Evidence of meeting #100 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
This is an amendment to delay the coming into force of the bill from 18 months after receiving royal assent to five years.
Many stakeholders have told us how long it was going to take to have this.... If this does come into effect, they told us about the effects it can have on their livelihood, given the gestation period of horses and animal health consequences, and the fact that it will destroy people's livelihoods, forcing them to find other means to make a living, which could include retraining in other education for themselves.
When the stakeholders who actually raise these horses were here, no questions were asked of them by any of the opposition parties. I think it is incumbent upon us to think about the people who have put their heart and soul into raising these animals. It is their livelihood. It is part of their past and their present, but obviously it is not in their future if this bill does come into force. I think delaying this so that we give the proper amount of time for people to figure out how it's going to affect their lives from here on would be compassionate and something that this committee should take seriously. It's going to affect the lives of lots of people, and we should give them time to rebuild those lives.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Thank you, Mr. Steinley.
Is there any debate or comment on the amendment proposed by Mr. Steinley?
Seeing none, shall the amendment carry?
Would you like a recorded vote?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
I would love a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Colleagues, that brings us to clause 11.
Shall clause 11 carry? I assume it's on division, given our precedent.
(Clause 11 agreed to on division)
On the short title and the title, CPC‑8 and CPC-9 were proposing changes. They ultimately didn't come into force. They're inadmissible.
Shall the short title carry?
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
On division.
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
On division.
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
On division.
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
On division.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
On division.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
On division.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Colleagues, let me first, on your behalf, thank the officials for being here today and for their work in their respective portfolios.
Colleagues, I appreciate your work on this committee and the witnesses who have come before the House on this bill.
We don't have anything else scheduled today.
Go ahead, Mr. Barlow, very quickly.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With the committee's indulgence—and I have spoken to the clerk about this—this bill was something I have never before experienced at this committee. Perhaps it's happened at other committees.
I don't mean this about the members of this committee. I think we all get along very well. However, when we were trying to work with potential witnesses and have them speak on this bill and tell their stories about why this industry is important to them and how long they've been....
I'm sure all of you had emails in your offices that your staff had to deal with. It was quite disgusting, in my opinion, how some of the activists pushing for this legislation were treating not only members of Parliament but also the witnesses we had. We had a number of witnesses who eventually decided not to appear at committee because of the intimidation and reaction they were getting in phone calls. A couple of witnesses had to call the RCMP on multiple occasions as a result of protests or intimidation at their farms or businesses.
I want to mention to the committee that this was unlike anything I've seen—having witnesses refuse to attend because of threats being thrown at them and the harassment they were having to endure from animal activists. This is very unfortunate. I think that no matter where you stand on an issue, you should have your voice heard and feel free to have that voice heard.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in chapter 20, “Committees”, in the subsection related to witnesses, states:
Witnesses appearing before committees enjoy the same freedom of speech and protection from arrest and molestation as do Members of Parliament. At the committee's discretion, witnesses may be allowed to testify in camera when dealing with confidential matters of state or sensitive commercial...information. Under special circumstances, witnesses have been permitted to appear anonymously
Thanks to the clerk, we were able to do that.
Tampering with a witness or in any way attempting to deter a witness from giving evidence [at a committee meeting] may constitute a breach of...privilege. Similarly, any interference with or threats against witnesses who have already testified may be treated as a breach of privilege by the House.
Committee, I think we need to set a bit of a precedent here. We always talk, out in public, about how well we work together. I think we should be sending a message to those who are involved in this industry or may have an opportunity to appear at committee that we are going to have their backs and won't tolerate that kind of harassment and intimidation, regardless of where we stand on an issue.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I would like to table a notice of motion:
That the clerk and analysts be instructed to prepare a brief report outlining the material facts of a potential breach of privilege related to the reports of threats, harassment and intimidation against, and the efforts to deter the appearances of, potential witnesses and witnesses in relation to the committee study of Bill C-355, an act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amendments to certain acts, and that the chair be instructed to present this report to the House forthwith.
Again, colleagues, I was very disappointed to see how other Canadians were treating their friends and neighbours and certainly our agriculture sector simply because they didn't support what they were doing for their livelihood. I wish that was something we would never have to deal with, but it was a matter of fact in this case. I can honestly tell you that we had a number of witnesses who were scared, period, and did not want to appear at this committee to testify about this issue. I think that's not right.
If we truly want to go out there in public all the time and say how well we get along.... This committee does not have the shenanigans that other committees do. Again, I'm not saying anybody around this table was instigating this type of behaviour, because I know that's not true. However, I think we should send a message that this is not going to be tolerated and that we will back up anyone who feels they have a position so that they feel welcome at this committee.
I would like to move this motion and have it discussed today, while we have an opportunity.
Thank you for your indulgence.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Obviously, no witnesses should be bullied, whether it's on this issue or any other issue, so I support what you're saying, Mr. Barlow.
We know that debates sometimes get passionate, but regardless, witnesses should not feel intimidated when they come before our committee—or don't come before committee because they are being intimidated. I don't want to specifically tie it to Bill C-355, though. There have been other studies in front of us, and as a member of an agriculture committee, I think all members of Parliament should encourage witnesses to come forward and that witnesses should feel free to express an opinion without being bullied.
If some witnesses had expressed something—I'm not aware—I hope we would have dealt with it right away. We had some discussions about a particular witness appearing and not showing their face on camera because they felt there could be some reprisals against them because of the opinion they had.
I'm not sure what the report would say, other than saying that all members of Parliament obviously condemn bullying tactics used by anyone. I think all sides would agree. I would challenge us as well, as members of Parliament, to not bully other members of Parliament when we have certain opinions.
I don't know what the consequences of that would be.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I'll let the clerk contemplate that.
I see Mr. MacGregor's hand, and then I'll see Monsieur Perron. We'll let them weigh in so that we can get a sense of where this may go.
Go ahead.
April 18th, 2024 / 12:15 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Since this committee meeting is happening in public, it's really important for everyone to understand what privilege is.
Privilege in a parliamentary context does not mean what many people think it means. Privilege is what allows members to be able to do their job on behalf of the people they serve, but it also extends like a cone—a very important cone—that extends to the witnesses who come before us here, as was demonstrated yesterday in the House when the Speaker was instructing Mr. Firth when he appeared before the bar and told him that anything he said while presenting to the House could not be used against him in a court of law or in anything else. That's the power of parliamentary privilege. Even though these proceedings are held in public, nothing on this record could ever be used against someone. We do that so that we can hear the unvarnished truth from witnesses, who can give us their view on sometimes difficult subjects without fear of reprisal.
I'm inclined to support this motion because I think it's an important principle to stand for. However, I want us to be careful to not be selective in where we choose to direct our outrage as a committee.
One of my NDP colleagues had an axe thrown through his window during an “axe the tax” rally. That could be seen as a breach of his privilege, as it was intimidating a sitting member who is trying to do his job properly.
I think both instances need to be condemned. We as a committee have worked really well. I'm proud to have been a member of this committee for six years because of how well we work together, and we have dealt with some difficult subjects in the past.
I will be inclined to support this motion, but with a cautionary note that we not be selective in what we choose to investigate as a committee. Whenever there's been a breach of privilege, we have to be very vocal about it as a committee.
I'll leave it at that, Chair.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I agree with a number of the comments that have been made.
We cannot of course disagree with the fundamental principle that people must be able to appear before the committee without fear of reprisal, just as it would be totally unacceptable for committee members to be intimidated.
As an aside, Mr. Chair, could we let the witnesses who are still here leave if they have finished their testimony?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I'm sorry. I can relay to our good officials, who have good work to do on behalf of Canadians, that they are certainly released. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. That motion was moved, and I was focused on Mr. Barlow.
Thank you to our witnesses.
Go ahead, Mr. Perron.