Evidence of meeting #40 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.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
That's where I think you need to take time to see what's actually going to be--
Liberal
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, further to the point of order, if I believe Mr. Easter's motion is out of order, I'm going to challenge it on procedural grounds. I can't do that unless I know exactly what the motion is--
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Brian, can I give it to you this way, and I'll leave it with the chair? The amendment would read as follows:
and that the standing committee request the Government of Canada adopt the proposal concerning specified risk material outlined by industry representatives in their letter of October 27, 2009, to the minister.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Just on the amendment--and I do have you, Mr. Bellavance. Both motions are going in a general direction to do something with SRMs. But I do think, Mr. Easter, that your motion is a clear direction on that, and I think there is no harm done if we continue with the motion we have. I would suggest that you put that forward as a notice of motion today, Mr. Easter. I don't think there's anything lost by that because it's a specific direction. And I'm going to rule on that.
I think we should deal with this motion. If nobody has an objection, I'm willing to accept this as a notice of motion today.
Okay. We're going to stick to the motion we have.
I have Mr. Bellavance first.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I may have a solution to the problem. I also suggest that we amend the motion. I think that my amendment would satisfy Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Easter. It is really a logical extension of Mr. Lemieux's motion, which I support. But, I do not find the language strong enough towards the government, given the industry's requests. Those requests provide details that allow us to move a motion that is slightly stronger and to ask the government for specific help.
I would not change all the wording. My amendment would read as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, after hearing witness testimony concerning Specified Risk Material, request that the government work with industry to implement solutions to existing irritants...
Up to this point, it is very similar to Mr. Lemieux's motion. I would add a comma and continue as follows:
in particular, an assistance program to help the industry cover the cost of $31.70 per head, which represents the gap in competitiveness observed with the United States, and that it report to the House.
It follows from Mr. Lemieux's motion, and I added what Mr. Easter is asking for.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
If it's a point of order. I think I'm going to make a comment on this first.
Mr. Bellavance, I think the first part of your motion was changing it mildly and probably was acceptable, but again, at the end of it you got into much the same thing as Mr. Easter did--where it's a specific solution or whatever. Having ruled on Mr. Easter's that way, I will have to do the same with yours.
I have Mr. Lemieux first.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Actually, Chair, the point I was going to make was that my motion is encouraging the government to work with industry to find solutions. What's being proposed as an amendment is a dramatic change. It's proposing the solution, and that's not the aim of this motion at all. It's a great diversion from the motion.
To go to the hog industry, Chair...the initial ask was for a per head payment, but what turned out to be the better solution was programming that we delivered that was not at all related to a per head payment. What's being proposed completely veers away from the motion because it's proposing a solution before we've even worked with industry to find possible solutions to existing irritants.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Did you just listen to me about the hog industry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Order.
I've ruled on the amendments of Mr. Easter and Mr. Bellavance. I believe because it's something specific--and Mr. Easter, you nodded your head--I have to treat Mr. Bellavance's the same.
I think for the sake of time, ladies and gentlemen, there's nothing lost by passing this, and I don't see that there should be a lot of debate on it. That doesn't stop any member from proposing something further on this at another time. That would be my suggestion.
Do you have a comment specific to that, Mr. Bellavance?
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I do not want to challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair, but I think you are being very harsh. We amend motions all the time. It is harsh on your part because the change does not completely set aside Mr. Lemieux's motion; it is an addition that bolsters his request. I think that if you keep to that decision, we will have problems every time we want to put forward an amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm basing it, Mr. Bellavance, on the fact that I thought what I heard through translation was identical to Mr. Easter's amendment.
If you would read one more time what you're proposing, I'll make a final ruling.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
The motion would read as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, after hearing witness testimony concerning Specified Risk Material, request that the government work with industry to implement solutions to existing irritants, in particular, an assistance program to help the industry cover the cost of $31.70 per head, which represents the gap in competitiveness observed with the United States, and that it report to the House.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, referring to Mr. Bellavance's main point, he is moving a substantive motion. I apologize for my delay, but the new Marleau and Montpetit is out and I haven't had a chance to read the pages.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
In my opinion, he is changing the spirit of Mr. Lemieux's motion, which would be a substantive motion on its own.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
That would be my argument towards it.
From what I understand, Mr. Lemieux is saying he wants the government to work with industry to find a solution, not that there's a predetermined dollar figure and solution already out there. That changes the essence of Mr. Lemieux's motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I believe the two, André, are similar enough, because you do mention the specific...what was it, $31-and-something. So for that I have to treat it the same as Mr. Easter's. He was in agreement with that, and I don't think there's anything lost by doing that.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
We will most likely move another motion, in order to send a stronger message to the government. Mr. Lemieux's motion is very nice, but it will not solve the farmers' problems at all.
