Agriculture Committee on Oct. 8th, 2020

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Lehoux.

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

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

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.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

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?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Mr. Lehoux, you raised your hand?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Lehoux.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

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.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

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.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Is your hand up, Mr. Lehoux?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you.

Mr. Perron, you have the floor.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

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.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Epp, welcome to our committee.

Monsieur Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

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.

[Corentin Bialais, Committee Researcher]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

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.