Evidence of meeting #34 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 emerson.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
We're comfortable with the motion going ahead even though Larry is not here.
Conservative
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
All the committee members say they agree. I agree with Larry’s motion and I have no objection to our discussing it immediately, except that I want to make a small addition to his motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
First of all, let's get this on the floor if we're going to have debate.
Mr. Steckle.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
I am proposing, with agreement. Mr. Miller and I spoke last evening and he indicated he wouldn't be here today. I said I would take that motion forward. If that is okay, I will present the motion at this time.
Conservative
February 1st, 2007 / 3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Chair, is the intent to name communities at this time, should the motion carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It doesn't name; it just includes central Ontario. That's what they're suggesting. It's just a directive to the government, I believe.
Do you want to speak to the motion first, Mr. Steckle?
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Mr. Miller called me about this matter because there weren't any communities north of the 401 corridor that were accommodating farmers from that area. He wanted us to find a place somewhere between Walkerton and Durham or up in Markdale. Hanover would be a possibility. I said I was not so concerned; it's not so important to me to name that community, because it may not work. They have to, first of all, find a place where they can do that.
Mr. Chong lives up in that area as well. There are obviously communities where they can accommodate and probably communities where they can't accommodate. But I think we need to ask for more places, and perhaps not only one but a number of communities, because farmers have a limitation to where they go. The leadership of farm organizations will drive extensively, but the average farmer won't drive beyond a certain distance.
So I'm not so concerned if they want to do that. I'm just putting the concept in the form of this resolution before the floor, and if you want to change it and detail it, that's fine by me also.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
As I tried to explain just now, I am in complete agreement with this motion.
However, when I read it, I thought about adding what is known as a friendly amendment. I agree completely with Larry. There are areas that are neglected. I don’t want to add a shopping list to his motion. I understand very well that the department must pick certain areas. In Quebec, however, the consultation committee is stopping in a single area, in Saint-Hyacinthe, on February 8. Now that is in the Montérégie region, and thus in the Montreal region. It only sits a single time in Quebec.
We could add a consultation session—a bit like Larry is doing for central Ontario—in the Quebec City region. In my opinion, some MPs from the Quebec City region think that agricultural producers would have less distance to cover in order to be heard. That was already done during the first consultations, but they were held in private, on invitation. Individuals travelled to the Quebec City region, but here, there is only one location planned for the public consultation.
Unfortunately, Larry is absent, and I would really have liked to discuss it with him. I don’t want to amend his motion, but I would like to add the words “and in the Quebec City region.” I don’t want to specify a town or location. I would like to do like Larry did when he mentioned central Ontario, and add the words “and in the Quebec City region.”
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
This is a question for André. I'm told that the reason there's only one federal meeting there is because the provinces agreed to run meetings on the same issues. Is that correct?
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
The Government of Quebec did set up a commission. Of course, the issues are going to overlap, but as you know, the federal government has its own issues.
The Agricultural Policy Framework really concerns the federal government. The Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program, the CAIS program, is a federal program. My goal was not to interfere in any way with the commission set up by the Government of Quebec; it was to add another geographical location. When Larry presented his motion, I thought it might be possible to add some consultations at a few locations.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Okay.
It's just that I understood that both sets of meetings were set up together so that they would work together. But you're saying that you'd like to have more federal meetings, specifically federal meetings, in Quebec. The federal and provincial meetings were set up to work together, but you would like to see more federal meetings in Quebec. Is that correct?
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
No. You’re telling me that there may be an agreement with the Government of Quebec, which is conducting its own consultation. But I say that the federal minister’s consultation will not necessarily cover the same issues, the same requests, the same subjects. It is another order of government. I don’t know whether someone in the Government of Quebec told them to come to Quebec City only once, that that was enough.
I think that holding such a major consultation in only one location on one date is not enough. I am making my proposal because I am concerned about equity for the agricultural producers in the other part of Quebec; Quebec is a big place.
David, I have no idea how many consultations are planned in Saskatchewan and in the other provinces. I have no idea. Are there four?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We have a request here for a friendly amendment. Mr. Bellavance would make it that in central Quebec, the Quebec City area would be brought into the consultation as well on that issue. Does anybody see an issue in raising that as a friendly amendment?
Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I'm fine with the amendment raised.
I just also want to add that I support what Paul said in regard to this motion.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
There's no dissent.
Okay, let's go on to debate the motion.
I think Mr. Atamanenko is first, and then we'll have Mr. Chong.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'm just not quite clear about what's happening. There are consultations going on in this country. Who's doing the consultations? I understand that there are four consultations in Saskatchewan. I'm not sure what's.... Maybe somebody could bring me up to date on this.