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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Shawn Tupper  Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Transport
Lenore Duff  Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. David Chandonnet

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Gourde, go ahead.

April 13th, 2016 / 5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to echo my colleagues' remarks about this procedure. There are various ways of proceeding. Of course, we could even request an emergency debate, invite 150 to 300 farmers to sit in the gallery above and have the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food appear. However, I don't think the government would appreciate that, given that we might ask questions.

There are also other ways of going about it. The best way to handle it is here, in committee, because we can study it in more depth, we can have high-calibre witnesses, we can have a better overview and be able to think about it afterwards when we prepare our report. The report has an impact on the thoughts of decision-makers and on solutions.

It is all well and good to talk about income security, but if grains are not being sold in western Canada, farmers will not have an income. That will be zero plus zero, which will not go anywhere. The crops will pile up and never be moved. You can't store grains for 40 years. It's fine to set up elevators, but that will not solve the transportation problem.

Our choice is clear, but I'm not sure whether you have had orders to operate differently. The approach has to be based on priorities, and the priority for the next harvest is to ensure plain sailing for the grain from out west. That is a play on words, but it has to get to the ports to be shipped to other countries. It will not all be consumed in Canada. If it were consumed in Canada, we would not even be talking about it. The grain must absolutely leave western Canada for various destinations. If the situation continues, the government will be blamed for failing to assume its responsibilities when faced with a growing problem. The problem will definitely not go away by itself. Political decisions must be made and they must be made with farmers' best interests in mind.

Historically, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has always worked on a consensus basis in the best interests of Canadian farmers. In emergency cases, I have previously seen bills pass through all the stages within 24 hours. In this case, we seem to be dragging out the time for something that is a priority right now. It is really discouraging to see the attitude toward our work at the beginning of this Parliament, when, historically, the agriculture committee has worked together in partnership. Right now, this does not seem to be the case, and it will be difficult for all of us to work together in the coming weeks and months.

If you are really set on undertaking this study, we could hold special six-hour or eight-hour meetings and meet three times a week in the hope of possibly completing the study on transportation. If it is only a question of time, why don't you add some hours and we will be here? For the benefit of farmers, we will make the necessary sacrifices. That is why we are here.

However, if your strategy is to drag things out to avoid talking about real problems, then that will show sooner or later. We will denounce that strategy and you will be under a great deal of pressure from farmers as well as provincial and territorial governments, especially those in western Canada that don't want to see the attitude you have right now.

So I hope that we can all work together in agreement. You can count on our full cooperation, but you can also count on our opposition if things don't work.

Thank you.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Ms. Brosseau, the floor is yours.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

I have a question.

I know that at the last meeting you said you were going to follow up on a discussion you were having with the chair of the transport committee. I'm wondering if you could tell us whether the discussion has progressed, because, clearly, on the other side there doesn't seem to be an urgency to deal with Bill C-30, [Inaudible—Editor] the only option open to have experts here.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Nothing has really progressed in those talks. I think it is more complicated than we had anticipated, so nothing really has [Inaudible—Editor].

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Can I ask a question of le greffier? How does it work to have a special committee struck? At the last committee I asked if it goes through a motion. I think we would have to put in a formal request to the other committee and then have consensus. This is an issue that, on the opposition side, we find very important. I am just looking at ways to make sure this does get treated.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

We can work out a text for a motion if that were the choice of the committee.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

I could ask a question of the greffier. Can you answer, please?

5:20 p.m.

The Clerk

Yes, we have worked on a text for a motion if the committee wishes to go in that direction.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

I think so, yes. Is it ready?

Is the text ready and is it in both languages? Could we see it please?

5:20 p.m.

The Clerk

It was modified at 3 p.m., so we have only a version in English, but the chair can read it to you if you'd like.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Chair, could we please defer the motion?

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Chair, that has nothing to do with the motion and it does not prevent us from voting. We can take care of that afterwards. It has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing right now.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you.

Are there any further comments on the amendment?

Mr. Warkentin.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB

Bev, you had some questions.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

I don't know who was first.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

I had two questions to get answered, Mr. Chair, if I could.

If we don't know the timeline of what this motion means, and if there's no timeline, are we ever going to come back to transportation? I need from the government their interpretation of the motion in terms of how many meetings it will be and how long we're going to do that. Then, what's their plan in terms of returning to transportation when we have deadlines that are coming forward. If they're going to say, “We're going to bring in an order in council and extend this...”. We have all of these commodity people whom we've just met over the last while saying, “This is why we were here today”. I don't think they left thinking that we were going to drop it. That's all.

I need to get an answer on those two questions from the mover. When I look at the motion, Mr. Chairman, “Canada's suite of farm income safety nets” and the role of “discovery science and innovation in the sector”—I don't know about the other two areas that are covered in the business risk management program now, as they're not mentioned—and “a wide and diverse range of industry representatives and interest groups from every region of the country”, I'm thinking that we're expected to be out of here in June and that this would not happen in the timeline we have. When you look at our calendar, it's fairly tight. You want to have the significant part of your committee wrapped up in that first week or second week of June, without a doubt. Some of us have been here long enough, and it doesn't seem to matter what government it is, because it's just that at the end, governments have legislation and there are interruptions and it becomes difficult to bring in witnesses, and then we are not able to deal with them or break it in half.

That's just a comment. I'm not getting a sense of much direction in terms of those questions, so I wonder if the government could help us before we have the vote. The time's moving on, Mr. Chair. We only have four minutes left.

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Madame Brosseau.

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

I also have a question. Would it involve travelling or having witnesses come to committee? We have video conferencing, which is a great tool to help with cost-saving, and reduced travel, and all that. Is this a study that needs to be done in Ottawa, or did you have an intention to put forward that the committee travel? It does take a while to write a report. We have amazing analysts, and you'll get to know them a lot better. They're wizards at writing amazing reports and then having them ready for the next committee. They're absolutely the best, but that does take a while. As was mentioned, when we get toward the end it is crazy. We will be sitting late trying to ramp up and getting all the work done before summer. That's a concern I have. Is that the intent of the government, to have this done before we finish? It's a very.... Could just answer the question, is this a travelling study or is this something to be done in Ottawa on Parliament Hill?

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you, Ms. Brosseau.

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB

We're not getting any answers from the government side. I've heard of people claiming that others have been muzzled, but never that MPs were muzzled to this extent. This is very interesting. I'm taking offence at the fact that the Liberal members of this committee refuse to engage in this discussion. Questions have been put to somebody on their side. It looks as if Mr. Drouin is taking the lead, the PS role at this committee. I put it to him.

Mr. Drouin, you unmuzzled yourself long enough to say that you would like to get to the end of this. For human decency, I wish somebody would speak up and say they don't have the answer. That's fine, but let's be human to one another. This place has enough disgusting behaviour from time to time, but having people on the other side who refuse to engage and answer any questions is offensive.

I put it to the other side, can they answer any of the questions I've asked? Do they expect it to be a travelling study? Is there an expectation that we'll be done before the first meeting of the provincial leaders? If that's the case, based on the specifications that were included in this motion, obviously we have an impossible task, because there's no way we can do all of what was described in this motion by the time this first meeting happens. If we don't complete the study before the first meeting—

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Mr. Warkentin, it's 5:30.

Unless the committee wants to extend the meeting, I will stop the current meeting and we will table this until the next meeting.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. Have a good weekend.