Evidence of meeting #7 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 industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It's not another issue. It's part of the same.
Mr. Chair, let me put it this way. If the intent of the motion is to deal with the contingency fund of the Wheat Board, then it's too late to deal with it, because each and every day the Wheat Board is being hurt by the minister's public statement.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Easter, you're on another issue. If you want to speak to the motion and about the intent, you can ask Mr. Hoback and Mr. Dreeshen about that. That's not what we're discussing.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Well, if that's the case, Mr. Chair, we'll just vote against the motion. To hell with it.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, if you can't debate an issue around here, why bother trying?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
You can, but debate the motion. That's all I'm asking, Mr. Easter.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
I guess I've had the unique opportunity to have gone to Manitoba. I have been at the Canadian Grain Commission. I have been at the Canadian Wheat Board. I have spoken with people there, and also with the Canadian International Grains Institute. The only thing I'm missing is a grain terminal and a slaughter plant. As far as I'm concerned, that's what this motion is addressing, and anything else is superfluous.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Storseth spoke against Wayne for four out of his seven minutes in front of the witnesses and you did not intervene. We can absolutely discuss the intent of a motion. It would become quite difficult if every time we take a different direction you tell us that our comments must be strictly restricted to the wording of the motion. In any case, the issue is a possible visit to the Canadian Wheat Board. I think that the fact that the member from Malpeque is talking about the Canadian Wheat Board and the intent of the individual who tabled the motion is quite consistent with what we have always done on this committee. I am saying this with all due respect. With respect to the motion, there is a point I would like to address.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
As far as how Mr. Storseth uses his time is concerned, it's no different for other members, and I'm not going to name names.
It seemed that Mr. Easter was trying to debate the other motion that was tabled the other day, and to me it was off base. I mean, it's fine, in his statement, if he wants to say that he thinks I'm...[Inaudible--Editor]. That's not the issue. It seemed that we weren't discussing the motion per se. If there's part of it he doesn't like, I guess that's up to any member to amend or whatever. That's all.
We may disagree on that, but all I'm trying to do is keep the discussion on the motion that was there. It is as simple as that.
You still have the floor.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Chairman, I made my comments with all due respect. I believe there are other times when you have intervened in the same way and that we have felt restricted in what we could say.
Under Mr. Hoback's motion we would travel in April. I don't know why it has to be in April but what is certain is that we have a two-week break in April. I can tell you right now that many activities have been planed in our ridings. It would be very complicated for me to go out West during the break. I know that this is my personal point of view but there may be other members of the committee who will be in the same situation.
If I am to vote in favour of the motion, I would like to table an amendment that would remove "in April" so that the trip does not take place during the two-week break.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
That's fair enough. You will have your amendment.
Just to comment on that, we all know that, first of all, before the clerk can arrange anything, we have to get approval. I think we all know how slowly things happen around here sometimes, so realistically, maybe it can't happen then.
There's an amendment on the floor to take out the words “in April”. Is there discussion on the amendment? I'll call the vote on the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to)
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Now we're back to debate the motion as amended. Is there any discussion?
We'll go to Mr. Atamanenko.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'd like to return to what I was trying to get across before. In all fairness to Randy, I had a good talk with him about this--I hadn't talked to anybody else--and I had two concerns.
One was about the whole time element and the fact that this is a very cumbersome procedure, and by the time we get going it may be into April, it may be later. My other concern was that by having a public meeting, this may turn into a forum of for and against the Wheat Board, and I don't know if that's appropriate, to try to see who can outdo whom in getting witnesses. That was a concern I expressed to him.
I thought that it would be a win-win situation for everybody, because I know that one of the reasons Randy would like to do this--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that he would like to quiz the Canadian Wheat Board on what's happened, and he has every right to do so. We have some questions too, and I think we could probably do this more quickly if we brought Ian White and a couple of directors here under our competitiveness category or somewhere that could happen soon. I think it could happen probably in a couple weeks so Randy--I'll be honest--can get his answers. He has a right to get his answers soon, so we don't have to wait until maybe May or maybe in fact this may be postponed until the fall.
That's my only concern about this. I'm sure that one of the reasons is that Randy would like to get some answers, not the only reason but one reason, and I just think it's really cumbersome and it will take too long.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I understand that members of the opposition don't like necessarily playing by the rules, but I'm going to make a motion that we table this until Mr. Hoback is here. I'm making a motion. I would ask the committee to table this motion and just move on with some of the CFIA motions and stuff that we're trying to deal with.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
There's a motion on the table. It's non-debatable. I call the question.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Storseth.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Sometimes when it's tabled, it's tabled forever. Our understanding is that we could deal with it at the next meeting with Randy here.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Let me ask the clerk. I do think the trip is worthwhile, but I will ask the clerk this.
Can he pull it off the table at the next meeting if he so decides, or are there rules with coming in with the same motion?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative