Senator Plett: Thank you, minister. I’m not sure whether that was a yes or a no. But with respect, as I said, I met with the Manitoba beef producers, and they are very concerned about this measure. Margins are already extremely tight. Your carbon tax has hammered their profitability, and this measure is just one more hurdle that they cannot afford.

We see this in a number of other areas in the agricultural sector, where the NDP-Liberal government is deliberately choosing policies that make life more unaffordable for farmers and producers.

Minister, why does your government seem to be doing everything in its power to undermine our beef industry?

We do care for farmers, and we are there to support them in different ways. In the last Fall Economic Statement and in the last budget, we are investing $1.5 billion to support our farmers in different ways, so I would say that our government has the backs of farmers. We recognize their extremely important contribution to our food security and our economy, and also their dedication to sustainable agriculture.

Our government is there, and I can explain during the coming hour the different ways and programming that we are putting in place to support them.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Minister, during the 2019 federal election campaign, your government promised food producers that they would replace Farm Credit Canada with a new entity called Farm and Food Development Canada. Yesterday, we received from you an answer to a written question on the Senate Order Paper on this subject which confirms your government, at this point, has no intention of following through on this commitment.

Minister, is this a case of your government making an election promise to farmers without having any idea on how to implement it? Or did you ever really intend to follow through on this promise?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I also rise today to pay tribute to our colleague and friend Senator Wetston.

Senator Howard Wetston was appointed to this chamber five and a half years ago. He has served on several committees, but the two committees where I am most familiar with the work he has done are the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Today, I wish to recognize the work you have done, Senator Wetston, especially on the Banking Committee report entitled: Cyber assault: It should keep you up at night. This report dealt with important issues for Canadians and showcased the positive work that can be done at the committee level in the Senate of Canada.

Another of your great contributions was your involvement in the committee with the Senate’s record-high number of amendments brought forward on Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Your expertise and knowledge in regulatory law were beneficial to everyone in this chamber, especially to former Senator Mitchell, who was the sponsor of the bill.

Your competence and past experiences in competition law and policy, securities and energy regulations, and administrative law enriched this chamber with a very specific expertise.

Although we haven’t served together much on committees, I wish to recognize and underline that I have a lot of respect for you and the work you have accomplished in this chamber. And I believe it is important to acknowledge your service to our country.

Howard, I know that we both share a passion for golf. With your imminent retirement, I wish you the very best in your future endeavours. I hope you get that handicap down a bit, and I hope you will be able to enjoy a lot more time on the greens in the weeks and months ahead.

And I am always open and looking forward to an invitation to playing a round of golf with you, Howard. Happy retirement.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I rise today on a point of order regarding Question Period. Actually, it’s probably more of a request, Your Honour, for clarification around the parameters around Question Period.

Lately, some senators have taken the habit of asking questions to chairs of committees. That is certainly within the rules and we have no problem with that, as it is a useful tool to learn more about the work of committees. But I think, Your Honour, that you need to remind us and this chamber of the rules regarding those questions.

Yesterday, as you know, Your Honour, we had two senators asking questions of committee chairs, and it’s our belief that in both cases the Rules of the Senate were not followed with those particular questions.

After Senator Black asked his question to the chair of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, you did remind him and the rest of the senators that questions should not be asked of subcommittee chairs and, in fact, by the rules cannot be asked of subcommittee chairs. I do regret the fact that you allowed, however, the question to be answered after ruling that it was out of order. This incident clearly showed us, Your Honour, that clarification around the rules of these types of questions are needed.

As well, during yesterday’s sitting, Senator Bovey asked a question of Senator Boehm in his capacity as chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. While this particular question was on the business of the committee, which, of course, is required by the rules that the question needs to be placed on the business of the committee, the supplementary question was asked of Senator Boehm, which was asking him for a personal opinion. While I have the highest regard for Senator Boehm and his opinions — and a personal opinion from him would always be valuable — Question Period is not the moment or the place for senators to share our opinions.

The next concern that I have about Question Period is centred, in our opinion on this side here, on the length and time of the questions and the answers. As you know, we have established a mechanism whereby the time granted for questions and answers are limited when ministers come to this chamber, and I think it has worked very well. I think we can all agree that this allows for better rhythm and for more senators to be able to get involved and ask their questions.

I am not, at this point, suggesting that we start using a stopwatch each time a senator stands to ask a question. However, some senators’ questions are getting borderline close to making Senators’ Statements. And with the highest regard and respect for our government leader — and, indeed, for chairs — the answers, or non-answers, are equally long. That is unfair to senators who would like to ask a question, are at the bottom of the order and can’t get to their questions.

Your Honour, I do not want this to be a debate in this chamber. I simply thank you in advance, Your Honour, for any consideration you might give to this request for clarification and simply ask, Your Honour, that you clarify for all of us the rules and parameters around Question Period and these types of questions. Thank you, Your Honour.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Minister, welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Minister, the Minister of Health is proposing front-of-package labelling regulations which would require ground beef sold at retail to carry a “high in saturated fat” warning label. This would make Canada the only jurisdiction in the world to place a health warning label on its ground beef. Other countries have implemented front-of-package regulations, and they have chosen to exempt all single-ingredient, whole foods based on their nutritional value, including ground beef.

Health Canada is doing the opposite. I met with cattle producers yesterday, and they are very concerned about this measure. They have asked that ground beef be exempted from the regulations, just as butter, milk and maple syrup are exempted.

Minister, do you agree with this proposal, and would you commit to speak with the Minister of Health and ask him to ensure that cattle producers receive the exemption from these regulations that they are seeking?