Evidence of meeting #68 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 motions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, I was on a point of order, and it's a simple question that I asked the chair. I'm asking the chair whose rules we are following.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I'll say it again, Mr. Easter. The committee has a will and its own power to set its own agenda, and that's what we're debating here right now. The motion is in order, and we're debating the motion—
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'm not talking about this motion, Mr. Chair. On a point of order, it's well-known around this town that a manual has come out about how chairs are supposed to operate at committees. Now, are we operating under Jay Hill's manual of procedures, or whatever you want to call it, or are we operating under the normal rules? That's a point of order. You can tell me that we're operating under normal rules and I'll accept that, but that's what I need to know before we start.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
On a point of order, I think Mr. Easter is being ridiculously political here, trying to make some strange point. We want to move ahead with the agenda, which is to go to the APF report and to discuss it and its recommendations. If he wants to delay the work of the committee, that's his option, and he can continue to do that, I guess.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'd like to say that I have confidence in you, James, to run this meeting correctly. I think you've done it so far and I don't anticipate that changing, in spite of all these manuals and things that are circulating.
However, I think the question is very clear. We have four motions. We have two that have been here for very close to a month. It's very simple. We can get on to the APF. It shouldn't take more than about 20 minutes maximum to quickly look at.... At least on these two motions, we probably know where we stand. Let's get them out of the way. If we want to leave the two last ones for a while later.... If not, I think we can get them all done in 10 or 15 minutes, or 20 minutes, and let's get on with it.
If we don't want to do that as a committee, if we don't want to finish these and get on with this report, then I think we have to then decide who doesn't want it to happen.
My recommendation is that we finish the motions and get on with the APF and whatever other business we have.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I read the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's letter carefully. I can tell you that I agree entirely with the wording of this letter. I believe it is very important to make the report our priority.
Furthermore, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and all the members of this committee are clearly aware of the way in which the committee works. In a normal, democratic manner, the members of the committee may table motions before it, motions that we usually discuss in a reasonable way for a few minutes, after which we hold a democratic vote. In passing I would like to say that I do not agree with Larry that these are procedural motions. First of all, there has been a lot of politics here and that is normal. Secondly, I can tell you that in my case—and I am convinced it is the same thing for most of my colleagues from the other parties—when I table a motion, it is following discussions and requests from agricultural producers who want to see some progress in their case.
That is just as commendable, and equally important. The CFA knows it, the government members know it and the opposition members do as well. We have every right to table motions. It is ironic that the parliamentary secretary would ask us to work diligently and set aside these motions in order to work on the report, whereas he is filibustering the first motion, Mr. Easter's. If we conclude the debate and move democratically to the vote, we can carry on, move on to the following items and quickly do what we have to do, that is to work on the report. That is the way it works and the way it has always worked. That is the way it must be.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
On the motion, Mr. Chair, the first point was a point of order, and I think that has been resolved.
But on this motion, I really find it unbelievable that we've had a motion tabled and we've started to debate it, and the second speaker on that motion was Mr. Anderson, who talked it out until the end of the committee. He's a little late, in my view, coming to consideration of wanting to do the report on the APF. We support doing the APF report. We want it done.
There is other business by way of motion that is already partly discussed. The government's parliamentary secretary filibustered time away at a meeting and we lost that time to get that order of business behind us so that we can go to the agricultural policy framework.
The fact of the matter is I've seen the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's letter and I agree with it. But I have also seen a number of letters from farmers who are basically destitute as a result of the government's decision on the family farm options program. They're concerned that the government took $246 million out of their pocket. They want that issue discussed as well. Tax accountants are saying they've never seen such an outrageous decision by the government. They want action on that motion. So I think proper procedure should be that we finish the motions, as we were already partly through the discussion on them, and then we'll get to the APF.
If the government wants to move right away on these motions, I think we could get to the APF discussion before this meeting is over—unless, of course, the parliamentary secretary is going to continue to filibuster.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
This is just on some of the comment after mine around the table here. There are a lot of issues, but to the most recent one with Mr. Easter, there are a lot of things that I have to say when it gets to be my turn on the motion by Mr. Easter, because this is a very important decision. So it isn't going to happen in just a couple of minutes—not for me. I have time to talk on it.
We have more important issues than beating the daylights out of the farm family options decision, and Mr. Anderson's motion speaks to that. I think the sooner we get to it, the better.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I'd just like to comment on process. You're right, it is standard process at a committee for members to bring motions forward, but it's also standard process at committee that individual members have the right to speak to them and have the right to address the different issues they raise.
On the first issue from Mr. Easter, I don't agree with this motion, and I want to take every opportunity, when it's my turn, to persuade other members of the committee to vote against it as well. I think there is a good list of reasons out there to not support that.
In terms of the second motion, dealing with the Wheat Board and the Auditor General of Canada, that's another interesting notion, and maybe if the Auditor General is going to look into something at the Wheat Board, she should take a broader view. That's something that I think is an important question and something we'll need to discuss and possibly to expand the scope to look at what the Wheat Board is doing, in terms of what the Auditor General could find out for us.
On the third motion, from Mr. Boshcoff, regarding the feed ban that's going into effect on July 12, we've actually already heard on this a couple of times, but I also think that's important and whether those things are going to happen by July 12.
Finally, on Mr. Bellavance's motion regarding the future of the poultry industry and the need for an article 12, we haven't studied that. I listened with great interest, both when we were travelling in eastern Canada and at a recent committee meeting, to people coming forward saying something needs to be done to protect egg and poultry producers in Canada. One of them was one of my own constituents whom I have met with at other times on that subject.
I don't see these as simple slam-dunk motions. I see them as substantive motions. While there is nothing to stop any of us from bringing motions forward, I think when members bring forward motions that have a broad reach and may have a large impact on what we're suggesting ought to happen, it should come as no surprise to other members of the committee that some of us want to speak to them and we want to take the opportunity to persuade our colleagues sitting around this table to our point of view on them.
I don't know when this session is going to end. We could have as few as four more meetings and maybe as many as eight. It's probably somewhere in that range. I was, frankly, quite looking forward to discussing our report and getting it in, and I think that should be a priority. In that context, I don't see dealing with all of these options in a pro forma way, that we just kind of let them slide by and vote and don't speak to them, as really being an option at this point.
I have said before that I sit on another committee in this place that's dysfunctional almost all the time, and I always enjoyed coming to the agriculture committee because there seemed to be a common bond in terms of an interest in the subject matter and actually trying to get something done. I certainly sensed that when we were travelling, that we want to get that report in and we want to do the best things for Canadian farmers.
We have four motions today. Who is to say there will not be four more tabled tomorrow? I think it's a reasonable approach at this point to decide, with limited time, what our priority is.
I, for one, would argue that getting to work on our report is my number one priority, and I sure hope I'm not compelled to spend a bunch of time here over the next couple of weeks talking to some of these motions and dealing with them properly.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Mr. Chair, let me just say at the outset that what I'm about to say is not diminishing my respect for you as chair. I think you've done an honourable job as chair, and I realize that being chair in a minority situation, when you don't have the majority, on your side is very difficult. So from time to time we have to give, and we have to learn to take it on the chin sometimes. We sometimes give a lot to get a little; sometimes we give a little to get a lot. If we learn to do that, I think we can continue to do that.
But I think there's been a bad spirit at this committee for the last meetings. I think we have to go beyond that and get beyond that kind of thing. If we're going to continue to do that, then we're going to go nowhere.
I, as much as anyone around this table, and those of us who travel with the committee, know it's hard work. A lot of work went into this. A lot of farmers are depending on us doing this, and whether, even when we get the report in, we can really effectively put together an APF framework in time for March 31, 2008, is even questionable at best. But I think we need to attempt to be there.
I would suggest, in the spirit of working together, that we move to dealing with the motions. I think there's adequate time.
I've been at meetings where we've had to adjourn the meeting because there was a disagreement among members at the table, and I supported the opposition, the Conservative Party at that time or the Reform Party at that time, to shut down the meeting because we weren't going anywhere. We came back at the next meeting and did the work in two hours. So we can do this work that has to be done in terms of this APF study that we've done.
I believe that today, in the spirit of working together, we can decide we're going to deal with these motions, but if we're going to take an acrimonious attitude about everything and we want to fight and debate and talk these things out, we're going to go nowhere. If we're going to have that over our shoulders going through this APF, we're going to have the same thing there, and I don't think that's where we want to go.
I would, in the spirit of cooperation, seek the cooperation of all parties here today to work together and get these motions out of the way, if it takes today to do it, but then move forward in a new spirit as we try to get to the APF, because that is the important one, the one we want to get right. Moving forward, that is going to be the policy we work from for the next five years.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Chair, we're trying to give the opposition the opportunity to do that. Barry has laid it out clearly. We have four motions here, and pretty well all of them need serious debate, and they actually need some more information, because a couple of them are bringing completely new information into the equation, and there are others we've heard a limited number of witnesses on.
So, clearly, I think part of that debate is going to be a request to get more information, because, particularly on Mr. Bellavance's motion, we haven't heard from the government witnesses and we haven't heard from industry witnesses. We've heard from producers. We've made mistakes at this committee before because we didn't consider things and get the whole picture before we made decisions. So that's one example.
Mr. Boshcoff's motion brings in some new information that I think the industry is requesting. We haven't had those witnesses here at committee, so those are the kinds of things that I think we need to consider before we go ahead.
So clearly these four motions are not going to pass today. That's why we wanted to come in that spirit of cooperation that Mr. Steckle was talking about and give the opposition and ourselves a chance to do the right thing, to work ourselves through the APF report and get that out of the way, and then come back to these motions. Then we can have that debate and discussion that everybody wants to have on the floor of the six or eight or however many motions we have at that time.
We sent our agenda months ago to try to get this done, and there seem to be constant interruptions. Then we keep putting this off and putting it off, until we're going to find ourselves in a situation where we don't have any influence on the policy framework and we're not going to have anyone else to blame but ourselves.
We're trying to find a compromise here, and our compromise suggestion is that we deal with the agriculture policy framework report first and then come back to the motions. I think that will give everybody what they want.
The one other point I wanted to make is that procedurally there's no reason why we can't do this just because we were discussing the previous motion or whatever. I wanted to make that point as well.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My friend David, if I can call him a friend, has said that there have not been enough witnesses for us to vote on Mr. Bellavance's motion. I have been an MP in Ottawa for four years and I have been hearing about section 28 since I got here. I'm wondering who is not listening. Is it me or is it the others? Quite frankly, I have been hearing about this for four years. Whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives does not change a thing.
I believe this is very important. I do not mean that the report is not important, but I believe there are a number of concerns. I have been hearing talk about section 28 for a long time, and I believe it is as important as the report. Unless I am mistaken, unless somebody tells me otherwise, I believe they are both equally important.
Earlier on, Larry said that if we continue to wait, there will be 24 motions next week. In his opinion, this would be motions to create more motions and yet more motions again. André's is a good one because in truth, we would protect our agriculture even more. I am not implying that the report is not good, because the contents of the report apply indirectly. In my view, we must work on this as soon as possible in order for it to function. If not, there's something wrong at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.
Some people tell us that we will never be in power, but my objective is the well-being of farmers. In countries where there is no more agriculture, things are not going well. We saw that in Russia: when the bottom fell out of agriculture, everything else fell. I thing agriculture is essential and of great significance. I come to work for the well-being of farmers and not for the good of some party or my party.
Thank you.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I think it is up to each of the members who tabled a motion to decide if they are flexible enough to set it aside for a certain period of time in order to move on to other priorities. That does not bother me.
Some members on the government side have made good arguments; Barry mentioned some that were very commendable. However, we must not forget that the parliamentary secretary of the Minister of Agriculture has been filibustering the first motion that was tabled.
Personally, I did not table a motion to waste the committee's time nor to filibuster. I do not intend to table seven or eight more by the end of the session, not at all. I feel that my motion is very important, as Roger stated so well a while ago.
However, I am aware of the fact that we have not heard from certain witnesses, particularly because we had a few from Quebec on the subject of poultry and eggs and we dropped the meeting with the officials in order to be able to continue the discussion on Wayne's motion.
On this subject, I am prepared to set aside my motion today, but when I feel the need, as every other member of the committee has the right, I will want to hear my colleagues' opinions on the issue. In my case, we can hear from other witnesses.
It is up to each of the members to decide what they want to do with their motions. I repeat, these motions are not tabled to cause problems, they have been tabled because agricultural producers have made requests, I am convinced of that. It is our duty to discuss them and it is our duty to put them to a vote and not to filibuster, which will prevent us from discussing the report that is so important to everyone.