Agriculture Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2022

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

Have they assigned a name yet? I don't have the email.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We'll make sure that the clerk connects with you, Mr. MacGregor, because presumably it will be your amendment. We'll make sure that we move on that, but anyone else can go forward. So, we'll make sure that gets sorted out, Mr. MacGregor. It is by November 9 at noon that we need that amendment.

Colleagues, I want to assess your thoughts on where we are on the global food security study. We've heard from quite a few witnesses now. I would suggest that we're probably getting to the stage of the game where we could start to move to actually drafting a report and reporting back to the House.

I did have a conversation today with the clerk about possible scheduling moving forward. I've proposed, at least internally...and I would like to seek your feedback on whether or not the last session that we would have on this would be on November 16. For the first hour, it would be three or four witnesses, whoever we have left who has not been called, at the discretion of the analysts. That would be for the first hour. Then the second hour would turn into the opportunity for us to provide reflections back to the analysts on recommendations and key themes and to then really let them go to work to write the report. Does anyone have any issue with that? I'm curious to seek your feedback.

We're good. Okay. That's how we'll proceed. November 14 will be Bill C-234. The first hour on November 16 will be panellists; the second hour will be our feedback to the analysts.

The third thing—and Mr. Drouin reminded me—is that the supplementary estimates have not yet been tabled. I presume they will be at some point. I guess what I primarily will ask committee members is this: When the supplementary estimates are tabled, is it our wish to have the minister appear on the supplementary estimates?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay. All I would ask is that, when that process actually happens, you allow me the ability to work with the clerk and the minister's office team to see what best date would be available for her to come before this committee. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay.

I see your hand, Mr. MacGregor. Do you have anything else?

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

I have just one other item of business.

The House referred Bill S-227 to our committee with the vote today. I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on it. Maybe we can allow Mr. Nater to come for an hour to talk about how amazing his bill is. Then we can kind of rubber-stamp it, because I don't see much controversy with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Rob Black might think that it's his bill, but yes, the sponsor is Mr. Nater.

Mr. Drouin, go ahead.

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

I would, just out of respect to the other House as well, invite Mr. Black, if that's a friendly.... Again, I don't think there's a lot of controversy. We can invite Mr. Nater to come maybe for the first hour; I don't think we need to spend two hours with Mr. Nater. For the other hour, maybe we could have Mr. Black, just out of respect for him as the person who drafted the bill. I know he's a good man.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm going to turn to Mr. Steinley. I think his suggestion is that we might not even need two hours on it.

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

Yes, what I would say is this: Can't we just come together, have them both give a five-minute spiel, and then ask questions? We can get it done in an hour, and then do clause-by-clause in the second hour. I think we can get this done in a day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Is that how we would like to proceed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

If you leave us the discretion, we'll do our best to schedule it according to M. Nater and Senator Black's schedules.

Mr. Perron, go ahead.

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

I don't want to be a spoilsport, but as a committee, I would ask you not to botch our work. I have the impression that we're going to try to get things done in 30 minutes and think that everything will have been dealt with.

I agree with Mr. Drouin that we at least need to hear from the people who introduced Bill S‑227. At the end of this meeting, we can decide whether we want to study the bill further or whether it should be referred back immediately to the House.

I believe we should spend at least one meeting on this discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Are there any thoughts on what Mr. Perron is saying?

How would you like to move in terms of how much time you want to spend on it?

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

I think one session, if Mr. Perron means one committee meeting. I think that's what we're saying: have one hour for them to be here to present and ask questions, both Senator Black and Mr. Nater, and then have the other hour to do clause-by-clause. It's not a very long bill. If what Mr. Perron means by one session is one committee meeting, I would agree with that.

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

Mr. Perron, you might perhaps want a little more time to think about this proposal.

We could discuss the bill for an hour and then move on to something else. In principle, that could provide the time required to think about the possible amendments you might have in mind. I am making this proposal out of respect for the committee members.

I don't think there are many other amendments to be made, but we could give ourselves 48 hours to think about it, and then proceed to a clause‑by‑clause study for 20 minutes. I don't think there would be any objections to that.

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

I wouldn't object to that either, but I wouldn't want to shut the door on the possibility of proposing amendments. We could keep the door open, as was just mentioned. I would agree to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Why don't we do this? We can have further conversations. It's clear this is something the committee wants to do, and it's now been referred to us. I'm happy to have a conversation with Senator Black and Mr. Nater, and then report back on the 14th.

Go ahead, Monsieur Lehoux.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We invited Minister Fraser, and I think it's very important for us to receive him, because we in committee are hearing on a regular basis about the workforce issue. So I would like to emphasize that we should continue to request the minister's presence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you for raising that.

We have written, Mr. Lehoux, to Minister Fraser. My understanding is that—I'll let the clerk weigh in, if she feels it's necessary—there are about six or seven different parliamentary committees requesting his presence at this time. We were informed that it was not going to be possible. He was unwilling to make the time because of his schedule. You can appreciate that we can't necessarily compel one of our parliamentary colleagues to come to a committee. That is the reality for all committee members.

However, if there's something you feel is necessary to go forward on, we would have to seek the agreement of the committee.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I understand, Mr. Chair, but we've been talking about the lack of food security and I believe that's a very important matter. I hope that the minister will be able to find the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We can hope.

If you want me to do something further, in terms of writing a second letter, it would have to be at the behest of this committee. Otherwise, we can keep it at that.

I see Monsieur Perron's hand.

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

I strongly support Mr. Lehoux's proposal. I've been a member for three years now, and we've up been talking about this problem for three years without anything happening. In view of the importance of food security, we should continue to strongly request the minister's presence. That's part of our job.