Why do we have that information, Chair? For consultation. It's not to cook up deals; it's out of respect, to discuss things that are important.
If this is a burning issue, why was there no consultation? This doesn't make any sense to me. Normally, when there has been a burning issue, there has been at least a modicum of respect, to approach the other side to say this is what we're thinking of doing at the next meeting. We do this on all sorts of matters--but not today, not on this matter. I do not understand that.
The second thing concerns the procedure here. There is a way out of this. I don't want you to think that there's no way out of this. The way out of this is for Mr. Easter to ask for unanimous consent to move his motion forward. That's the way we've done it before; it's the way we've always done it. I don't understand why we're changing it today. What is so urgent about today?
I think it is showing lack of respect, as I mentioned before, for the committee, because we have a well-established procedure, and for some reason Mr. Easter and his colleagues want to trample over that procedure without...without due course.
The third thing I want to mention, Chair, is Roundup Ready alfalfa. We're in the middle of a biotech study, right in the middle of it. We're going to be calling more witnesses; we're going to be preparing a report on this. This is the kind of thing you would find in the report. It's why we're doing a biotech study--so that we can look at all aspects of the situation.
We've had all sorts of witnesses, Chair. We've had witnesses from the organic sector. We've had witnesses from the biotechnology sector. We've had farmers themselves. We've had representation from farm groups, farm associations, research groups, research associations. We've heard a good diversity of opinion, as we're supposed to. We're then supposed to work on a report. We would have a draft report prepared; we would review that report; we would look at including things in recommendations.
What is in this motion is actually short-circuiting the work we're doing on biotech. If we were to follow this example, why would we not just do away with the report and start injecting motions into meetings about what would normally be recommendations in reports? It doesn't make any sense.
We just finished a report today on programming. There are recommendations, but those recommendations weren't put in front of committee as motions; they were done in the context of a report after a study. It was the same when we studied competitiveness in agriculture. It was the same when we studied young farmers. The main recommendations came about in the report. They weren't rocketed to the top of a motions list. They weren't strong-armed by the opposition, nor by us. Instead, we did our due diligence by having witnesses come; we gave thoughtful consideration to their testimony; we had a draft report prepared; we reviewed the draft report as a committee; we had debate on certain points; we had debate on certain recommendations; and then we tabled the report in the House.
What baffles me here, Chair, is that we're in the middle of a biotech study. This committee has traveled together as a committee on the biotech study, we've touched on Roundup Ready alfalfa, we've heard from different witnesses about certain concerns. But this should be included in the report. This is why we do a report. This is why we do a fulsome study. This is why we have different witnesses come in.
This is actually short-circuiting the work of the committee. It's highly irregular for this committee. It's actually undermining the goodwill in this committee.
My colleagues have brought up that for two and a half years, for the most part—I would say 90% of the time—we have been able to work in a very constructive and cooperative manner. The times we have not, if you go back and check the record, are the times when the opposition have pulled this kind of game, when they have tried to bully and strong-arm a motion. That's when the committee has broken down.
When we're working on a study, as I mentioned—on competitiveness and agriculture, on young farmers, on biotech—we tend to work in a spirit of cooperation and in a spirit of wanting to do what's best for the farm community. We have tended not to leverage our position for partisan advantage.
And that's what's happening here, Chair. You should see this motion for what it is. There was no consultation done, no respect shown for the past precedent of this committee. There was no respect for the way in which this committee normally conducts itself, no respect for the study that we're doing, for the report that's going to follow. This is to gain some type of partisan advantage, and I think what the partisan advantage is linked to is the confusing signals that they sent out on on Bill C-494.
That's the second point, Chair. I'm mentioning that we're in the middle of a biotech study, so we have ample opportunity to—
