Evidence of meeting #71 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
Okay, let's deal with the amendment. I'm going to propose that the question be called on the amendment--
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Yes. We had Mr. Atamanenko's amendment, and you allowed me to subamend that, but now you're asking Mr. Easter to wait on his subamendment--until when?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
We're voting on adding the words “and Canadian Wheat Board” after “Agri-Food”. We have just a few words in there. We're changing it somewhat, but that's the amendment.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, Mr. Chair. Having seen how this government operates, I do not believe...and I'd ask for Mr. Atamanenko's counsel on this, maybe.
I really believe we should be amending this to say the Prime Minister's Office, the minister's office, and the office of his parliamentary secretary, because that's where I expect the hidden costs are. I doubt if there's a whole lot the Department of Agriculture itself has done, but there is certainly work that went on within the Prime Minister's Office and the minister's office and the parliamentary secretary--
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I have a point of order.
On a couple of occasions already, Mr. Easter has made fantasy allegations, and if he's going to be making them, I'd like him to back them up with some evidence. He's saying I've participated in particular things. He doesn't name them. So I think if he's going to be slandering somebody, he needs to come forward with some specific evidence--
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
We need to have language that is appropriate to go into an amendment here.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
Can we put that in short language, so that we can deal with it? Then we'll have--
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, I will add to it, after “Agriculture and Agri-Food”, “the Prime Minister's Office, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food's office, and his parliamentary secretary”. We probably should be throwing in the Conservative Party, but we'll leave that one out for the moment.
June 5th, 2007 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
The amendment to the motion would read as follows. I'll read the entire motion as it would be if it were to be adopted.
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food write a letter to the Honourable Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, indicating the Agriculture Committee's support for a thorough investigation into the government's conduct and spending by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Prime Minister's Office, the office of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and his Parliamentary Secretary's office throughout the recent Canadian Wheat Board barley marketing plebiscite.
Is that correct?
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
This amendment certainly suggests that something inappropriate has happened, and I haven't, either here today or anywhere else, heard any evidence of that. I think it's inappropriate for our committee to be casting a net like this, one that just tries to essentially capture as many political actors as possible without any real reason to believe there's anything there. This is a fishing expedition.
The initial motion from Alex called for the investigation of spending by the government. Certainly implicit in that is a suspicion that something inappropriate was done. Again, I haven't ever heard any evidence to that effect.
If you're going to investigate the government, given that the Wheat Board's opposition to any freedom of choice for barley producers is well known, there was a bit of balance in that, but to then take that a step further and essentially throw in the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture--I don't know what's next. They can serve the rest of us on the government side on the agriculture committee.
I think it's clearly just a reactive fishing expedition and I think it's inappropriate. I don't see where this is going, other than just trying to make an issue that's already very political even more inappropriately political.
