Agriculture Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

This is a very serious matter, Mr. Chair. It is unacceptable for people to be intimidated when they are here to inform the public and defend their rights and interests, no matter who they are. We live in a democratic society. We were sorry about the unfortunate incidents on social media before the holidays, and I think this is similar to that.

Before we talk about drafting the report that we will be presenting to the House, I would like the committee to look at what happened. For example, did the police get any complaints? For my part, I was not aware of it. Today I am informed of a motion that I did not receive in advance. I know you wanted to put it forward today, but it would have been helpful to distribute it to us before the meeting.

As I said, I don't think anyone would disagree with the basic principle. Witnesses do indeed have to be protected. We could gather more information, however. We could make a determination later on, before sending it to the House. If the information we have is not conclusive, I think we will have to approach this seriously and conscientiously and try to gather additional information.

That said, I can see that the intent of the motion is relevant, and I think it is an important motion.

For my part, I think we should take a step back to gather the missing information. We could then make a determination later on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I have Mr. Steinley and then Mr. MacGregor.

Here's how I read the motion, colleagues. It asks, first and foremost, for the clerk and the analysts to be instructed to prepare a report outlining the material facts of what Mr. Barlow has raised. I presume that once that report and analysis are contemplated, if a majority of this committee want to instruct me, as the chair, to find that there has been a breach of parliamentary privilege, then I would report back to the House.

I don't read this motion as an absolute breach right away and that I would report back right away, because—to your point, Mr. Perron—it first instructs the clerk and the analysts to prepare a report that we would then have to contemplate once that report was done, along with the information that was pertinent to it.

I am cognizant that this is an important discussion. I also know that there's other business we have to do.

I have Mr. Steinley, Mr. MacGregor and Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I would just say that I know we sometimes want to expand the scope of some things, but we have specific evidence with the clerk and the analysts dealing with the witnesses and conversations, so I think this can be something that could be done relatively quickly. There is documented proof. They have had these conversations, and witnesses have put forward their concerns, and there are examples of witnesses going to the RCMP. Quite a few of these are indigenous women as well, Mr. Chair.

This is something that we need to take seriously, but I would not want to see the scope expanded. There is documented proof with this specific bill. I think we have a duty to make sure that people know that we're going to have their backs, as Mr. Barlow said, but I would not want to see this expanded. There are things on the table that we can.... The clerk and the analysts can do their good work and produce a report, and we can look at it to see where we go from there.

I just worry that.... I wouldn't want to see growth in the scope. This is something that we can look at very seriously and in a timely way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Yes. I think it was just for the record that some of our colleagues were raising that concern. The motion is clear. However, again, I want to make it clear that the way I read the motion is that I'm not absolutely reporting back to the House. First and foremost, there has to be a contemplation of the brief that is submitted.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I disagree with your reading, because I think the motion actually does instruct you to report it to the House.

I want to follow on Mr. Perron's suggestion. I do believe that it would be prudent for us, as a committee, to review this, so I would suggest an amendment to this motion.

I would suggest, in the first line, “That the clerk and analysts be instructed to prepare a brief report for the committee”, and then it would continue on. The next part of my amendment would be to delete “and that the chair be instructed to present this report to the House forthwith.”

I think we, as a committee, need to be presented with this analysis and evidence first, and then we can make a subsequent motion based on our review of those facts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I have Mr. Drouin and then Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

To that point, if we are to eventually report back to the House, then obviously, with regard to the folks who have made these statements to our clerk, I am interested in how we protect them as well. If we report publicly, we need to have a conversation about protecting those individuals who have made those particular statements.

I would be in line with supporting what Mr. MacGregor said. Then maybe we can have a longer-term conversation: If we are to report back to the House, how do we do that, and how do we protect the identity of those who made those statements?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're happy to contemplate that. We do have the amendment as moved, so we're on that.

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is a very serious issue. Obviously, we want to be sure that witnesses feel free to come and speak and testify. I think there are ways to protect witnesses already, through meeting in camera and other things, but certainly, if they have received threats....

I'm curious. Is this study specific to this bill, or will it also include other bills on which we feel people have been harassed or bullied, such as perhaps Bill C-234?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

The motion from Mr. Barlow, as presented right now, contemplates parliamentary privilege in relation to Bill C-355. The amendment that Mr. MacGregor has made is that the analysts and the clerk would prepare a report with the pertinent facts related to this particular study. Then, as Mr. MacGregor has also moved, he has cut off the portion of the chair being instructed to present back to the House forthwith. That will come subsequent to the report being prepared.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I just think that since it's such a serious issue, perhaps we could look it under a broader basis. I think we've seen evidence of bullying in relation to other bills that we've considered as well, which we didn't study. I'm wondering if we should perhaps expand it, especially if we're going to make a recommendation to the House. I think we do want to protect witnesses and make sure that people aren't bullied.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay. If you think, Ms. Taylor Roy, there's consensus in this committee to do that, you can move a subamendment to the amendment that Mr. MacGregor has moved. I don't know if that's the case.

Otherwise, where I'm at procedurally right now, assuming there's no more debate, is that we would vote on Mr. MacGregor's amendment. Depending on how that goes, we would then vote on the main motion that has been brought by Mr. Barlow.

I see Monsieur Perron's hand.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

My understanding is that Ms. Taylor Roy's amendment has not been moved.

We are talking about Bill C‑355. We would have examples of that, but it is not restrictive. To reassure Ms. Taylor Roy, if we have specific examples, we can act accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

The motion is quite clear that it's in relation to Bill C-355.

Again, in the interest of time here, colleagues, if we are of the view that we let the clerk and the analysts prepare it, and we feel, to Ms. Taylor Roy's point, that there has to be an expanded element down the line to consider whether other types of parliamentary privilege have been breached at some point, this committee is well within its right to do so. My interest is in trying to litigate this so that we can move forward.

I will turn it over to you.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that's a good point. I agree that we need to have specific instances. I'm just thinking that the clerk and analysts may have heard similar things from witnesses in other studies. If they have, I think that should be included, and not just on the one study. If the clerk and analysts know of other instances of either witnesses or members feeling that they've been bullied, and those instances have been brought to their attention, then I think we could include that in the report. I'd like to see, perhaps just in this session, broader indications that the clerk....

If it's agreeable to you, Mr. MacGregor, to make a subamendment to yours, I would just broaden this a little bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Procedurally, it might be a different amendment altogether. Mr. MacGregor didn't contemplate in his amendment actually amending the scope of the report that would be prepared for the analysts.

Again, in the spirit of this committee, Ms. Taylor Roy, you can move an amendment once Mr. MacGregor's element is concluded. You can actually move another amendment to this motion, or this committee, which generally works pretty well in consensus, can contemplate what is before us. Once the clerk and analysts come back, if we feel that it has to be widened, we are well within our right to go further.

I don't want to take too much more time.

Go ahead, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I feel I should comment, since this is something that I raised.

This is a result of information and personal anecdotes we've been sharing with the clerk throughout this entire process. I wasn't doing this to make this a fishing expedition for other issues. I've been here for a long time. I wanted us to deal with something that specifically happened at this committee. I certainly don't recall another instance of a study that we've been doing at this committee seeing this type of vitriol.

I certainly know all of us were getting emails and pictures and all those types of things from people. My worry is that if we don't make a statement here, this will continue to proliferate. The signal we'd then be giving is that this is okay, that you can treat people and potential witnesses like this. How are we supposed to invite witnesses to come here and testify when we have sensitive topics to discuss? Certainly animal agriculture is going to be one that is not going to end.

These witnesses, who have very important expertise to share with us, are not going to come here if they don't feel that their testimony is going to be safe and they are going to be anonymous, or if they are otherwise going to be opening themselves to public harassment and intimidation.

That's really why I have us focused on this particular issue at committee in comparison to Bill C-234. We did not have that type of response from people at all. That's why I want this focused.

To Mr. MacGregor's proposal for an amendment, I'm totally fine with having the report come to committee. I still strongly believe that this should be reported to the House. It's quite clear with the information that I've presented to the clerk over the last several weeks that this is an issue that was clearly a breach of privilege. I don't want to make that judgment, I guess, before everyone has a chance to see it.

I'm totally supportive of having the report come to committee first, but I still believe the report should be tabled in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We can litigate that once the report is actually contemplated by the committee.

First I have Monsieur Perron, and then Monsieur Drouin.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comments will be very brief. I agree with what Mr. Barlow said.

With all due respect, Ms. Taylor Roy, I do not think we should look for more information because that would require a significant amount of research by the analysts and the clerk. We cannot ask them now to look into previous studies to see if any evidence has been retained. Let's start with that.

It does not apply to the bill, but to the study we have just completed. This should not be interpreted negatively with regard to the bill, but I think it is important if we have testimony.

According to what Mr. Barlow said, there is evidence. We have concerns today because we have not seen it and we want to see it before sending it to the House. I propose that we vote on Mr. MacGregor's amendment, that we adopt the motion and resolve this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Drouin is next.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

On the amendment from Mr. MacGregor, I'm flying blind, so I'm not comfortable with it. I haven't seen anything. We have not seen anything except that particular side. I'm happy to have a report here. I want another vote to determine whether we report this back to the House.

Because I'm blind, I don't know what's happened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

It was table-dropped. I can assure you, Mr. Drouin, that what Mr. MacGregor is moving would allow the clerk and analyst to prepare a report of the relevant facts and information. The committee would then further determine whether or not there was a breach of parliamentary privilege.

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I haven't seen the amended motion either. My concern is that if this is a broader issue, I want to ensure that we look at the broader issue if that's established here.

Part of the problem with this conversation is that apparently members opposite are privy to information that wasn't shared with us earlier. We don't really know what they're talking about, or the extent of these threats and allegations.

I'm fine to have a report, but I want to ensure that if this is happening and if in fact the clerks and analysts have heard similar kinds of concerns from other witnesses or have heard from other people that they have been bullied, we do want to expand it.

I don't think we need to specify this bill in this motion in order to do that. There's a real concern about witnesses being free to testify. I don't like tying it to this particular bill, because that kind of makes it sound like this bill was the problem, whereas similar things have happened in connection with many other bills.

That's my objection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

What I would say, having sat as the chair of this committee for two and a half years, is that I have never seen another instance of a witness asking to not be identified. We take pretty seriously our role, and if there is any type of harassment or whatnot.... Neither the chair of the committee nor the clerk and staff can deal with the World Wide Web and what goes on outside the four walls of this committee. It doesn't happen often that witnesses want to speak without being identified.

I take your point, Ms. Taylor Roy. I don't know of any other instances, but I do want to allow us to ask the question about whether or not we want to move forward with Mr. MacGregor's amendment and I want to make sure that nothing is going to be reported back to the House at this point if Mr. MacGregor's amendment is ultimately agreed to.

If you guys want, we can stop the clocks, go print this and bring it back, if you feel it's necessary, so that you have the opportunity to see the amendment.

I'll look to Mr. Drouin. Is that necessary?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'm fine with the amendment.