He told you.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
He told you.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
He said he may or he may not, but this seems to be what happens every time we are to debate a controversial issue, so that you can change the majority on this committee. So it's no damned wonder that we don't--
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Wayne, you're the one who's filibustering.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Order.
Mr. Easter is speaking on the motion.
Are you finished, Mr. Easter?
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
This is a pathetic spectacle. It's strange: when we want to spend a little more time talking about certain things, we encounter filibustering and dilatory tactics, but when it comes from the government, it's another matter all together. We have seen this over and over again, whether it be with respect to the listeriosis issue or any other one, for that matter.
I believe members of Parliament have every right to express themselves, even when people don't like what they have to say. On occasion, I, too, have not been very happy when the Conservatives have monopolized the discussion. These are clearly dilatory motions. What Mr. Lemieux has just moved is a dilatory motion. That is a shame. People have been called here to testify. They made the effort to come and are now witnessing this unfortunate spectacle. They have a copy of the Notice of Meeting and they can see that, according to the agenda, Committee business was scheduled between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m. They were patient enough to wait. They knew that at 4:30 p.m., they would be appearing. They only have one hour to tell us what they think about existing programs. That is not a lot of time. Meanwhile, they are witnessing all of this.
Personally, I am not particularly bothered by this, but Mr. Lemieux will have to live with his decision—a decision that means these people will not have an opportunity to appear. We obviously do not intend to wait until there are more Conservatives here so that they can push through a motion every time they decide to. We are not going to play that game. The people who are here today will be able to tell everyone exactly what transpired. From what I can see, the Conservatives have decided to hold up the process. We are already 10 minutes behind. We should actually have started to hear their testimony at 4:30 p.m.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but this is in fact a dilatory motion. Marleau and Montpetit, at page 458 in chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”, state, “Dilatory motions can only be moved by a Member who has been recognized by the Chair”, which has been done, “in the regular course of debate...”. They say, “Dilatory motions include motions: to proceed to the Orders of the Day” and also “to proceed to another order of business”, which is what this motion is. Marleau and Montpetit state further that dilatory motions cannot be debated.
So we go to a vote on this.
4:40 p.m.
An hon. member
No, no. This cannot be debated.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
This is a motion to proceed to another order of business that was already on the agenda.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
That also is something that we go directly to a vote on.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I'm challenging the ruling of the chair, because you're wrong.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Excuse me, Mark, but I would like to hear the Clerk's interpretation of what Mr. Storseth just said about Marleau-Montpetit.
4:40 p.m.
The Clerk
In my opinion, the motion proposing that the Committee continue its business is not a dilatory motion because it does not talk about moving to another item on the agenda. However, if the motion stated that the witnesses should be heard now, that would relate to another item on the agenda. So, if the Committee continues its discussions on the same topic, it is an ordinary motion and not a dilatory motion, in my view.