessions in preparation for the ministers conference in November. I wonder whether or not that can be best established in the subcommittee, so that we can work collaboratively to set an agenda.

    I think Mr. Perron raised some good measures, but perhaps they can be tabled for now, and we can deal with those in subcommittee and come back with more.... I don't have it in front of me either; that's part of the challenge.

    Only one motion has been moved. The other ones right now have been read. I think we could deal with this one right now. I think it would be appropriate if we get that out of the way, and then we could move on to other business. Are we good on that?

    Mr. Perron, do you have anything else to add?

    Yes, Mr. Chair, I would like a clarification.

    You say we have one motion. We are actually voting to resume the supply management study. Is that right?

    Yes, that is right.

    We shall vote on that motion.

    Monsieur Perron, can you read your motion again for the group?

    Yes, of course, and perhaps I can read it slower. So I move the following:

    You've all heard the motion. Are we ready for the vote?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Perron.

    Now we can move on to other business.

    Kody, do you have anything else to add on to your intervention?

    Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we've now set the course, thanks to Mr. Perron and his motion, and that BRM is going to be our focus for the next couple of weeks in terms of getting that report ready.

    This committee has a great history of working together, all members on here. Of course, Ms. Rood is now the shadow critic, and I believe whoever would be on our side and you, Mr. Chair, along with Mr. Perron and Mr. MacGregor.... I think we should leave that work to them to decide if we can come to some type of agreement and then basically move forward on any additional work from there.

    I would recommend that we've done our part here. We should focus on working with the clerk on what our schedule could look like in terms of the drafting of where we left off. I think that the additional motions that Mr. Perron has put out have merit. I'd like to see them in more detail. This is the hard part of meeting virtually; it's difficult.

    I like that he mentioned the environment. There were some elements in the Speech from the Throne that members might want to do, but I think it's best to deal with that in the subcommittee where it's a little bit tidier and easier to exchange ideas and information.

    Just on a point of technical clarity, Mr. Steinley had raised his hand on camera and did not get recognized. When we want to speak, would you suggest we use the participants menu—the raised hand or the lowered hand—or would you like us to raise our hands?

    I just want to make sure Mr. Steinley gets in there.

    The only time I ask for a raised hand is when we vote. That's how I recognize everyone in favour or not. If you want to get into the speaking order, use the “raise hand” function, if you can.

    Perfect. Thank you.

    Thank you.

    Monsieur Lehoux.

    I will yield to Mr. Steinley for the time being and wait for my turn, because I believe he raised his hand before I did.

    All right. Thank you, Mr. Lehoux.

    Mr. Steinley, you have your hand raised. Go ahead.

    It's along the same line of thinking that Mr. Blois had. Should we bring forward motions that we want to study now or send those to the subcommittee so that the members have them before we start this meeting? I am a new member. I know that we have been talking about the BRM programs from the last committee that was sitting before COVID-19, and we do have some motions we'd like to bring forward.

    Would everyone like them ahead of time, or should we put some on the record now so that we know what direction we'd like to go in, moving forward?

    It's up to the committee. As Mr. Blois said, we can all submit the motions and then take them to the subcommittee, where we can look at each of them and then prioritize the ones we want to move forward with. That's one way of doing it. We can also deal with them right now, if that's what the committee wants. It's up to the committee.

    You have the floor, Mr. Perron.

    Of course, I would not object to us meeting as a subcommittee to improve a proposal, especially one that deals with the environment and support for farm workers. I believe that each of the political parties, in its own way, has its own particular concerns in this regard. It might be a good idea, but I would like us to hold on to it until we implement it.

    On the other hand, with regard to the motion on the supply-managed industries and companies that have not yet received any compensation, a decision was already made in the last Parliament. You may tell me that it fell through, but we have just decided that we are going to continue with the business risk management program. So it would make sense to undertake the study that we were going to undertake two days after prorogation and that was already set up. I am asking my colleagues how they feel about this. We could vote on it and agree to meet as a subcommittee to properly develop the environmental proposal. I feel that is a good idea.

    Mr. Perron, so you are suggesting that we complete our study, because we have already voted to continue work that we had already begun, but if I understand correctly, you also want to put forward a motion that we continue the study that we were supposed to do on supply management.

    Did I understand what you said correctly?

    Yes. I am well aware that my motion on support for agriculture, environmental protection and an analysis of the real effects is completely new and that this is our first meeting where, as an exception, we are allowed to introduce motions without 48 hours' notice. I am well aware that this merits some discussion, and I am happy to agree. Compromise is my middle name, as you know.

    With respect to the study on supply management and the producers who have received no compensation, we were supposed to start it on August 21 or August 22, if memory serves. I feel that we could do what we intended to do before prorogation, because we had approved it.

    I move that, if my colleagues agree.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Lehoux, you raised your hand?

    I had raised my hand because I wanted a clarification. We agreed to start again with the study on risk management programs. We had already filed a preliminary report.

    My question was more related to the clerk's question about when we can ultimately proceed. I know there was a meeting, but you can understand, with the election in Saskatchewan, things have changed a little. However, we should not unduly delay tabling our final report for too long.

    Thank you, Mr. Lehoux.

    Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We all agree on the urgency of setting up risk management programs and we want to give you the mandate, Mr. Chair, to table the report in the House as soon as possible.

    If the committee agrees, I suggest that we begin the study as soon as possible. As soon as the report is completed, we should schedule a subcommittee meeting. I know that Mr. Steinley had some studies to suggest. Mr. Perron has mentioned another one. So I think we could all talk about it in subcommittee. My suggestion does not mean that I do not respect all the members here, but when there are seven cooks in the kitchen, things move slowly. So I feel that this should be sent to subcommittee. Then we would inform the committee that we have agreed on the agenda for the next few months.

    For the time being, the risk management programs study is most pressing. Let us take the report back to the House. Then, as soon as that is done, the subcommittee can meet and discuss what is going to happen over the next few months.

    That is what I suggest, otherwise we will be running around in circles forever.

    Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

     Just to clarify, the subcommittee can meet while we're doing the BRM. We could have a separate meeting of the subcommittee to try to look at future business. That can happen at the same time. We don't have to wait until the end of that.

    Mr. Steinley.

    Yes, thank you very much. That was the clarification I was looking for.

    I agree with Mr. Drouin. I think that we should move forward with the BRM and get that done as soon as possible, and then I'll be putting my motion forward to my representative on the subcommittee—or else we can go around in a circle.

    I think we can move forward in that direction.

    I'll echo what's already been said by Mr. Drouin and Mr. Steinley. I think that's the best approach. We've had a productive start and good agreement on this committee. I go back to the history of our working collaboratively to get results for the people we represent in this committee. I think it's best that we leave the motion that was put out, along with the other motions that might be coming, for the subcommittee. We have established BRM.

    Mr. Perron mentioned supply management. We never agreed to do a study, and I just want to clarify that for the record. I think he was mentioning an emergency meeting that was suggested to be called. I think there's no problem discussing that. Our priority right now has to be BRM. I have the most supply-managed farms east of Montreal, and I'm happy to have a discussion on that in the months ahead because I think it's an important topic, but let's leave that for the subcommittee. Let's focus on BRM, and then move on.

    Is your hand up, Mr. Lehoux?

    Yes, I would like a clarification.

    I agree with the previous speakers, because I also have a motion to put forward. I will send it to the committee for consideration.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Perron, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    This is the last time I am going to say this.

    I feel we could even vote on it. I understand my friend Mr. Blois; they may not have voted in favour of the motion, but it was the committee's decision. It was an emergency motion signed by four members of the committee, by our friends in the Conservative Party, to clarify the situation, and that has not changed at all.

    I do not want to interfere with the risk management report. This did not interfere with it in August; it should not interfere with it now, and it will not slow anything down either. I believe we can pick up what the committee intended to do and was doing in the first session. Then, for anything new, I agree with everyone; let us meet in subcommittee. We have nothing new here, it is simply a matter of looking at those supply management sectors that have yet to receive any compensation.

    At the very least, I suggest that we vote on it.

     To also clarify, Mr. Perron, with regard to the emergency meeting we were supposed to have, we hadn't voted on anything yet. We were going to meet to decide if that was something we were going to support. We can still do that at this time, but just to clarify, there was no motion voted on because we never had that meeting.

    Mr. Epp, go ahead.

     Let me say first of all, I'm looking forward to working with everyone around—I was going to say “the table”, but I guess this isn't the table; it's more of a Hollywood Squares.

    As far as a BRM motion, I am most looking forward to getting up to speed. I'm sure the clerk will make available the draft motion to us. I haven't had the opportunity...or perhaps it's online; I haven't found it.

    I'm looking forward to getting up to speed and to working with all. Thanks.

    Mr. Epp, welcome to our committee.

    Monsieur Drouin.

    Mr. Perron, I understand the purpose of this motion, but I will not support it out of respect for my colleagues who also have motions to put forward. We must take into account everything we have to consider over the next few months. We have agreed on risk management. The subcommittee can consider your motion if you choose to bring it forward. However, if you want us to put your motion to a vote now, I will not be able to support it. I want to hear from my colleagues first, and the best way to do that is to go through the subcommittee.

    There are no hands raised, so I believe at this time we have a sort of consensus that we get the subcommittee to work. We can certainly call a meeting to that effect.

    If everybody is okay with that, I suggest that everyone who has motions forward them, so we can have them all ready to debate at the subcommittee level and then recommend to the main committee.

    Before we move on, we could perhaps ask our analyst to tell us where we're at with the report and how soon we will be ready to review it. I believe it is version one that we are at.

    Right before the prorogation, we sent the first draft of the report. We could send it back to you so everyone will have this version. We will be ready to work on it after that.

    Okay. Thank you very much.

    For the ones who were not on the committee—I guess you can send it across the board to everyone—at the next meeting, we will look at version one.

    Again, we'll make sure we get that report completed. At my discretion, I guess we can call a subcommittee meeting whenever it's convenient. We'll do a Zoom meeting. I assume it will probably be next week.

    How soon do you want it? Will we try to get one next week? I know it's an off week.

    Mr. Chair, I'm terribly sorry to interrupt. The meetings are available based on the scheduling agreed to by the whips. I believe next week is very full with a lot of other committee meetings. They are only allowed so many meetings per slot. I think that meetings are called, at least at the start, based on the agreement by the whips.

    Okay. We can certainly contact our whips to get into that scheduling, and at the first available time, we can have a subcommittee meeting. We don't know when our next committee meeting will be, so that will be announced and it will be sent to everyone.

    Monsieur Perron.

    How will upcoming meetings work: will they be virtual, in person or hybrid?

     Do you want me to take that, sir?

    Go ahead, Madame Belmore.

    As per the order that was adopted in the House, the future committee meetings will be hybrid meetings. It will be your discretion as to whether you wish to appear in person in Ottawa in the committee room or whether you wish to appear virtually.

    Again, to the clerk's notice, all meetings will be based on the whips' various parties agreeing when our time will be. We don't really control that. However, as soon as they give us a time frame, we'll certainly have the meeting and proceed.

    I don't know if there is any other order of business that you want to discuss at this time.

    Go ahead, Monsieur Drouin.

    I just wanted to welcome Dave Epp, who's wearing a different hat now. He was with the Canada Foodgrains Bank. I look forward to working with him.

    I don't know Mr. Steinley personally, but I look forward to working with him as well.

    I just wanted to give them a shout-out and a welcome.

    I'll second that, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you very much.

    I'm certainly happy to have you and your experience in the grain industry, which is part of our discussion for sure.

    Thank you, again, Mr. Epp and Mr. Steinley.

    Mr. Perron, you have the floor.

    We got off to a great start, but I wanted to congratulate you on your re-election as chair.

    Ms. Rood, congratulations on being elected vice-chair.

    I am happy to see everyone back, and I welcome all new committee members. We will get to know each other better.

    Thank you, Mr. Perron.

    Everyone, we'll see you next time. You will be notified.

    Again, work on your motions.

    I'm sorry, I missed Ms. Rood.

    Go ahead, Ms. Rood.

    I just want to echo those comments.

    It's great to see everybody back again. I'm really looking forward to working with all of you to do the great work that we've been able to do before. I hope we can continue to do that with our new members as well.

    I'm glad to see you all back.

    Thank you everyone.

    Have a good Thanksgiving weekend.

    The meeting is adjourned.