Agriculture Committee on April 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I don't think—

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

If the other side agrees with Mr. MacGregor's amendment, then we're good to go.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes, I'm fine with Alistair's amendment. Let's approve Alistair's amendment that the report comes back here before going to the House.

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

I don't want to send a report to the House if I don't have knowledge about it, so I want committee—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Then we'll vote a second time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

It is crystal clear to me as the chair. If we are okay to move Mr. MacGregor's amendment to Mr. Barlow's motion, what that would mean is that the clerk and the analysts will go do the work. We will contemplate this further down the road when they have the time to do it. If we feel that there's enough information and evidence provided that you want me to report back to the House that we feel as though parliamentary privilege has been.... I don't have the ability to do that; that's for the Speaker. I'm not sensing any concern.

We will come back to your point, Ms. Taylor Roy. If you want to amend the motion, you can do that today. I'm not sure that there is a majority that will support that, but there's nothing stopping us from contemplating that down the road when we hear.... Perhaps when we go in camera to hear the information, you can ask those same questions of the staff who advised me and ask about whether there is more that should be done and whether the scope should be widened.

Go ahead, Mr. Carr.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I just want clarity please, Mr. Chair, on something.

Let's assume for a moment that we adopt Mr. MacGregor's amendment. The clerk takes this away. A report is brought back, and we hypothetically, as a committee, vote down whatever comes from that and the prospect of reporting it to the House. That's the context.

My question within that context is this: Would the contents of the report, even without a submission to the House, be publicly available? That's my first question.

Question number two is this: Would it be available to the Senate committee, and if so, eligible to be discussed in the context of the bill when it comes to the Senate's consideration?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

On the first question, Mr. Carr, no, it is up to the majority of the committee, so it would not be shared publicly.

With regard to the Senate, I don't know if I have that answer at this point.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I think that's an important question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'd have to do research and report back.

Again, a committee is the master of its own domain. What I would say is that if we choose not to have any of that shared.... I'm quite confident on the public piece. I don't know about the Senate procedure, so I don't want to speak on that. However, generally, parliamentary committees are, with consensus, able to choose to do whatever the hell they want, within reason.

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

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

I think there's consensus that we move forward on what Mr. Barlow has put forward.

I do not feel comfortable voting on this when I don't have it in front of me with the amendments and when we don't know how this material will be used. However, I think we have consensus, so I suggest that if the Conservatives would like an official vote on this, we wait until the next meeting. We can have the amendment printed and put before us, and then I may make a subamendment to it at that point.

Right now, I think that if we want to just go ahead and proceed with this—as there's consensus in the committee—as we often do, then I think that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

The motion has been distributed to everyone's personal account now. We could just move the motion on division if you're not comfortable having a specific vote, Ms. Taylor Roy, but I do think that there's a consensus to move with what Mr. MacGregor has proposed.

Are we good?

In Mr. MacGregor's amendment, he has simply added “for the committee” and has scrapped the part at the end that says, “and that the chair be instructed to present this report to the House forthwith.”

Mr. MacGregor has rightly identified that he doesn't want to give the pretense that, absolutely, I'll report back without having had that report prepared and analyzed by this committee.

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

Mr. Chair, where was the motion sent? I don't have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

The motion was sent to everyone's personal email account. If you would like to suspend, I can do so and we can.... Everyone should have it in their email account as of about a minute ago.

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

Do we also have Mr. MacGregor's amendments to this motion, the amended version?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

If you would like, we can suspend and we can make sure it gets translated and everything.

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

I have one quick question: The motion as is hasn't been modified yet with Mr. MacGregor's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I will make this very clear for all my colleagues. I will read it out in English very slowly for everyone to understand.

That the clerk and the analysts be instructed to prepare a brief report—

—and this is where it has been amended—

—for the committee outlining the material facts of a potential breach of privilege related to the reports of threats, harassment and intimidation against, and 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.

It stops there.

To Mr. Drouin's point, Mr. Barlow's original motion contemplated this motion passing right away: “and that the chair be instructed to present the report to the House forthwith.” That has since been amended by Mr. MacGregor to say that we will consider the report that has been prepared and then make the decision on whether or not you would instruct me to go to the House after that.

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

On that, I will just note that yesterday, whether we agreed or not, it was a form of bullying of private citizens that happened in the House of Commons. We're dealing with this today, but regarding what happened yesterday, I wasn't in the House. I want no part of it, because we have authorities that deal with this kind of stuff.

Again, when we're going to have to rule on whether harassment was committed or not, are we going to invite an HR expert or something to determine that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Drouin, the instruction is that the clerk and analysts will prepare a brief report outlining the facts and the material elements of what is being alleged in the motion that has been presented by Mr. Barlow.

We will be free to ask questions. We will be free to bring in other individuals as we see fit, because this committee is master of its own domain. How to handle what would then be subsequently prepared by the analysts will be completely up to you and anyone else on this committee.

If we choose to find that parliamentary privilege has been breached, based on the definition, you can then instruct me as the chair to go back to the House on that, or you can choose not to. That will be up to this committee to decide, and it will be up to this committee to decide the parameters of how we determine that, which will be, I presume, in an in camera setting. Again, it is something I would do.

I want to deal with what's here. It seems as though a majority agree with the approach that has been proposed, and I don't want to spend too much more time, because we are coming to a close.

I know, Mr. Louis, that you want to move something as well.

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

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

I will just repeat that I think this is a very important issue.

I agree with you, Mr. Barlow, that witnesses should not be intimidated. We don't want to see bullying at all. I think the problem with this motion, though, is that we have in here a potential breach of privilege. I don't think we have even established.... You said you thought the privilege of members of Parliament extended to witnesses, but it wasn't very clear on how it extends to them.

I think there are a lot of things involved around this. What are the reports of threats, harassment and intimidation? Again, how are we defining those? What do we think those are?

I'm all for doing some kind of an investigation into this, but I don't know that it's committee business and I don't know that it should be related to the study of Bill C-355. I think it should be broader if this is happening.

When the witness asked to come to committee and have their identity protected, we were told that this type of procedure had been done in other committees before. Certainly there are other examples in other committees of instances of people feeling that they needed to be protected before coming as a witness, and the ability to appear in camera is provided. I'm presuming that is also because of those same considerations of privacy or perhaps of fear of intimidation.

I feel this is an attempt to link this to Bill C-355 in particular, and I don't believe it is an issue that is specific to Bill C-355. I think this has the potential to undermine the bill in some ways.

If you would like to remove the reference to Bill C-355 and make this broader, which I think would address your concerns, I'm more than willing to do that. I just do not want to see this in any way targeting this specific bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, I take the points that have been raised.

Ultimately, unless there is another subamendment to what Mr. MacGregor has moved, I would like to call the question on whether or not.... If we need a vote, we can do that, or if people need more time to contemplate it, I can suspend, but otherwise I would like to just call the question.

To your point, Ms. Taylor Roy, if we do this study, which Mr. MacGregor's amended motion would contemplate, and if we feel there are other instances, we are well within our right to report back in a way that includes those elements that you mentioned.

I'm going to go to Mr. Lehoux.

If you guys want to continue to consult, go ahead.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we have discussed the proposed amendment and Mr. MacGregor's amended motion sufficiently. I would like a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I think that was a dilatory motion. Is that correct? I think you just moved a motion to go directly to a vote.

Ms. Taylor Roy, I'm going to give you just a few minutes to get back to your seat so that we can allow the vote to be called.

Ms. Taylor Roy, there has been a motion moved. I have limits on how long I can delay a vote.

[An hon. member]

Can you repeat the motion?