Agriculture Committee on March 10th, 2010

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Regarding the agenda, we would do well to strike a steering committee as quickly as possible. We could even do that now. We would then have a steering committee for discussing the agenda, which is what we are doing right now. The steering committee should be doing this instead of the main committee.

Regarding some of the subjects that were brought up, I do not completely disagree with anything said, but we have to be realistic. If everything was going well in the agricultural community, we could spend more time on the big issues and draft long reports, but everything is not going well. Contrary to Brian, I am not in favour of discussing only the current situation, since this limits us somewhat. Right now, there are some glaring issues that must be resolved and discussed.

Another problem we are faced with is that of the time we are allowed. Had there been no prorogation, we would have had five months of work on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Instead, we only have three months of work. We are sitting until June, and I think that we have a week off during the Easter holidays. That's about it. We will nevertheless have several consecutive weeks to work and focus on current and urgent issues. Those are the issues to which we need to give priority consideration. Obviously, the SRMs and the review of programs are just a few of the topics that we have also discussed. We have had only one one-hour meeting with witnesses speaking on the subject, but it is as though we have had nothing at all. Some investments have been made into agricultural research. Research is an area that is emerging strongly in agriculture. Regarding Farm Credit Canada, all kinds of reports have been published in the media, and we should look into all these issues.

If we were to really look into the report on competition, I am sure that we could spend hours on end discussing the subject. I think that we should not give priority to this report or to the study on young farmers, since, as I have said before, Minister Blackburn went on a tour and took care of this. I would like him to report on his work rather than us going over this matter and re-doing what has already been done. I believe that there are priorities that we must consider as more urgent than conducting major studies that will take up our time, as our time is limited. The government's decision to prorogue the House really pulled the rug out from under our feet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Just on the topic of the report, I mean, we did that with the idea of a report coming out. I think that in fairness to the witnesses we had and the analysts who have prepared it--and I'm sure it's taking up room in their offices--if you don't want to deal with the report, then let's just have a motion and throw it out altogether or set a reasonable date to deal with it. I think that in fairness we should do that.

Nobody, including me, or specifically not me, is going to dispute a number of the issues that are out there, but that doesn't mean we can't reasonably carry forward for the report. That's just a comment more than anything.

Mr. Lemieux, and then Mr. Atamanenko.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd just like to correct the record on a few points, or at least start with these comments.

Mr. Easter mentioned that we didn't get the report completed because of prorogation, and that's not quite right. In fact the government position was that we should indeed finish the report before breaking for Christmas. That was our steady position. What the opposition kept doing, Chair, was throwing motions on the table. It was motion after motion after motion, which was actually obstructing our ability to finish the report.

I remember clearly we had one meeting where we went through as many motions as we could to get them off the table so we could move on with the report, and then more motions were thrown on the table. So the prorogation had nothing to do with whether or not this committee was able to complete the report before we rose for Christmas.

The second thing that needs to be stated for the record, Chair, is that Mr. Bellavance and Mr. Easter both said that prorogation has caused a five-month delay, and that is quite an exaggeration. Prorogation was 22 working days, that's it. Here we are, and just to listen to the comments of Mr. Bellavance and Mr. Easter, we're right back in the scenario of where we were before Christmas, which is before we tackle the report there were all of these motions. Mr. Easter has kindly put five motions on the table. Mr. Atamanenko has two motions on the table. If we start dealing with these again before the report, I just think it's not paying tribute to the work we have invested in the report to this date.

I would like to remind my colleagues that we have worked on this report for over a year. We have pulled in witnesses from across the country from all sectors of the agricultural community. I could ask the analysts, but I imagine we have hundreds of pages of testimony, and we have a draft report that has already been prepared and we are part-way through it. I agree with Mr. Atamanenko: I don't believe there's a lot of work left to do on that report. I think we should make that our priority because of the time and the money that has been invested in that report and that study to date. Then we can move on with these other issues Mr. Easter has mentioned, because there are other priorities.

I agree that there are priorities that we need to look at as a committee. But my fear--and it's the same fear that actually came to be realized before Christmas--is that if we keep dealing with motions it will never end. We will never get around to the report, because once we do the motion we have to work on that motion. So we should finish the report. Let's focus on that as a committee. Let's publish the report. We owe that to our farmers. We owe that to the Canadian public. Let's table our report in the House and then move on with other business.

I think if we get that order mixed up, Chair, we're going to run into the same problem we ran into before Christmas, which is time will pass, the report will remain undone, and that's a discredit to the committee, because we have worked quite collaboratively on that report. I actually feel it was a very constructive exercise for the committee and I think there are good recommendations in there for farmers that can be tabled in the House. It would be to our credit to do that sooner rather than later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

We've had Mr. Easter and Mr. Bellavance speak to prorogation and we've had the rebuttals from Mr. Storseth and Mr. Lemieux. We used to have a reasonably non-partisan committee. Let's try to work towards the issues at hand. I ask everybody that, with your cooperation.

Having said that, Mr. Atamanenko, you are next on the list.

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

I'm only going to mention that word once. There's probably no one who was more opposed to prorogation in this country than me, but that's in the past. I think we have to move forward. That's why we're here. We can discuss the merits or pitfalls of whatever happened.

I don't know if I want to spend an hour and a half today just going around the table bringing our wish list forward. I think we have a mechanism called the steering committee, and we've talked a bit and people have ideas for the steering committee. I think we can come up with a reasonable agenda, which would include the report, motions, and getting at these serious issues if we were to hammer that out.

I would suggest that we get on with that as soon as possible. I don't know how productive it is to sit around here for another hour and a half talking about what's important and what's not important. This should be going to the steering committee and we should be hammering out that agenda so we can get going and get that started as soon as possible. That's my thought on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I have every intention of calling the steering committee at the first available time that works for everybody.

The reason I asked to go into this was to have a general discussion of where we wanted to go. I don't think that's inappropriate. I couldn't go ahead and call a steering meeting prior to the elections, as you know. We're going to do that steering committee very, very quickly. Having a general discussion here today and hearing the input...Wayne mentioned some things, and André did, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It gives everybody here that isn't at the steering committee a chance to hear some of that.

Mr. Shipley, and then Mr. Valeriote.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I won't take long, because I'm going to put a motion forward at the end of it.

Members, I think at some point in time we've got to learn a lesson. The report we have done is a long report, and the report is long because we kept inviting witnesses back in, the same people sometimes, which indicates to them that we don't listen very well or we don't understand. I don't think that's a good indication from this committee.

We've asked organizations and individuals to take time away from their businesses, their farming operations, to come in and sit through the day sometimes while we did this in the midst of when they should have been witnesses. I don't point fingers at anyone; it happened.

I'm saying that we've got a long report. It is a priority.

When I look at the motions that Wayne has in front of us, I don't have an issue with dealing with those motions because some of those are actually in the report. We've just got to get to the report, and that will help us deal with aspects of these motions.

Not all of the witnesses came in front of us asking for money. Actually, many of them asked about what kinds of regulatory changes we could help them with in terms of levelling the playing field so they can be more competitive. I have a motion on that, and I won't deal with it now, but it's basically one of those things. Witnesses sat in front of us and told us to level the field a little bit and help them with regulatory changes.

The disservice to these individuals by not proceeding with what everyone at this table said was a significant and important process, to develop a report so that we could get it done.... These individuals and their organizations took the time to come in and present to us. We at least owe them the opportunity; we at least owe them our responsibility as a committee to deal with it. We can deal with this report in the long term or we can actually sit down and deal with it.

Alex and Malcolm were there. I agree, we can sit down and do it. We're actually going to have to set some politics aside, folks, and just get to it. Quite honestly, I'm not prepared--not because I don't want to deal with the motions; I want to deal with what is the priority, and I think we as a committee have a responsibility to our rate payers across this country and to the organizations that we solicited or who asked to come here.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to put a motion on the floor. That motion is that we would finalize the competitive report before we move ahead on any of the motions, and that you would move, with the steering committee's help, to address that. Honestly, the other part of that, Mr. Chair, will be that if we don't, then I think we should just dispose of it and get rid of it. I think that would be a travesty for the agriculture people and the organizations that took their time, including the young farmers who came in.

I think, folks, we need to sit down, bite the bullet, and do the job that we said we would do when we asked people to come in and they asked us to do it.

I put the motion forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Would you be so kind as to put a completion date on it?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

We've got two meetings a week, so whenever you set up that schedule and the first meeting starts, we would have three meetings to complete it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay.

We have a motion on the floor that the report be dealt with, and the report would be complete on Monday, March 22.

[The Clerk]

So it would be three meetings?

[An hon. member]

What date in March?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It's March 22.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Well, I think there's some middle ground here on this motion.

I want to speak a little bit to your motion. I'm kind of concerned. For one thing, the steering committee is set up to set guidelines. If we start doing stuff here, it kind of throws out the steering committee.

But that being said, I think there are a couple of things. We all want to do the committee report, but I think that with what's transpired here in the last few months and also with what has happened with a lot of farmers, there's a change in the situation. What I would like to see over the next couple of weeks is that we would deal with some of those issues, find out what's happening in the industry, and then say that there are a couple of weeks in April, put a timeline on it for two weeks in April, and do the report. That's what we'd focus on.

So we can get some of this stuff done, get a kind of a sense of what's going on in the industry, and get that done. Then, for two weeks in April, we say we're going to do the report and we get it done, whether we have to do a few evenings or whatever. I think that would be somewhere in the middle. We say we're going to do a report and we're going to have a timeline on it, but we're also going to address some of these issues up front in most of March. I think that's somewhere in the middle.

But I think we should just give direction to the committee on that. If you're going to have a motion here, I don't know.... If we go to the steering committee and change it, I think it's going to cause a bit of confusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I find that it is rather ironic to have a motion to discuss the agenda when Mr. Lemieux has just said that motions are or were preventing us from doing our work. I would like to remind Mr. Lemieux that motions are usually not a problem. During the previous session of Parliament, Mr. Lemieux's motions were all adopted. All of Pierre's motions were adopted. Therefore, there should not have been endless discussions about this. When the government was not satisfied, as usual—I am referring to my motion on SRMs—there would be a problem, and the government would filibuster. Aside from this, regarding motions, we can usually adopt a half a dozen of them in a few minutes without much difficulty. We are sending a message to the government. I believe that the consequences are not so serious as all that, but it is certainly important for us. For the agricultural community, it is important that we can continue having these motions. Therefore, we will not stop this practice.

There is something else to point out: some people have said that we should not talk about the past. I do not mind saying that we have wasted time. First of all, I never said that we lost five months; I said that we lost two months. I said that we will have three months of work in committee instead of five because of prorogation. I will not hold back from saying this, and nobody else will stop me from saying it because that is what happened. It is a problem for us.

There are priorities that should be discussed by the steering committee before we move motions here for managing the agenda and before presenting our report on which we will spend much time before we deal with certain current priorities, priorities that agricultural producers are asking us to deal with and on which we could not focus because we were not sitting. Now that we are back at work, we have priorities and we need to go over this report. We should reserve some time on the agenda for the report, but there is no reason why we cannot do that in May or June, or at some other time. Why start with this item? We know that each page of the report may have us arguing for hours on end, wasting time in the process, not discussing the issues and saying no to moving motions during the discussion of the report. In my opinion, this is out of the question. The agenda should be discussed by the steering committee. We should set aside some time for the report, but we have priorities that must be discussed before we get to the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Does anybody else want to speak to the motion?

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to commend you on your comments about the urgency of being less partisan in this committee, reflecting on those times when we were less partisan and more work got done. I would encourage all of us, at all times--and that's everyone, from every party--to resist preceding any comment with “well, you know, the Conservatives did this” or “the Liberals did that”. That's for all of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Wouldn't that be nice?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It would be lovely.

We all know it comes from all of us, including me. Frankly, I would hope that the chair at some point might even step in and say, “We don't need to hear that, so let's move on to the real business”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

But I'm being partisan if I do that--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

No, no, because you'll hold us all to that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Well, okay.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

--and I would encourage you to do that, Chair. I'm pleased that you've made those comments.

I also want to say, in response to something that Mr. Storseth said, that frankly I commend.... I resist saying too much about it, because I don't want my words lifted off of the blues and put somewhere else, but I do commend your government for having put $40 million into technology to deal with SRMs. That was something that was discussed. It was mentioned by Dr. Gord Surgeoner as a wonderful way, over time, to deal with the issue in introducing technology. But we all know that there's more to do.

Having said that, speaking specifically to the motion, I'm of the opinion that I don't want this committee to supercede the jurisdiction of the steering committee and the efforts they undertake. If we start allowing motions to determine what's up next, then we do supercede the jurisdiction of the steering committee, and I just don't want that to become a precedent.

I'm of the belief that there are certain motions that need to be dealt with immediately. Frankly, I'm not certain what's happened to some of those motions. I'm not going to use the P-word. I'm not interested in using it in this committee. But I'm not sure what happened to some of those motions because of it.

I had a motion that I presented on November 27 about transportation out west and the closing of the 53 designated producer car loading sites. I don't know what happens with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Any motions that were out there are no longer there. You have to re-present them, re-table.