Agriculture Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

The producers have asked that we include them and that they be partners in setting up [Inaudible- Editor] with them. It's important that they [Inaudible- Editor].

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

On a point of clarification, Jacques, are you talking about putting that point in the preamble or somewhere in the motion itself...in points one or two, or are you putting it in the preamble?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

In motion number one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay, motion one.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

It says that "the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food recommend that the government, in conjunction with the producers, consider the advisability of intervening immediately..."

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

This is a recommendation to the government that forms the motion as such. Your point is in order, according to the clerk. It's up to the committee as to whether or not they want to accept the amendment.

So the amendment as it stands, then, would interject, “The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in conjunction with producers, recommend...”. Have I got that right, Jacques? Okay.

You're okay with that friendly amendment, André? Okay.

So the motion, then, has now been amended--a friendly amendment. The mover has accepted it. Do I have a show of hands on the amendment?

[An hon. member]

Could you read the amendment again, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Point number one on André's original motion would now read:

That, given the lifting of the American embargo, except for the regulated area of Saint-Amable, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in conjunction with producers, recommend....

So we're adding “in conjunction with producers”, as I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I don't think that was the intent of the amendment by Mr. Gourde. I think his intention--and I'm asking the question--was that the government, “in conjunction with the producers”....

[A voice]

Or “in support of”.

[An hon. member]

That's also my understanding.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Yes, that's it, so that the producers not be excluded from the discussion.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

It's not a joint recommendation of the producers--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

So the amendment would then fall in under the third line, “that the government, in conjunction with producers, consider”. Is that where you would insert it, then?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Would you say “in conjunction” or “in support of”? What would be the proper wording?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

It's Jacques' amendment, so....

Read it as you see it, then, Jacques, so we get it all straight.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

The amendment would then read:That, given the lifting of the American embargo, except for the regulated area of Saint-Amable, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food recommended that the government, in conjunction with the producers, consider the advisability of instituting a financial aid program specifically for the producers affected by the golden nematode, as existing programs are ineffective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

It would then read:

That, given the lifting of the American embargo, except for the regulated area of Saint-Amable, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommend that the government, in cooperation with the affected producers....

Does everybody have it straight?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will draft the report, André, and stand and deliver it in the House as quickly as possible.

For the second order of business, I will need a motion from the floor to move in camera to continue our discussion on the grain commissions.

Mr. Thibault.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Before we do that, can you tell us why this witness isn't appearing? I was on the health committee for a year and a half and we never had a bureaucrat refuse to appear or not be able to make it, and then at the last minute find out. It seems odd that this year a lot of bureaucrats are not attending committees and presenting themselves as witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I can't speak to any other committee. Mr. Verheul called and said he was down with the flu today. It's not that he's refusing to come, or whatever. I said jokingly, just bring a note from your doctor and we'll be okay. That's as much as I know.

We will follow it up. We will have Mr. Verheul before this committee.

Are there any other points?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The three opposition parties presented a motion to the committee some time ago on a recommended witness list. It seems rather strange to me that the organizations and individuals on that list don't seem to be coming forward, but we're continually getting individuals and organizations that weren't on the list. I expect it's at the behest of the government, as it tries to find people out there who want to attack the Wheat Board.

I'm tabling a point at this time that we expect those witness lists to come forward quickly, because it has been dragging on for a number of weeks now.

Second, I do not accept the fact that Howard Migie, whose report was tabled yesterday, will be before this committee for only one hour. That committee has met in secret for a month. It has major implications for the Wheat Board. There are no witness lists attached. In that report there is no indication where they had meetings and with whom. I believe we need him here for two hours; one is just not acceptable. He is a public servant who works for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We should have him here for two hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Your point is taken, Mr. Easter. We had fulsome discussions with the steering committee, and then it came to committee of the whole with the steering committee's recommendations, and this is how we set up the calendar.

If you look at today, we had an hour with Steve Verheul and then we had an hour with the Wheat Board witnesses. We also have an hour this afternoon with the minister. But the hour for Mr. Migie was put into the calendar a week or ten days ago. If you want to stretch that to two hours, I don't have a problem with that. We're going to have a problem with the other witnesses who are there for the second hour, unless you want to bring Mr. Migie back for a second hour independent of this, or cancel this hour and go for two hours next week.

What do you have in mind?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Let's see how he does in the first hour and go to a second later--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay. You can always recall him.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

This report has set a new low for task force reports, that's for sure.