Evidence of meeting #8 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was provisions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB
I have 10 seconds. I wanted to talk about containerization, but we won't have time for that. Thanks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
That concludes our presentation by the witnesses. I want to thank both of you, Mr. Tupper and Ms. Duff, for coming over and talking to us about the grain transportation system, and also Bill C-30. Thank you very much.
We will take a couple of minutes' break, and then we will return with committee business.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, everyone. We'll get on with the committee business.
To pick up where we were at the last meeting, we had a motion on the floor. I also want to remind people that we are not in camera. We are in public. Those are just two things I wanted to mention.
We have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Warkentin.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB
I do appreciate this. I think the motion on the floor was to pursue a study of Growing Forward 3. I see that the PS is not with us today, but I'm hopeful that maybe today somebody from the government side would inform us on the discussions with the minister they might have had as it relates to the invitation to inject ourselves in what are negotiations between the federal government and the provincial governments.
I'd love to be at that table—I'd love it if our committee was at the table—but we haven't been given that invitation. As they are already engaged in the process of putting in place the preparations for the first meetings, I'm not sure what the purpose of a study of Growing Forward 3 would be at this point.
I'd like some additional clarification before we move to a vote on that.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Sure.
It's the first meeting in July, I believe, so if we start now....
I understand your point, Mr. Warkentin, but you've been an MP since 2006. You know that government doesn't make a decision quickly. There's no such thing as a quick decision.
If the committee does not undertake a study on the agricultural policy framework, I think that would be a shame for this committee. In the past they've always done so. I think if we start May 2, it would allow us to hear from all sorts of stakeholders, including the departments, in order for us to provide the recommendations.
Are you saying you don't want to provide recommendations to the House with regard to the agricultural policy framework, or...?
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I would like to echo the comments that Mr. Drouin just made. It takes a while for the government to make decisions sometimes.
I think from the witnesses we just had today, and from meetings I think we've all had individually with farmers and different stakeholders, we know the importance of the past Bill C-30 and of maybe looking at the four recommendations that were in the Emerson report.
I was on the agriculture committee before. We did go over Growing Forward 2. We made recommendations.
I know that governments have changed, and you guys want to work together a little bit more. I'm really hopeful and optimistic that if we do make recommendations, they might be adopted a little more than they were when it was you guys back then.
This is a pressing issue. I think we could still get to Growing Forward 3 in due time, but I still think we should absolutely concentrate on grain transport. There were billions of dollars of losses for farmers, huge losses, and this could happen again. We're shipping less oil. They had a bumper crop, yes, but this is a pressing issue. I'd be very uncomfortable going forward with Growing Forward 3 or whatever it gets named, because this is an issue that needs to be acted on now.
We could ask the ministers to extend the provisions and not let them sunset, but we can't force their hands to do it. That's why I think it's important to have witnesses, experts. You know, we meet with farmers, but I'm not a grain farmer in the west. I represent a dairy, pork, and heavily supply managed area in Quebec. But I meet with people across Canada, farmers across Canada, and they're telling me they're worried, they're concerned. They want the government to act.
I think it would be a great opportunity for us to study this at agriculture committee. Transport is not necessarily the best place to do it. They're busy with rail safety. This is an ag issue. We need our farmers here. We need our commodity groups. We need them to come and tell us why it's important for the interswitching, why it's important for MRE, why it's important for the four recommendations. We have to make this legislation right.
I was on committee. I fought to have a lot of these things kept in place. I fought to make it the best piece of legislation it could be. Sadly, I'm sorry, you guys voted down—remember, Bev?—a lot of the things we recommended that were based on witness testimony.
So it's a plea. I'm kind of asking, I guess, that as committee members we find some consensus and go forward with a study on grain transport, because that is an issue that will help farmers right now.
Cultivons l'avenir, Growing Forward, will come in due time and we will do a study later. We will make recommendations to try to make that better, but this is an issue that I think we could deal with and put farmers at ease. This is a huge, huge issue for them.
I guess I'm just pleading that we do a study on grain transport and the Emerson report and look at keeping some of the recommendations that were made by our experts who came to committee.
Liberal
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB
To answer the question I was asked from across the way, I would love to have all of the input that I possibly could in terms of the framework. However, I do know that if you're going to the negotiation table in June, by the time we got into this it would be April, and if we haven't concluded.... If the minister doesn't know what his framework is at this point, we have to wonder what he's going to the table with in June. He's not going to wait for us to contribute to that before he prepares for the table.
The first meeting is in June. If somebody across there wants.... Look, I'm ready to drop everything and go out and study this or get feedback from farmers on Growing Forward 3. If there's a particular area that the minister needs some assistance with—it needs some hearings—we'll go do that. But tell us what that is, because if we are just going to do busywork....
If we look at the time frame, we can't do a comprehensive study of a Growing Forward 3 study before the minister would have all of what he needs to be prepared for that first meeting. I know that the ministers in respective provinces have already started to compile their information. They've been given the framework by the minister, what they expect to negotiate at that first meeting. I'm not sure what exactly we would be involved with. I don't understand.
I recognize that we're enthusiastic to put our oar into the waters of the negotiation that others are engaged in, but I'm not sure exactly what we hope to accomplish or contribute to the minister on a negotiation that has the first table meeting in June.
Look, I have great ideas, and I'm certain that if we travelled the country, farmers would have some great ideas as to what they'd like included in that. But we don't have that kind of time. What is it specifically that the minister is inviting us to contribute for that discussion? If it's just busywork that this committee is engaged in, I think we're all going to be disillusioned with our jobs.
Let's do effective work. Let's actually do stuff that's going to impact and benefit farm families across this country. On the grain transportation provisions that will sunset this summer, an essential thing for us to decide as a committee, if we're going to recommend to our minister and the Minister of Transport whether or not they would be extended, I believe strongly that they should be. I believe that every tool in the tool box of the Minister of Transport to protect farm families is absolutely paramount. I think that's effective and good use of our time to ensure that farm families are protected.
I just wish somebody across the table could tell us what piece of information the minister is missing that he would like us to consult on with Canadian farmers before he goes to that table in June. If he doesn't have a clue what he wants the program to look like, then we have bigger problems, and maybe we should go immediately into a study. We can tell him what we think should be included in that. We could meet with farmers across the country. We could leave tomorrow, if in fact he hasn't got that, but I suspect that's not the case. I suspect that the minister has a very good idea as to what he is expecting because he's already spoken to his provincial counterparts.
What is it that the minister needs our help with defining for those negotiations? Before we just decide that we're going to do busywork, let's actually find out what he wants us to do, what we could do to be useful, and what we'll actually contribute to a better program. If somebody from across the way could tell me that, I'll cancel every meeting that I have henceforth to make sure that we get the best program to move forward.
If we don't have something that we're being asked to contribute to, then we have stuff that will have a meaningful impact for farm families across this country. There are a number of motions, a number of things that stakeholders across this country have told us, so we have the necessity to make sure we deal with the C-30 provisions that will sunset this summer.
We've heard from the produce growers who need provisions relating to PACA, the provisions of bankruptcy protection that don't exist today because of the challenges that have developed as it relates to the Americans. That's on what we can do to make sure that bankruptcy protections are there to protect farm families and ensure they can get their commodities to market.
We've heard from countless organizations that have very specific requests of this committee.
If the minister wants us to travel or to hear from farmers, as it relates to Growing Forward 3, we need to have an idea as to what we're doing and that it's not just busywork, because we have real work that needs to be done.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
To follow up, Bill C-30 is coming to an end because it has sunset clauses in it dealing with the Canada Transportation Act. The big difference between this and Growing Forward 3 is that we've not only had a report with recommendations brought forward by the review board to deal with, but we've also had ample opportunity because those producers have also been in touch with us, not only as individuals, but as organizations, and now is the time.
We can shovel it off, and let it ride itself out, and say to those folks who lined the room today that we'll let those recommendations fly by, and it will sunset itself out, and we'll be back to where we were unless the government is going to implement an order in council, or whatever they are going to do.
My point is that this is in front of us. We have the report. We're asking to deal with recommendations. We have the producer organizations saying to us, “we have some issues. Will you come alongside us as an agriculture committee because we're commodity groups, and help us walk through this, and get us some recommendations that you see?” There may be more, but those are the ones they have.
As Chris has said, we all know the significance of the business risk management platform, or the policy, and for lack of better wording at this time it's likely going to be “Growing Forward 3”. Whatever it is that follows Growing Forward 2, we haven't received anything yet that I know from the study, from the minister, or from the organizations. Maybe you have. Maybe you have had these same commodity groups saying, “Now we need to be moving forward”, because many of them are the same groups, for instance the grain producers. This is more in western Canada, but it affects them as the business risk management programs roll out.
We need to move beyond by the government people in front of us and talk to the people who are affected. We've had the meeting today, which was fine, but the reality is that if we're going to make some decisions and move forward, we need to get in front of us the people who are affected. Whether that's rail and the commodities, that's fine.
I'll tell you the first time was not an easy roll. Sure there were recommendations that came forward that the government of that time. Some were accepted them and some weren't, but that's how it works. We dealt with it. We have a rail act that's in place that, as you can see, is pretty favourable to our grain producers.
I don't want to be the one sitting here who says that we're going to shelve this to deal with another one that we don't have any direction on yet.
That would be my only comment. I'll leave it at that because we do have lots of things we could deal with, but I think we need to get the priority, and we need to have two-hour meetings with people in front of us about decision-making.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB
I think if we haven't received any kind of an answer from the government on what they want us to do, we can assume it's just busywork.
This is going to be a slap in the face to all the western producers that have so desperately begged for these provisions to be extended.
It's incredibly disheartening these days to be a western Canadian with a federal government that continues to disregard the concerns of western Canadians. This will be another one in that growing list.
If what is decided today does not address concerns that every single commodity group in western Canada has identified as their number one concern, that's for the Liberals to decide, but it will be a painful exercise for farmers in western Canada to hear this news.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I just want to add this.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It's an important issue, and as the witnesses said today, the ministers are going to be consulting, so what better opportunity to have open consultations at ag committee, right? This is a perfect time to do it. There's no timeline that I've heard of making it necessary to look at Growing Forward.
I know in Quebec, a lot of the groups, a lot of the farmers, weren't very happy with the business risk-management programs. That's fine. It was brought up previous times at committee; even in the House, we brought it up before in the previous Parliament. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with now. You know, in Quebec and Ontario, our dairy farmers are losing money every week. This could be an issue next winter.
I don't want to go forward and then next year, next winter, we come back and we haven't dealt with this issue. I'm going to feel sick about it, you know, because we had the opportunity to deal with this. This isn't a partisan issue, you know. We have to stand up and represent farmers. We can make this better. I think this is a golden opportunity to show that we're working together—three parties, as we did the first time—to just deal with it.
We have a month, or a month and a half—I don't know how many meetings that will include—where we could easily go through and have witnesses come in. I don't even think it would take that long. It could just be the next month, May, and then we could start on Growing Forward, if that is a compromise.
I guess maybe that's what I'd like to put forward. Maybe we could just start off and do this study, because there is a timeline. It's August first that these die. These provisions will no longer be there. I think maybe we could find a consensus, where we could compromise and do this, because it is very time sensitive, and then maybe we could do your Growing Forward bit. I would be open to that. I don't know if I could speak for my other friends on this side, but maybe we could find common ground or meet halfway.
We can kind of negotiate. We used to do that at ag committee, right? We used to negotiate. We used to find a way to make both sides or three sides happy. So I would just put that forward.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB
Yes, I do like that suggestion.
Obviously, the government hasn't provided a plan to move forward in terms of what exactly that we'll be looking at if we do study Growing Forward 3. So I would suggest that there is a compromise available to us, and that's for us to proceed. We had today's hearing. I think we'd all be prepared to continue this study next week. That's four hours of hearings.
I think what we could do is probably hear from a number of producer groups first. We could probably fit two panels of producer groups in the first meeting. We could hear from the rail companies at the following meeting, and then at that point, I think we'd probably have at least the ability to make an informed decision as to whether or not we'd heard enough and then make a recommendation to the minister one way or the other.
We're not asking for the rest of the meetings for the rest of the year, but we are suggesting that there is a necessity to deal with this. It's a time-sensitive issue. The minister is going to make a decision one way or another—it sounded like in the next short while. If we're going to have any influence on that, now is the time for us to do that. If we believe in our responsibilities to undertake the representation of our constituents...we've all been elected to do that, so I think this is an opportunity for us to earn our pay and to get done what Canadian farmers would expect us to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.
Are there any other comments?
There are no other comments.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
We can read the motion.
I'll do it in English. Here it is:That the committee undertake to study Growing Forward 3 starting on May 2.