Evidence of meeting #3 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 amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Awesome.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

We should formally request her presence, but I'm told on good authority that March 12, the first week after we come back, would be the day the minister could appear for supplementary estimates (B).

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Thank you.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Looking at the calendar, we have the meeting on Thursday, but we have nothing in there. We need to decide which study we're going to do.

We voted on two motions here and we accepted them. We need to decide which one is going to go first, and we need to give some instruction as to the witnesses we're going to have here. That needs to be our next order of business.

Go ahead.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

I'd like to move a motion that we undertake the study proposed in a motion by John Barlow as our first order of business.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Is there any discussion?

Monsieur Drouin.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

We're fine with that.

The only comment I'll make about Mr. MacGregor's motion is that it would be helpful for the government, and provincial ministers as well, to know our recommendations before the July 1 meeting. Hence, it would be good for you, Mr. Chair, to present your report to the House at some point in June, just so the minister is informed of our recommendations for that FPT meeting that will be held in July. Around July, normally, they all meet for BRMs.

We're fine with starting this. I think we should allow some flexibility as well, for the clerk to know. Witnesses can't always be there when we want them.

We can start with the first meeting with regard to the—

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

I'm not sure I heard right. Is there a meeting in April?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

There is a meeting in April. July is when they have the yearly meeting normally.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Mr. Blois.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

In the spirit of exactly what my colleague talked about with the agriculture minister, trying to work with the provinces and the territories on BRM.... I know that this side of the House thinks that's important. I'd like to put a motion forward that we start with Mr. MacGregor's proposal for BRM. Both are very important. If there is a way....

I don't know precedent on this committee, whether you do one study at a time or whether there can be a little crossover. I think BRM is the most important, and we should be starting with that.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

We have to vote on the motion before we can move a second motion.

Are there any other comments on Ms. Rood's motion?

Ms. Rood, go ahead.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

I think we have 18 meetings between now and the end of the session, and we have asked for eight meetings on this. That's maybe six meetings with the estimates and such in between. I think there's sufficient time to carry out everything.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Okay, eight meetings. We'll include a couple of meetings at least for the drafting of the report, draft one and draft two.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Right.

There may be meetings for which we can't get witnesses on one study, so perhaps we could start concurrently on something else in the spirit of trying to get everything done before the end of the session. We're saying up to eight meetings. Perhaps we don't need eight meetings. It's the same with the other motion.

In the spirit of working together, we can begin with this study and continue. I think we have more than enough meetings to be able to get both reports done in time for your FPT meetings in July.

Go ahead. I know what you're going to say. I was just going to lead into that.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Okay, go ahead.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

I was just going to say that, in the spirit of the private member's bill that we have before the House right now on this exact topic—that's why I think Mr. Lawrence is here today—I think that would tie in nicely. We can be doing the study at the same time this bill is before the House.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

February 25th, 2020 / 4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Thank you for that.

The other thing is that the carbon tax is now not without its timeline as well. With the recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision, that will be going to the Supreme Court. So the carbon tax could be struck down. That is a real possibility. Having those numbers early might be more important than having the farm subsidy programs known at that point.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Thank you.

Are there any other comments on the motion by Ms. Rood?

Monsieur Perron.

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

I hear the views of both parties and I am a little divided. I would tend to be in favour of Mr. MacGregor's motion because it is a priority that has been identified by the agricultural community.

As just mentioned, we have enough time to deal with both motions by the end. So I would tend to agree with Mr. Blois on this.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

It is also always possible to start a study and do both, if witnesses are not available. We can start the other study as well.

Go ahead, Mr. Blois.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

To Mr. Lawrence's point on the Supreme Court case that will be moving forward on the price on pollution—the carbon tax, if you will—some of the evidence that certainly could be solicited from the witnesses on this committee could also be solicited as part of that application process going forward to the court. I don't see them as absolutely necessary. Some of the testimony from witnesses and individuals can come from outside of this committee and could still be heard in the Supreme Court, I think, in a couple months' time.

I do take your point. I appreciate it. Again, to Mr. Perron's point, I believe we should start with the BRM and certainly move forward on the second piece, on Mr. Barlow's motion.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan

Are there any further comments on the motion to start with the study proposed by Mr. Barlow?

(Motion negatived)

It's defeated, so we're right back to square one. We have nothing on the calendar.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Neil Ellis Liberal Bay of Quinte, ON

I'll move that we go with Mr. MacGregor's motion.