Agriculture Committee on April 11th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Poissant, go ahead.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

I talked to a representative of Growing Forward who told me that the program was quite advanced. However, we were not consulted. I think we should emphasize that program. Everyone agrees that we have time for the TPP. As for transportation, some matters are probably currently under consideration.

I think it is very important to deal with the Growing Forward program. There is already a draft, and we can work on it, given the agricultural needs. That is my recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Breton, go ahead.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

I agree with Mr. Poissant, especially since I think that grain transportation has more to do with the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

There are more factors to deal with when it comes to Growing Forward. That would provide the government with arguments to support its decision.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I'm hopeful that this won't turn into a debate. I'm hopeful that we can get to all of these things. I've met with dozens of commodity groups in the last couple of weeks. How many times has Growing Forward come up? Once. How many times have rail shipments come up, or TPP? At every single meeting.

I can tell you that the two concerns that are most predominant in every single one of these meetings are these two issues. Agriculture has very specific expectations and demands, and I think we have a responsibility, if we're truly listening to any of our stakeholders, to at least discuss these two elements.

Now, I respect the fact that Growing Forward 3 is coming, but let's be honest: under the current framework that was developed with the assistance of the standing committee in the past, these are negotiations that are happening between the federal government and the provincial governments. The framework is already established, so we've missed our opportunity to intervene in the establishment of Growing Forward 3. The negotiations are all now happening between the provincial and the federal bureaucrats. They will come out with something that we can agree or not agree with, but our intervention at this point is simply an exercise in wasted time.

With due respect, I'd happily have all of the representatives from the different provinces and the federal government here, but they're not going to tell us a lot, because they're currently in the negotiation stage; these talks are all behind closed doors. They have a responsibility to go forward with what their respective premiers have mandated to them, and they're not going to tell us a lot at this point.

Growing Forward 3 is a great initiative, an important initiative, but it isn't what we're hearing from the stakeholders that they want us to defend as among their priorities right now. I think I wouldn't be doing my job, if I didn't defend the necessity to review the Transportation Act and make sure that nothing is sunsetted before there's a replacement, and second of all, to ensure that we have a comprehensive review of what ag says on TPP. These are the issues that are coming up at every single one of these meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Ms. Brosseau, the floor is yours.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I agree with Mr. Warkentin.

I never thought I would say that, but I am saying it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

We studied Bill C-30 at committee, and we had experts come in. They explained to us the importance of interswitching and many of the technical terms. When I meet with farmers in different commodity groups, it is grain transport that keeps coming back, and the TPP.

I would thus like to put forward a motion that we continue with the 13th, Wednesday, on the grain transport numbers and report; that we do that for one hour, but then we extend it, maybe until the middle or end of May, in a study on grain transport; and that we make a report with recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Are you suggesting that we push back the meeting of the 18th?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I know we've been getting along very well at committee and have been bouncing among different issues, milk proteins and TPP and whatnot. It is important to move forward and get something ready with recommendations for the minister, because he will then have to make a decision at the cabinet table whether to act, and it's not just Minister MacAulay; it is the Minister of Transport who would have to intervene, with a bill or an order in council.

I'm not quite sure how we would have to proceed, if we wanted to keep some of those provisions alive and keep them from sunsetting. I would put forward a motion that we study grain transportation and the Emerson report, hopefully making recommendations in a report.

I would be open to amendments to that motion, but I think we really need to concentrate on grain transport.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Again just for clarification, do you suggest that the meeting on the 18th be pushed back so that we can continue on the Emerson report and grain transport?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Yes. I think we should concentrate on grain transport, and once we're done with that we can move on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because it does take a while for our wonderful analysts to write a report, then we have to go through it, and then some parties might add other reports to that report before it gets tabled to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We have a motion on the floor.

I'll read the motion, and you can tell me if it's the intent of what you propose: “That the meeting of April 18 and 20 be pushed to a later date, and that the committee continues the study undertaken on April 13 with regards to grain transportation.” That would be this Wednesday. Would that be the intent of your motion?

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

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

I'm just going to go back to one thing that we could agree on, and that's the Growing Forward 3. I know that the last committee had 24 meetings, and if it was that useless, then why did they have 24 meetings on that?

I voted against grain transportation because I already know what the industry want. You've all been lobbied by the industry, you know what they want, I don't think we need a study out of this. I've already communicated with the minister's office, as I'm sure all my colleagues have. We already know the outcome of what we lobbied for. We asked exactly what they've asked, so I don't think, in the spirit of being efficient, that it's a good use of our time.

What is a good use of our time is what Growing Forward 3 is going to look like, and what the agricultural community wants. I'm going to propose a motion that the committee undertake to study the new program for Growing Forward 3, what it's going to look like. We can start as soon as possible, after this specific agenda in April.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Monsieur Drouin, I'll just read it: “That the committee undertake to study Growing Forward 3 starting on May 2.”

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

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Have you all heard the motion?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

No, I think we should have some discussion surrounding this motion. Specifically, I'd ask our Liberal friends over there, have we been invited to the negotiations? What would be the avenue by which we would intervene in these negotiations that have already started? The framework has already been established. What would be the process by which we would intervene in the negotiations that are currently being undertaken?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Growing Forward 3 has been discussed within Guelph. We've had OMAFRA, we've had Agriculture Canada, we've had industry people. The industry people are saying that on the format of Growing Forward 2, especially in the way that the funding was set up in equal amounts over the period, the first part of the period the funding wasn't used adequately because people were still doing their applications for funding. The mechanism in which funding would roll out would be one thing that we're hearing from industry. Another is just in general, with new technology. How does it roll into big data? How does it roll into innovation agendas? There are more and more innovation agendas out there, so how does that fit within Growing Forward?

Finally, how does the work of Growing Forward 3 impact Canada's ability to feed the planet in a sustainable way, taking into account greenhouse gas emissions, and all of that?

Within Guelph, at least within my riding, there are many discussions going on that we're not a part of at the committee level.

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

As Mr. Longfield I've had similar conversations in my riding. I met with Kent Mullinix, who is the chair of Kwantlen Polytechnic. He heads up the agricultural department. We talked about how we can utilize Growing Forward 3 in a regional food strategy. We chatted with some farmers who are sending their children to the program at Kwantlen Polytechnic to see how we can implement innovative ways to utilize plots of land that are only five, 10, or 15 acres.

Also, as Mr. Longfield said, at least in my neck of the woods there is a great deal of discussion on how we can utilize Growing Forward 3 in meeting the new ways of doing things, enhancing what we have.

I think it would be quite helpful to look at Growing Forward 3, and I think we can be part of the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

I think all of what you've said is in fact what's happening. We've all been approached by people who have ideas about Growing Forward 3. Unfortunately, none of us at this table have been invited to that table.

If we hear from all these people, what will the technical process be? Will we be invited by the minister to take what we hear to that table? We haven't been invited, so I'm not prepared to undertake a study. Ministers in the past have said, “Look, you travel the country, hear from Canadians, and we're going to take that within our arsenal to the negotiation table to say our standing committee has heard this from Canadians, and we now come to the table with this; we can negotiate a deal having heard this.” What we did in that circumstance would have been constructive.

But if we're going to be doing busy work or a public relations exercise while the minister and the respective provincial ministers are sequestered elsewhere, if we're going to be doing this parallel system but have no say in the outcome of the negotiations, then all we're doing is busy work; we'll not have actually been involved in anything.

The negotiations are already in place. They've already started that—unless we've been misled.

Can the parliamentary secretary assure us that negotiations have not started with the provinces, and that if we do this, that we're actually being invited by the minister to do this before he enters those negotiations?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

If I could comment, Mr. Chair, there's a question on the floor, but my experience from talking within Guelph is that the conversations aren't as far along as you might be hearing.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Well I'd like to hear from the parliamentary secretary what the case is, because he's the only one at this table who would know that.