Agriculture Committee on May 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, we're in a minority government, and around the table we have four different parties. I think we have to recognize that no one party is going to be able to impose its will on other people and other parties. Whoever wants something around this table has to take a democratic vote and they have to rely on the goodwill of others. The sad part, in terms of committees also, is that any one of us, of the 11 sitting around the table, can see that nothing happens at this committee. One person can filibuster this committee until the end of June.

Already, at the last meeting, Mr. Anderson spent the best part of an hour giving his position on Mr. Easter's motion. Today, we've wasted another 30 minutes and we've done nothing. We spent a lot of money crossing the country hearing witnesses, and they're expecting some report from us to indicate what our suggestions and our gleanings are.

As the chair, I know you are in a very difficult position. I dealt with a committee one time that filibustered 27 hours straight, but at the end the will was there. If we have to sit 27 hours, maybe we can sit, Mr. Chair. There's no reason why we only have to meet for two hours. We can continue into the night and into tomorrow morning. In fact, we start in the afternoon and we finish the next day around noon. So let's get on with the work.

I'm not sure what you, as chair, can do. You have the parliamentary secretary bringing in a procedural motion, but the committee's intent for some time has been to look at the two motions, two in particular that have been sitting before this committee for some time--Mr. Easter's and Mr. Atamanenko's. So if Mr. Anderson wants, I suppose we can all sleep here.

But there's no way, David, you're going to win this, because you only have four people and there are seven or eight here on the other side.

I think, Mr. Chair, you have to let David make that decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We are the master of our own domain.

I have Mr. Devolin and then Mr. Gourde.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

In response to André, I was not suggesting that you brought your motion forward to make mischief. Quite the opposite. I think this is an important issue. I listened carefully when the poultry producers were here talking about the issues they're facing and their belief that article 28 is the right remedy for them. I remember when similar arguments were made in the past regarding dairy, and the government has decided to go down that path. I also know in both cases there's been some debate that an article 28 remedy under WTO could actually have some unintended and negative consequences in the realm of NAFTA, and I'd like to hear answers to those questions.

My point was simply that, using your motion as an example, when we get to that I'm going to be hoping that we can amend it and that we can actually hear from other people and have a fulsome hearing on it. That's why the suggestion of “let's just pop through these four today quickly and then move on to the APF report”.... I'm just saying, as an example, I think it's the substance of the motion that causes me to want to deal with it. To just pass it as is, in my view, would be irresponsible. I want to deal with it.

So I don't know where we land here, and I'm certainly no expert on process. But I think in committees it's been pointed out a couple of times that this is a minority government, and whether it's in the House or whether it's in the committee, different members or caucuses have different tools at their disposal. Certainly members of the Bloc and the NDP would appreciate that there are times when in a minority you use your right to speak extensively to an issue as a way to influence outcomes or to try to change other people's points of view or to try to convince them to your point of view.

While it may be unusual in the Canadian context that government members are doing this, I think that's because it's unusual in the Canadian context that we have minority governments like this. Typically the majority and the government is the same group of people and the minority is the opposition parties. We're in an unusual situation here. I do not think it is at all inappropriate for any individual member or any caucus to feel that it's within their rights to speak to a motion and to speak extensively to it, if they think that may alter the outcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll have Jacques, Wayne, and then Alex.

Go ahead, Monsieur Gourde.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Above and beyond everything that has been said here, everyone present cares about agriculture. This committee represents all farming in Canada, which means 250,000 farms and the families that live on them. As a result, almost one million people will need a new agricultural policy. We must produce our report because our department has to have a solid foundation upon which to base the development of the new agricultural policy framework. That foundation must reflect all of the work that was done during our travels and that has been done since I have been sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.

The people who will be developing this agricultural policy will need to have something in their possession that represents all of the work that has been done. I believe that we all have an obligation to deliver, as quickly as possible, our report. I am currently sitting on another committee. We drafted such a discussion paper and it was long and arduous work. It is therefore very important that we begin because if we do not do so and we are not in a position to deliver it, it will be the holiday period and we will have to come back to this issue in the fall. The department does not have much time left to develop the agricultural policy and make it ready for 2008.

I think that beyond all partisanship, we must think about the interest of farmers. In their day-to-day lives, they are really affected by the deliberations of this committee. It is of the greatest importance. All of those from the agricultural sector know that often the policy thrust can bring about a new vision for agriculture, and the decisions that farmers make are often dependent on the policies that are established for the next 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 years. If we do not take the time to lay a really solid foundation, we could put one or two generations of farmers at risk for the next 20, 25 or 30 years. I believe that this mission is more important than all of the political and partisan games that we are currently playing.

I therefore agree with Mr. David Anderson; we must as soon as possible begin working on this draft. As far as the motions are concerned, I understand and I have a respect for democracy. Every member of this committee may table motions so that we can discuss them, for the well-being of future generations, particularly the next generation; that should be our guidepost. We talk a lot about the next generation in agriculture. The young people who want to establish themselves in the agricultural sector for the next 20 years are made up of young families in rural areas. Imagine if they were to decide to leave agriculture! We already have a problem, we are going to be short of farmers over the next few years. A young 25-year-old man or a young family will decide whether or not they will remain in this sector or whether they will work elsewhere. They will make their decision according to the agricultural policies that are laid out before them for the next years.

I therefore believe that beyond what we think here, we must make a good decision.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll have Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of Mr. Gourde's comments, this is not about partisan politics. This has nothing to do with partisan politics for many members, at least on this side of the table.

Let's call this for what it is. The motion that was in debate that was filibustered by a member, a parliamentary secretary of the government, was brought forward as a result of the government's action in retroactively changing a program--retroactively, as I said--that, based on the financial advice of financial planners, would have put up to $18,750 in quite a number of farmers' pockets.

What do you think the debate would be in the House of Commons if the Minister of Finance, after the fact, changed the RRSP structure retroactively so that $18,750 of tax benefit they get out of RRSPs no longer meant anything?

So that's an important motion too. There are thousands of farmers out there who were planning on that money. It's of an urgent basis. That motion is important too.

We agree. I went through a lot of this draft report. I haven't completely gone through it all yet. There's a lot of good stuff in that draft report. I want to see it completed and get to the ministers prior to their federal-provincial meeting.

Let's call this for what it is. This is another delaying tactic by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture to prevent us from dealing with a motion that benefits low-income farmers. That's a tactic the parliamentary secretary is using. He's using a procedural motion, and that's all well and fine, but it's already halfway discussed, and it could soon be completed if we went to the motion, moved on it, and got it behind us.

I'm just saying, Mr. Chair, that this is clearly another delaying tactic by the PS. I think it's sad that we can't get to the APF, but the government holds full responsibility for this.

I'll say this. Nobody knows when the House of Commons is going to adjourn, but the government is responsible for when the House of Commons adjourns. If we want to stay here till June 22, that's up to the Prime Minister. If it takes us that long to go through this, then I'm certainly willing to stay, but that's the Prime Minister's call. We can adjourn on June 8, but we could also stay till June 22. It's entirely in the hands of the government.

If we don't get to the APF, there's one party that's responsible. It's called the Government of Canada. We're trying to accommodate the APF. We're also trying to accommodate the other needs of farmers who are out there whom the minister left in a lurch by retroactively changing the program. As the department answered the other day, $246 million that should've gone into their pockets right now is not going into their pockets because Chuck Strahl, the Minister of Agriculture, cancelled the program in midstream. That's an important issue too.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Yes, if I have a chance later, I'll speak to my motion.

I think if we cut through all this talk, all the discussion, basically, we have in front of us two motions that are very critical of the government and two that aren't, the two latest ones. Then we have the decision, I guess, by the minister of the government not to have these motions debated, and in my analysis, this is in the hope that soon we will be out of here for the summer and then it'll be forgotten and we may not bring it back in the fall. That's my analysis of it.

Sure, they're critical of government policy, but we're in a minority situation. They deserve to be voted on, and then we just get on with whatever has to be done. That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Steckle.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I would like to bring some new direction to this. I have spoken to my colleagues who had the two latest motions before the committee. They have agreed to stand their motions for now until we deal with the first two, deal with the APF, and then move to further motions, theirs being the priority motions going beyond the APF.

If we look at that consideration, we might find ourselves moving very quickly to those two motions, dealing with them, and then continuing on with the APF. We'd stand all motions until such time as the APF is finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We have a motion on the table right now to put the motions behind the report.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

We need to vote on Mr. Anderson's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We can't amend that motion.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I put the question on the first motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's out of order; you can't put the question.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Our position has been clear that we want to set the four motions aside, so we can discuss the APF. We see that to be the priority right now.

I appreciate that the two members have been willing to set their motions aside, but the other two.... Alex's comment was that there are two motions critical of the government. That's true, and he said that we're not going to have them debated. Well, we are going to have them debated; that's what we're in the process of doing. We are asking if we can put that off until after the APF, so that we can have the debate on them, perhaps later today—or who knows, perhaps tomorrow or whatever.

Why don't we work on what we can agree upon: that we need this APF to go ahead. If a couple of members on the other side will support our motion, we can move ahead. We can come back to the motions and deal with them in a fair fashion when we finish the APF report.

We're willing to make that commitment. We just want to get this report done; we don't want to spend the next two or three days talking about these two motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As well as Mr. Anderson, I commend Mr. Boshkoff and Mr. Bellavance for standing their motions.

Mr. Easter just indicated a few minutes ago that he was trying and willing to—and in his own words—cooperate to get the APF through. So I would respectfully request that Mr. Atamanenko and Mr. Easter do the same as Mr. Boshkoff and Mr. Bellavance have done, and we will get on to this.

To Mr. Easter's comments, if he is cooperating to get to the APF, how in the world are you going to convince me that this is what you're actually doing? The motion here is very clear. If that's what you'd like to do, then I'm sure you're going to support Mr. Anderson's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Cooperation is a give and take, Larry.

I support the proposal that would leave two motions until after APF and put two motions before it. That is meeting halfway.

Therefore, I would have to oppose Mr. Anderson's motion, so that we can deal with the others that are of an urgent nature, and in fact they're partway discussed. The parliamentary secretary had a lot of words in that first motion the other day.

That's where I stand. It's a pretty good compromise. Deal with two motions, then deal with APF, and then deal with the final two motions, and no other motions should come forward in the meantime.

That's a pretty good compromise. I could support that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

We don't support that, Mr. Chair, for a couple of reasons.

Clearly, if we give our commitment to treat all of the motions fairly once we're done the APF, that is a fair compromise as well.

So I'm asking Mr. Bellavance, Mr. Gaudet, and Mr. Atamanenko to consider supporting our motion, because Mr. Easter is apparently speaking for the Liberals when he says they're not going to.

If they would do that, we can go ahead with the APF. We'll come back, do the four motions one after the other, and treat them fairly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Steckle.