Evidence of meeting #11 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was question.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Marian Campbell Jarvis  Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Matt de Vlieger  Director General, Immigration, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Louis Dumas  Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Jonathan Wallace  Director General, Temporary Foreign Workers Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard

3:50 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Marian Campbell Jarvis

Mr. Chair, that initiative is led by my colleagues at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We are familiar with the initiative, but as to the specific questions about the budgeting, they would probably be best directed to them.

I am aware, though, because we are in close collaboration with our colleagues at Agriculture and other departments on these issues, that they have received several hundred applications already and it's well under way. It's also structured in a way that allows the department to work with provinces and territories or employers directly, so there is some flexibility there.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Great.

As a final question, I know that other governments have been having their own troubles with COVID-19. In terms of trying to get temporary foreign workers to Canada, what are some of the main bottlenecks that we're experiencing? Is it with the availability of commercial flights? Are there still some delays in processing in host countries and so on? Are there any quick words you can offer on that?

Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Louis Dumas

Thank you, Chair, for this question.

I think the member explained it well. The scarcity of air connections, for example, makes it very difficult. Conversations with ministries of labour overseas—and they are operating with reduced staff—are also very complicated. I've alluded to the fact...and the minister, as well, mentioned the relationship with the visa application centres, which are crucial to our equation. It's a harsh reality, not only here in Canada but overseas.

Again, the folks in the embassies, high commissions and consulates overseas are trying their best to find solutions, and I have to salute them.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you. That wraps up our panel for today.

I want to thank, from Citizenship and Immigration, Marian Campbell Jarvis, Louis Dumas and Matt de Vlieger. I also want to thank Jonathan Wallace for taking the time to be with us today.

With that, we will terminate the question round and I'll ask the members to stay on for a bit of business before the meeting next week.

I thank the panel, and we'll start our business section.

We had a conversation to try to guide us as to how we're going to have our coming meetings and how everything is going to unfold. Sticking with the themes, we have chicken and eggs, grains and the meat processing.

Maybe I'll let somebody who was on the call today —

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion that I believe has the support of the committee:

That, in relation to the study of the Canadian response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chair, in consultation with the clerks and analysts, assemble panels in preparation for the meeting scheduled for Friday, May 29, 2020; and that, to the extent possible, these panels consist of witnesses suggested by the recognized parties in the following sectors: poultry and eggs, the grain sector, and the meat processing sector.

That's it, Mr. Chair.

I hope my French teacher will be proud of me.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Very good, Mr. Blois. Your French was perfect.

Mr. Perron, do you have a question?

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

I do not know about the French teacher, but I will say that the Bloc Québécois member is very proud. You did that very well, Mr. Blois.

We agreed to the motion informally, and there are no surprises. I was wondering if we could add a point to the motion.

May we add that we make it a principle to finish, as far as possible, the rounds of questions with our guests?

I'm referring to the last two rounds of questioning with the minister, which did not take place.

Can we include this? That way, the committee would have a general principle, to the extent possible. This will not become military, but it may make life easier for us in the future.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

I understand your point of view, Mr. Perron, and you're right.

We could have asked the minister to stay longer today, because we don't have several panels. That would have been possible. We were already over time, but we could have asked the minister to stay with us for another five minutes to finish the round of questioning.

Normally, when we have different groups of witnesses, if we take more time with the first group, we have to cut the time of the second group. I'm trying to find the balance. I try not to start a new round of questioning if the time limit is exceeded.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

That wasn't a reproach, Mr. Chair.

I know you're doing all you can, and I think you're being very reasonable in your position. We don't sense any partisanship on your part.

It was just a matter of including a basic principle, so that everyone would have the same. Can we add it? If not, we cannot vote on a motion like that. As we are talking about the upcoming meetings of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, we are talking about mandate, objectives.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

I think that would be outside the terms of reference.

I'm still flexible. If the committee wants it, if you give me permission to extend a meeting, I can. However, we'll still have the same dilemma. If we take time on one side, we'll be forced to cut time on the other.

Today it was possible. Maybe I could have done it if I'd asked everyone's permission. Normally, when there are two groups of witnesses, we would have to cut time in either case.

I appreciate your feedback. Let me know if you think this could be done at the next meeting. We'll keep that possibility in mind.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Fine.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Apart from that, does everyone agree on the motion that Mr. Blois just read? Do you all agree?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Chair, I don't know if we need a motion to do this necessarily, but I don't want to have a limit on or a specificity on the witnesses we invite. I know in Mr. Blois' motion, he specifically said that in the future we will have equine and all that. I don't think we need to have specific limits on the witnesses we will invite in the future. We don't know how long this committee will go on for. I would just suggest as a friendly amendment that this committee work to invite any witnesses we want to invite for Wednesday, May 27 for the next round. I don't see any reason why we have to specify which witnesses or which sectors of the industry we will be inviting, because I don't think we know that right at this moment.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

In other words, we wouldn't follow.... Well, I don't know if these are specific themes.

Mr. Blois, do you want to comment on your motion?

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

We had a conversation, before this committee here today, about those subjects. Obviously the motion was in French. I again I think the focus would be on the certain subjects we all agreed would be beneficial to touch upon. Whether or not the it read in French so specifically that we would absolutely have to do that.... I'd be happy to accept Mr. Barlow's motion that it would not be guaranteed, but in the spirit of those subjects, we would ask that the analysts and you, Mr. Chair, move forward on that basis. We're asking that, assuming we will have more details on Monday about whether or not this committee is going to be extended.

John, is that kind of where your head was on that?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Yes, I guess so, more or less.

Kody, in our discussion this morning, we were just throwing stuff out there, things we could invite in the future. I didn't expect there to be anything specific in the motion. Honestly, I don't think we needed a motion for this at all. I think we could just agree to continue on the committee and then continue to invite witnesses.

I see Lianne has a comment as well, so I'll let Lianne chime in here.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering if this is outside the scope of what we're able to do with our committee power, with what's going on with COVID and our scope right now.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

For witnesses, it's within our scope to move motions. That's the only motion we can move.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

We don't know what's going to happen on Monday, or what's going to happen going forward until then.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

I agree. We added that on because at our last meeting we were short on witnesses, and the discussion was that if it were going to go forward, that would give the analysts a chance to call the witnesses and organize a meeting. We've added some other themes that we may explore as we go on, but you're right that we don't know whether or not there will be more meetings.

To John's point, we don't want to corner ourselves with those themes. We are the masters of who we want to see and question. We probably need a motion to set the witnesses. I think it's prudent to have a motion, but Mr. Barlow and Mr. Blois, if you want to find a common path that we can put into that motion, that would be great and it would help the analysts to move forward and set up the other meetings.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Chair, do we have a record right now? Could I read something into the record and see if it would appease Mr. Barlow?

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Yes, you can modify the motion. If you can find a common path, that's what we're here for. Go ahead.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Basically, given that there is some uncertainty as to whether or not the committee will continue beyond May 29, which is our last scheduled meeting, my motion would be that, if this committee finds out it is going to be extended, the chair of the committee, in consultation with the analysts and the clerk, be willing to have witnesses available in, not limited to but including, the following commodity areas for subsequent meetings: chicken and eggs, the grain sector, the meat processing sector, and—following May 29, if we are afforded that opportunity—small farms and smaller agri-food businesses, apiculture and the equine industry, and perhaps witnesses who could speak to the ability to have food manufacturing in the regions.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

John, is that neutral enough, in the sense that we just need to provide some level of certainty on Monday so that the clerks can go about their business? That was the only intention, not to limit it in any way.

4 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Thanks, Kody.

I think we're really overcomplicating this. If you want to put a motion forward that we ask the chicken, poultry, and meat processors—the ones we kind of agreed on—for next week, I'm fine with that. Then if we get extended on Monday, we can have this discussion again next week on what other themes we're going to discuss moving forward.

I don't think we need to dive this deep into it right now. None of us has had an opportunity to give some thought to who else we'd want to invite. I'd say keep it simple. If you want a motion to say these are the four witness groups we want to have for next week, I'm fine with that. Then let's revisit this when we know what's happening after Monday.