Evidence of meeting #17 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was kvd.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
I want to commend Mr. Atamanenko because this is a good thing. Whatever government is in office, there will still be issues in the agricultural industry.
When we do our study on the future of farmers, the witnesses that appear may talk about the different links in the industry chain. We may get some answers as part of that debate. Towards the end, if it's possible--perhaps at the last meeting--we could compile that.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
My reason for including the motion now is that I think it's important for us, if we think this is an important issue, to put our stamp on it, and then we can work out a schedule. Part of this could come in November and part of it could come after Christmas. As you've mentioned, in the schedule, we already have some of these people appearing. Part of their task could be to talk to us about the profits and that type of thing.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I just want to say that there is a considerable amount of material available on this. Most of the large Canadian unions in the agricultural industry have studied this issue. We have exceptionally good and recent data for all of Canada.
It seems to me that just doing a literature review would already give us a very good idea of the issues related to the ownership, control of, and profits of the various links in the chain. That has already been assessed annually in most sectors.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
If we're going to vote on this right now, and if the committee passes it, I'm going to need some help here on what kind of focus and what kind of time and commitment we want to put into this. We have a tight schedule.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Let me take a stab at that, Mr. Anderson.
Does anybody else have any points on this?
What I'm hearing from the committee is that we want to have some background work done, an accumulation of data that's already out there, a culmination or combination of all these reports, which will be given to us as a committee. Each one of us can then start to work through that pile of data. If we have time in the December meetings that are open at this point, we will start the study. It will carry over into the winter or spring of 2007, and we'll work our way through it at that time, if that's acceptable to Alex.
Yes, André.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I just wanted to say that I think we can get started on this, but I agree with David that at one point, the Committee may not want to look at that issue alone, because there are a number of events that may be occurring. There are some things we may not even have completed. So, I think we need a pretty precise schedule, even if that means adding sessions as we did for the Canadian Grain Commission. We don't want to devote all of our time to that issue.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
We can do that when I call the question. As the motion stands, nobody disagrees with the intent of the motion; it's how we fit it into our schedule. We will be having other strategy sessions after the Christmas break when we'll regroup. The steering committee will meet, this can go into the hopper, and we can start to work it out from that point to flesh it out.
If you would prefer to hold it in abeyance until that point, we will defeat this motion. If you accept the motion as it stands, then the background work can be done at any point, and we will try to work it in this fall.
I will call the question.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Just a minute, Mr. Chair. What did you say? If we approve it, we're doing what?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
I'm just going to reiterate that. I will call the question. If we accept the motion as it is tabled, we will work it into the mix as quickly as we can this fall. If you defeat the motion, Mr. Atamanenko has the option of bringing it forward in the strategy sessions for our next series of meetings starting after the Christmas break.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
The preliminary work can still be done. We can still have the accumulation of data, and it can be given out to us as committee members, because we do have a bit of a hearing coming in November on this, on the concentration of the wholesale-retail sectors.
Alex.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I think you're giving us an either/or situation, which you might not necessarily have to do. I think we can still pass the motion and work out how we're going. This is a statement saying we want to do this. Part of that procedure could be the research, followed up by hearings after Christmas. This doesn't have to mean that if we pass it, we have to do it before Christmas. It means that we start the process, we get the information, we start looking at it, and then we start plugging it into our schedule.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
You're not holding us to any timeframe on doing this. You just want it on the table that the committee, at some point in the future, will study this.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
It's my understanding that we're starting--
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
I'll call the question then. Those who support the intent of the motion as it's tabled with us?
(Motion agreed to)
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
We'll work out the logistics of timeframe and meeting times and so on at a later time.
The meeting is adjourned.
