Evidence of meeting #4 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 meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I also wish to add something. At some point, this committee talked about the Canadian Wheat Board and a PowerPoint presentation was made. It lasted over 10 minutes. None of the other witnesses who followed or preceded the PowerPoint presentation necessarily had as much time at their disposal. That did not give rise to any complaints or problems. The exception must not become the rule either.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Obviously I do not doubt the professionalism of the livestock producers. On the contrary, I want to hear them too. That is not the point I wish to make.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, while I speak against the motion, I really don't see this as being the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and Canadian Pork Council in conflict with the NFU thing in terms of time.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
No. Seriously, I think this is a complicated issue in which the NFU has basically challenged the system and how it's operated over the last 30 years.
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It is something that is worthy of this committee's consideration. Because of the in-depth research on this subject, I think, whether we agree or disagree with it, it will require 30 minutes for them to explain it.
I don't see it as an organizational conflict. I don't think the Canadian Cattlemen's Association will care at all that the NFU has been given that time, because I think the kind of study it is, even with the summary we have, dictates that they should be given that exception in terms of time. I'm willing to give it and not get into this other craziness that every organization has the 30 minutes.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Chair.
The opposition here are playing favourites. The very arguments they are putting forward now to not give 30-minute windows to witnesses on important subjects are the exact same arguments as I was raising 5 to 10 minutes ago.
I was saying that if the committee starts making exceptions, they're playing favourites, whether they like it or not, in that witnesses will not be impressed with the fact that they're being limited to 10 minutes when they know very well that, either the week before or the week after, the committee allowed another witness to have 30 minutes. These people are travelling great distances. They're putting a lot of time and effort into their presentations. They're tackling the same difficult and delicate issue as the NFU's going to be tackling. How can we pick? How can we possibly choose?
All I'm asking is that the witnesses be treated equally and treated fairly. The emphasis is on equal, because if we're going to give equal time slots, let's give equal time slots.
Quite frankly, I'm a little taken aback by the backpedalling of the opposition members. After having just voted on a motion to make an exception, they will not use the same reasoning they used to vote in favour of that motion to now vote in favour of my motion. I welcome them to explain that to the Cattlemen's Association and the pork association.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
To go on further, with Mr. Easter, it appears you're playing favourites with an organization that you used to belong to, and I'm sure—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
And not playing favourites?
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
There we go.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
It's favouritism, Wayne.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
