Agriculture Committee on April 13th, 2016

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

Could I ask a question on it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Sure.

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

How many meetings...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

It's not in the motion.

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

It's open-ended until the end of June, is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

As I said, the motion is that the committee undertake a study, Growing Forward 3, starting on May 2.

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

This is just part of the discussion on the motion.

The next two meetings, April 18 and April 20 next week, we have the TPP. I'm not sure, then, where that goes.

This is just to think about an amendment to it, so that we can get to.... We had the officials from TPP in, and we had the grain transportation officials in today. In discussions, we have agreed that we would do TPP. I don't know where we are at, Mr. Chair, in terms of people coming for that. Are they far away? Are they by video, or are they local?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I think we have four witnesses on Monday, and two, so far, on the second day.

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

Okay.

I am also wondering if they are from the Ottawa area, because if they are from the....

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. David Chandonnet]

Not all of them are.

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

Okay.

All I am saying is that I think all of us agree that this transportation issue.... I just can't believe that with that motion you want to set aside the transportation issue. I just don't believe that is your thought, but that is actually what the motion says.

I think we could take the 18th and the 20th with the TPP and call those folks—maybe nobody has made the arrangements to come. We could do four meetings: the 18th, the 20th, the 2nd, and the 4th—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Do you want to make a motion?

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

—on the transportation. That gives us four meetings, or two weeks. That gives us an opportunity to bring in a variety of witnesses.

I have to assume, because we didn't get an answer, that there has not been a direction from the minister on Growing Forward 3 yet. By then, there very well may be some direction in terms of where he wants to go, and in terms of a discussion, as he said, with the provinces and commodity organizations. We can deal with that. I am just suggesting that we are leaving folks a bad message by accepting that.

It's in the motion right now. I can't change that motion. That's the reason I can't support it. I am like Chris, Jacques, and I think Ruth Ellen, too. We want to have the discussion on Growing Forward 3 when we know what that discussion is going to be and have some direction from government. Until we do that, it is a bit in vain, and I believe we would be sending a bad message.

We have a motion here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Yes, we do.

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

We should vote on that. It will be recorded.

The trouble is.... I guess I could make an amendment, but it's not my position to make the amendment. I've stated my choice. If I had my way, on the 18th, the 20th, the 2nd, and the 4th, we would deal with the transportation. We've had the officials in. It's fresh in our minds in terms of policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We had a motion. We started the vote, and I must go there again. We have a recorded vote, so we will pursue that at this time.

Again, the motion was that the committee undertake to study Growing Forward 3, starting on May 2.

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

Are we going to do a report on this? Usually with motions we have a timeline saying that we will be tabling a report. Is that the intention? It's a friendly question. Do you want us to do a report? It seems that the intent of this motion is that we are helping out with the consultation process of Growing Forward 3. We've done two days on milk proteins, and we have started a mini-TPP thing that we are probably going to do next week.

Do you intend us to actually write a report on this? What is the timeline? Are we going to finish our session doing Growing Forward? It's a clarification.

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

I would like to clarify something in the motion and to make an amendment for the benefit of all the committee members who are here.

As I've already said, it's that we undertake a study on the agricultural policy framework, including, at the pleasure of this committee, sections on Canada's suite of farm income safety nets and the role of discovery science and innovation in the sector; that the committee hear from government officials and a wide and diverse range of industry representatives and interest groups from every region of the country; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

Ms. Brosseau, we are going to submit a report to the House.

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

Well, that's a different motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

The motion is that the committee undertake to study Growing Forward 3 starting on May 2—that's the original motion—and that the study look into the following issues: Canada's next multi-year agricultural policy framework at its earliest convenience, including sections on Canada's suite of farm income safety nets and the role of discovery science and innovation in the sector; that the committee hear from government officials and a wide and diverse range of industry representatives and interest groups from every region of the country; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

Mr. Warkentin.

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

This is clarification, but unfortunately it clarifies that this in fact is just busywork. Obviously there's no intent by the government to ask this committee to undertake anything other than busywork.

I can't understand why the government would do this. I mean, for a government that ran on the policy of including other parties' perspectives in hearing the concerns of Canadians, this is a fundamental assault on that. We can do math. We know that the Liberals have the numbers to decide that they will enforce that we do busywork at this committee.

It will be interesting for us to consult with people as the minister and the respective provincial ministers are at other tables finalizing an agreement while we're still talking about what could be. That is not only an insult to Parliament, but an insult to the farm families we so long to defend. It's unfortunate. I have not seen this in 10 years in Parliament, where a government would instruct the committee members to study a piece of legislation that they're already negotiating the final provisions of at another table. It just blows my mind.

I guess this will be an exercise in humour as it develops. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. But it is sad. It's an insult to this committee and, unfortunately, it's an insult to the people we seek to defend.

When I served as chair of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, that committee rarely, if ever, even moved to motions, because there was always a consensus on the agenda. There were people who were of common belief that we could work together to take constructive looks at important legislation and important studies that would lead to positive outcomes. You could speak to the members who were on the committee, and I think you would hear that there was constructive dialogue and a commitment to consensus.

Unfortunately, that's not been the case here. That is disappointing. I think Canadians expected something better, not something worse, than what happened in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Madame Brosseau.

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

I would like to add my voice. I honestly thought things were going to change a bit. Before at the Ag committee we were able to find consensus on certain things, but as Malcolm used to say, he could count, and you do have to pick your battles. I honestly thought we were going to be able to work together on certain things and nobody on the other side has gotten up to defend why this is so important. Nobody has been able to say why we need to do this right now. Everybody on this side has talked, and I think it's pretty clear why we need to move forward with grain transport, looking at it and talking to experts and maybe stopping a lot of those sections from sunsetting. It's frustrating because it's the same old for me. I was on committee before with the other government and now I'm seeing similar things occurring with this new government, and I think Canadians will be very disappointed. I think farmers will be very disappointed to know that it's continuing. I'm really hoping I'm wrong. I'm hoping that we can get things done and work together. That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Mr. Shipley.

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

It's a fairly long motion, so I'm hoping we will get a copy because it's like a new motion. I didn't read a timeline in it, the number of meetings we were going to spend on it, the directive that would come other than about three or four general comments. Am I reading it correctly then that we're not coming back to transportation? I wonder if somebody could answer that for us, please. I ask because what I'm taking from that is that today was for naught. The recommendations and having the discussion with the producers is all for naught because I don't see anything in that and it's a pretty clear message. Mr. Chair, I'm asking for clarification on those two issues.