Evidence of meeting #1 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Richard Lehoux Conservative Beauce, QC
Of course, I would like us to submit the report as part of the 44th Parliament and the minister to receive it as soon as possible.
In the current pandemic context, it must be understood that there are still many issues with processing capacity, not only at home, in Quebec, but across Canada. I really want us to table the report. We will see what will happen after, but, as a first step, I believe the report should be tabled as soon as possible.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to Mr. Perron for putting this forward. I was just wondering whether we could receive this motion in writing. I would actually like to read it. I don't know whether it's me or whether other members feel the same way, but I find that when these motions are moved in committee, it's really nice to see them in their written form as well. I don't know if the clerk could send that around, but it would be really helpful just to have a read through and consider the full breadth of it. I didn't quite catch all of the details when Mr. Perron read it. It might have been the echo in the room as well with the translation, but I would be happy to review it.
Thanks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. Lehoux, I know it might be confusing for those attending virtually. I think it is a good point to consider. We do have some new members and that's something to consider on that side. I'm going to go to Ms. Taylor Roy, and I'll let Mr. Lehoux consider whether or not that's something he would allow, for the members to read and review and then perhaps for it to be tabled. I'm not sure, but I will go to Ms. Taylor Roy.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say that as a new member, I would at the very least abstain because I have not read this report. I don't know anything about it, so for me to vote and have it tabled seems a little premature. In addition to the motion, I would actually like to be able to review the report if it's coming from this committee in this session now.
Thank you.
Conservative
Richard Lehoux Conservative Beauce, QC
We did do a lot of work on this report last year. The bottleneck prevented us from tabling it, but the work had been done. We met with a lot of witnesses. I would not want us to start that work over. I see no issue with us improving the report afterwards, but we must be aware of the current situation in processing on the ground.
The notice of motion I am presenting today calls for us to submit the report to the committee and to send it as soon as possible. I have no problem with my colleagues taking the time to read it, on the contrary, but I would like that to be done quickly, as the situation on the ground in the processing sector is pretty urgent, after all.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Okay.
Next is Mr. MacGregor, and then if there are no other comments, we can move to see if there's consent or how best to move forward.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Maybe just for the benefit of Ms. Taylor Roy and Mr. Turnbull, I can assure them that the committee in the 43rd Parliament did some very important and dedicated work on this report. We all went through it together—the Liberal members, the Conservative members, the Bloc Québécois. We all came to a consensus. There were no dissenting reports because we all felt it accurately reflected what we heard in testimony. All my Conservative colleague is trying to do is to retable a report that was tabled with the full support of the committee, and we're trying to do so to get the government to respond to some very important recommendations.
If that helps put some of my newer colleagues' minds at ease, that's simply what we're trying to do. I can assure you that the report was adopted unanimously by all members of the committee in the previous Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
Seeing no other discussion, I will ask if there's unanimous consent to move forward with Mr. Lehoux's motion on the floor.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Clerk, I believe we have it.
Thank you, Mr. Lehoux.
Mr. Perron, go ahead.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Congratulations on this motion, Mr. Lehoux. I think it was very important for us to adopt it.
I would like to give notice of a group of motions. The clerk already has them and should be able to send them to all committee members. For those in attendance, I have a copy in both official languages I will have distributed. If I may, I will read the notices of motion.
If everyone has received their copy, I will go ahead and read these notices of motion, Mr. Chair. It is a group of four motions.
The first motion concerns the resumption of the study that was suspended.
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food resume its study on the environmental contribution of agriculture that the committee undertook during the 2nd session of the 43rd Parliament; that the committee continue to hear witnesses as agreed to in the original motion and finalize its report; and that all previously provided testimony and documents be considered by the committee as needed during the current session.
The second motion is about CUSMA's track record.
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food assess the impacts of the first year of implementation of the Canada-United States–Mexico Agreement, CUSMA, on the agriculture and agri-food sector by hearing from witnesses over a period of no fewer than five (5) meetings and report its findings and recommendations to the House.
The third motion concerns reciprocity of standards.
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on reciprocity of standards, labelling and traceability of food products entering Canada to determine whether standards and regulations on food products imported and sold in Canada are met and enforced appropriately; that the committee hold at least six (6) meetings on this matter; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.
The fourth motion is about slaughter capacity.
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study to determine what actions can be taken by the Government of Canada to ensure stability and increased slaughter capacity, as well as competitiveness in the regions of Quebec and Canada, with a view to increasing food safety and animal welfare and reducing the environmental footprint of transportation; that the committee hold at least four (4) meetings on this matter; that the committee hear witnesses in relation to this matter; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.
I am done reading the notices of motion.
If there is consent, I would now like to debate the fourth motion. It is closely related to the motion our colleague Mr. Lehoux just moved, and it could complement it.
Earlier, I was happy to hear our colleagues from various political parties suggest that we examine certain aspects of processing more thoroughly. I think that the regional slaughter sector urgently needs us to consider this issue. It also needs concrete action to be taken to increase capacity in the regions and to ensure the consistency of government regulations on transportation conditions, for animal welfare and for the reaching of objectives in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Animals are transported to Pennsylvania to be slaughtered, while we are asking Canadians to avoid travelling as much as possible. The lack of consistency is flagrant.
I think this matter is urgent. So I am submitting these notices of motion to the committee, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you, Mr. Perron.
My understanding is that obviously you're putting on notice that these are motions you hope to consider.
One thing I failed to mention so far is that, in the last Parliament, we had a very effective, albeit informal, subcommittee group where we could come together and discuss these. It's not my position to say, but as I look around and look at some of the folks who are raising their hands maybe this is a great opportunity for us to pull together a subcommittee in January to discuss the direction of where this committee will go beyond, of course, the technical briefings that were introduced by Mr. Barlow.
I saw Mr. Barlow's hand followed by Mr. MacGregor.
Would you like to go ahead, Mr. Barlow?
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair. You pretty much said exactly what I was saying.
I think all of us will have some ideas for initiatives that we want to bring up. I don't have a problem with the ones that Mr. Perron has put forward, and I know Mr. MacGregor will have some as well as us.
Can I suggest that we accept these notices of motion and bring these up, as well as other ideas, at our first subcommittee meeting in January or whenever you schedule that?
Liberal
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Likewise, Mr. Chair. I will accept these as notices of motion.
We just passed routine motions, which specify a 48-hour notice period. I think there are some great ideas here, but I would like a bit of time to go over and consider them.
I'll accept these as notices for today. Thank you.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I'll be very quick.
On what Mr. Barlow and what Mr. MacGregor said, I agree.
Liberal
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I am always favourable to having conversations. The general intent has been understood. These motions were basically put forward as a notice. I was proposing that we debate the fourth motion right away. I understand that my colleagues do not want to debate this motion today, but that they are favourable to it.
Have I understood correctly?
As this requires unanimous consent, I don't think we will spend any more time on it today anyway, but you know what my intentions are.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you, Mr. Perron.
I know from the 43rd Parliament that slaughterhouse capacity and processing is a major issue that you've raised as a member of Parliament and certainly as an advocate in Quebec.
I don't want to speak for Mr. Barlow, Mr. MacGregor or Mr. Drouin, and I don't know if it was unanimous consent on what has been put forward. I think there is perhaps an agreement that the motions you've put forward have merit and are worthy of discussion, but I think it's important that we come together and share our priorities perhaps in a forum such as the subcommittee to be able to decide what we want moving forward.
I don't want to presume for the other members of the House. I'll leave the floor open if anyone wants to opine.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm not ready to give unanimous consent to start the study on number four at this time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I'm seeing the same from Mr. MacGregor and I believe Mr. Drouin.
Mr. Perron, I think that all the members of this committee understand the importance of food processing, especially in the regions, but this may be a conversation the subcommittee could have in January.
Thank you very much.
Seeing that we have our business laid out before us for at least our meeting next week and then certainly moving forward with the British Columbia work that Mr. Barlow had mentioned, what I would say is that I'm happy to work with the clerk to organize a subcommittee with the vice-chairs and Mr. MacGregor, and of course the representative on the government side, to have these conversations. I will endeavour to find the time for translation and that work.
If there's nothing else to discuss, I would ask if there's a move to adjourn and to continue our work when we're able to line up our meeting with the P.E.I. potato issue.
Liberal