Agriculture Committee on June 1st, 2016

[Ronald Cuming]

No, I don't see any difference. The approach they use of course is to use the trust in the context of their federal system. A difference between U.S. law and our law is that their Congress has much more power than our Parliament to invade a state law. We're much more strict with our Constitution, quite properly.

It was for this reason that I concluded that the only practical way to legally implement something that would be equivalent to the American approach was to use insolvency, which is a clear federal basis for acting in this area.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

If that is the case, then I'm not sure what the procedure is. Perhaps this committee, with the indulgence and consent of all colleagues, could present a letter to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, working together with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, to see if we can draft something to present to Parliament in order to finally rectify this awful situation we've had for the past how many years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Do you want to make that a motion?

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Yes, I do, for whoever can take what I just said and put it into motion form.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

So if I understand—

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

It would be that this committee advises or suggests to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, working with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, to examine the model legislation put forth by Professor Cuming, and look at creating legislation based on Professor Cuming's model.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Okay.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I want to thank my colleague, because as we went through this process for quite some time, one of the underlying issues was related to the complexities that it seemed to bring about.

Professor Cuming, along with, I believe, the stakeholders, if you look at the delegations that we've had prior to this, one of the reasons you're here is that they had asked us to make sure you became a witness for this committee. That being said, I think you would certainly get the support from us to move forward with it. You took something that seemed to be very complex. Sometimes, once you get through the complexities and look in the rear-view mirror, you sometimes wonder why you weren't able to do that before. But I think some of the legislation also has allowed some changes to happen.

To my colleagues and to Mr. Chair, if you wanted to bring forward a draft at our next meeting, then certainly we could review it, but on the surface, I would say that certainly we would be pleased to be a part of that motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I wouldn't put it into the next meeting. We have a schedule of studies we're trying to get done. Possibly we could look at that when we're not able to get witnesses, closer to the July period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Madame Sansoucy.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I fully agree with this motion. It would be worthwhile adding a deadline to the motion. It could be September 30, for instance. If we send out this intention without setting a deadline, we may find ourselves in September still wondering when it will take place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

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

I understand Ms. Sansoucy's point, but we need to involve Mr. LeBlanc and take into consideration the parliamentary calendar. The committee could mention in a written letter that it must be done at the earliest possible convenience. That would be a good idea.

I know that your colleague moved a motion asking that something be done before September 30, but according to the parliamentary calendar, the deadline would be two weeks after the summer recess. I like setting deadlines, but we also have to be realistic.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I'll let you propose a date for the following week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We have a motion on the floor. I'll read it again: that the committee present a letter to Parliament to suggest a model to create legislation similar to the model presented by Mr. Cuming.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Chair, the letter would not be going to Parliament. The letter would go to the two respective ministers, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food as well as the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

So noted.

Are we in favour of that motion?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Did you add “at the earliest possible convenience”? I didn't hear it.

[Joe Peschisolido, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

We should add “at the earliest possible”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

It should be at the earliest possible convenience. We're all agreed on that, no problem there.

Does anyone oppose the motion? I see not.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I believe at this stage we're out of time.

I certainly want to thank you, Mr. Cuming. It's a very complex issue and we've certainly been able to understand some of it, but again, we'll try to push this to do the best for our producers. Thank you for taking part today and have a good day, sir.

At this time, we will suspend for a few minutes, and then we will go in camera to do a little bit of business for the committee.

[Proceedings continue in camera]