Evidence of meeting #32 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
--financial issues of hog and livestock producers? Are you suggesting that's BS, or are you suggesting that when we want to talk about the AgriFlex program, which is important to producers--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
No, I'm talking about all the games that get played at this committee all the time.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I'm just making my point that there are important issues that come up on a day-to-day basis that affect farmers daily. We felt those issues should have been discussed. That's why we put those motions forward. Some motions came forward from the government side as well. We discussed those issues and felt we could certainly get accommodation from the committee to try to handle all the issues there before us.
I know the parliamentary secretary is trying to make some political points here and really misrepresent the position of the Liberal Party, but we've made it very clear all along.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
What is the position of the Liberal Party? Put it on the record.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
For the record, we've stated that we are not in favour of this bill, but we do believe in having the discussion. I think a proposal was put forward the other day that we would hold about four more hearings.
Alex has made it clear that we could get this discussed and before Parliament before the Remembrance week break, and I think that's fair. The last meeting this committee held was one of the most constructive we've had. We had good witnesses from both sides on this issue who outlined valid points that I think give us an idea of where we need to go forward in the future. Frank and Randy's proposal may be an area where we can deal with that.
So I don't see limiting the discussion. I hope we can get through this bill before the Remembrance week break and in the interim deal with the extremely important issue of government programs and the advance payment program. We need to have the department before us so we can answer some of the producers' questions. They are facing financial hardship and need some answers on where they may be able to go to stay in the industry and have some financial well-being.
So that's where we're at, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Well, on some of the games I referred to as BS, you just contradicted yourself. Frank talked about how he wanted to hear from witnesses, yet you and Mr. Eyking just a few short days ago wanted to limit the debate on this bill to two meetings in total, and today would have been the last one. So if you're going to speak to this, at least be consistent.
Mr. Eyking has a point of order.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Chair, with all due respect, because you mentioned my name, since we've come back from the summer break, I've been approached by Conservative members, including you, two or three times. One day you wanted three days on this motion, last week you guys wanted to extend it forever, and now you're back to cutting it, even today.
So if there's any flip-flopping, it's not on our side. It's on that side. I remind you, Chair—and it's very hard in your position, because of what the parties stand for, and you're with the government—that you just have to use due diligence as chair. I just advise you to try not to get involved in the fray. Be above it and chair it the best way you can.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Fair enough, but when I get something pointed at me, Mr. Eyking, I'm going to respond to it, and I did.
We'll go to Mr. Shipley.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't take long.
We just had Mr. Easter say that they were going to oppose this bill. I'm trying to understand something here that isn't really very clear: if that, in fact, is his view personally or whether it's the party's.
We have a bill in front of us that is not supported by industry. I know what Mr. Atamanenko and Randy said. I give you credit. I know that your heart's in the right place in bringing it forward.
I have not had industry people of any kind come to me to say that this is a great bill. In fact, they say it should not be in front of you. I'm not going to repeat everything that was said by my colleagues, but what it is doing is an incredible detriment to our research and development. It's also a big concern to our farmers, because the development of those types of grains and oilseeds and other commodities we now rely upon as farmers, whether they are drought resistant or pest resistant or nutritional products developed and approved by Health Canada and CFIA and PMRA, are now put on hold.
Now we've said, wow, we're going to put all this science in place, but now government is going to have an emotional reaction. That emotional reaction made by politicians is going to carry an incredible amount of weight. That incredible amount of weight brings uncertainty. I want you to remember when we were going through the issue of the recession and losing markets. When we're opening markets, those markets are not made on emotion. Those markets are built on scientific research, and we can always go back and say that this is the science, this is the science, this is the science. That's why we've been able to open markets. That's why we've been able to go and reopen markets, particularly to beef and pork, because we've always relied on science.
Quite honestly, the industry people are saying that we are going to make them look like hypocrites.
When we say it has to be based on science, and now we're going to say.... We're the only industrialized country, actually. No other country has ever gone down this road, for obviously very good reasons. But Canada is actually going to step aside. Canada is now actually going to interject an emotional political view so that our research will actually come against and discredit the agriculture industry and its farmers for not knowing what is going to be good for the industry and what is going to be bad for the industry.
I know that Mr. Valeriote talked about demystifying the provisions. I think for those in the agriculture industry it isn't an issue of clarification. Certainly, I can't vote in favour of the extension.
Mr. Chair, before we broke I talked about it, back in May, I think. I have my concern about the future of farming. After meeting with the young farmers I was adamant that we continue to move on that. We now keep putting things in front of it. At that time, quite honestly, the deal was that we were going to finish that debate before we broke for the summer. That's what we had agreed to. But when things keep coming forward, unfortunately, we get the crisis of the day.
Mr. Easter, you know, there are things that come up. I don't disagree with you in terms of things that are important. But we cannot deal with every crisis of the day. Somebody has to determine what it is, and quite honestly, the one that came up in your last motion on the advanced payment....
You mentioned the other day the Ontario beef producers. I talked to the Ontario beef producers and their past president. I had two of them in my office. They had three or four items. This was not one of them. In fact, the past president said he wanted to thank me for doing it. The issue was that they were concerned that there wasn't going to be an extension. They were getting anxious that there wasn't an extension. They wanted to thank me for actually doing that.
So the crisis of the day should not be one that is manufactured, particularly ahead of those that we've all agreed upon, for example, the future of farming.
Quite honestly, Alex, this whole bill is going to make the difference on whether agriculture is sustainable in the long run. If you remember, as we went through the country and we talked to our young farmers, those progressive, innovative farmers were relying on the fact that we were going to have the research and development and we were going to be able to move ahead. These are positive people. They looked at this industry on agriculture that has so many opportunities in it. That opportunity comes because they have the processes in place that our other competitive nations have, and we shouldn't be putting more barriers in front of them.
So I will not be able to support the extension of this motion. I'm glad we're able to have this small time for debate.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I just want to follow up on a few points that were made.
When Mr. Valeriote was talking he was leaving the impression I think that if the committee doesn't pass this motion, we're somehow shutting down debate and not letting people have their word.
But, Chair, I want to go back to the timeline on this bill, because I think it's extremely important. It was tabled in the House in November 2009; that would be one whole year ago, 12 months. It was referred to committee in April 2010, and now we're sitting in October 2010. There has been debate in the House on this private member's bill to get it to committee. There has been intense lobbying done by the agricultural sector. And, quite frankly, Chair, there's been debate here in committee. We've had witnesses come forward on this bill.
So I think the important thing, Chair, is that this is not shutting down debate. What they're asking to do is prolong debate. That's what the motion is about. It's not about shutting down debate; they want to prolong debate.
The question I ask, especially to the Liberals, because they are the swing vote on this, is why? Why do you want to prolong debate?
Chair, here's the issue. The issue is that we're talking about legislation here, something that will actually change an act. If you want to have the debate, you can have the debate without legislation being the crux of the matter. This is what the industry is worrying about, that this legislation will pass. That's what they're worried about.
Mr. Valeriote and Mr. Hoback have put together a joint motion to study biotech. There's no legislation involved with that. It would be a committee study of biotech. It's a perfect opportunity to have the debate on biotech, on matters such as what Mr. Atamanenko is proposing, without the heavy hammer of potential legislation passing into law. That's the difference.
So they're asking, first of all, to prolong this debate on a bill that could have a very detrimental impact on the industry when what we could do is pass a motion that the next committee study is on biotech. We could have the same debate, Chair, and in fact have a more expanded debate without legislation being on the table, without legislation striking fear into the industry, because if this bill passes, it will have a very detrimental impact on the industry.
I want to highlight this. We know this because we have had leaders from farm groups come and see us. Last week, or a week and a half ago, we had the biotech industry into our offices. They were meeting with me, meeting with my colleagues, meeting with the Liberals, meeting with the NDP and with the Bloc. I can tell you, they're worried; they're very worried about this bill and where it's going. And they're confused, because on the one hand the Liberals say, “We're against the bill”.... Actually, that was a bit of a revelation. That's the first I've heard that concretely on the record, that the Liberals are against the legislation. On the other hand, Chair, they're going to vote for the motion.
It simply doesn't make any sense. I think the industry sees that that position makes no sense. If you are against the bill, vote against the bill. Vote against prolonging the debate, prolonging the agony in which the industry finds itself. Vote against prolonging turmoil within the industry.
If you remember our last witness, Chair, we had Wilfred Keller in from Genome, and that was the question I asked him. He's in the marketplace, he's in the industry. I asked him, based on his experience, is the very debate on this bill having a detrimental impact on the industry? That was my question. And his answer was yes.
Why this debate should be prolonged makes no sense, Chair. And if we're going to prolong the debate, that's only going to prolong the misery within that portion of the agricultural sector.
The second last thing I'll bring up is that Mr. Valeriote is from Guelph. As we know, Chair, universities are very keen on research and development. They look for opportunities to make advances, particularly in agriculture. We've been to the University of Guelph. We've toured their facilities. We've spoken with their heads of departments as a committee. They're very clear about it. They are for research and development and moving the yardsticks forward for the agricultural community. Yet this bill throws that into turmoil. So I'm unclear as to why Mr. Valeriote would prolong the uncertainty, particularly when he's from a riding that contains the University of Guelph.
The last point I'll make on this, Chair, is that we all know how we're going to vote now. We know the NDP, obviously, are for the bill. It's an NDP private member's bill. The NDP are probably going to be for that. We know that we are against. We've always been against the bill. We've been very clearly against the bill, both in the House and here in committee. And we've just heard the Liberals say they are against the bill.
So the cards are on the table, Chair. There is no need to prolong this. If we want the debate to continue, let's have it continue on a biotech study, not on a bill when that bill is having a detrimental impact on the industry.
Again, I would appeal to my Liberal colleagues to see the reasonableness of this argument, and I know they have heard it from industry. So I would encourage them, Chair, to vote against this motion to prolong debate, because debate has happened.
Instead, what we could do is this. There are meetings left before the 60 sitting days expire in which the bill has been before committee; there is still more time for witnesses to come forward. Let's call those witnesses forward. Let's have our debate during the allocated timeframe.
Let's vote against this motion. Let's get this bill back to the House and let's just deal with it. Then, as a committee, let's move forward with the joint biotech study, which shows there is cooperation here. Yes, we have a disagreement on this bill, but there is cooperation in this committee and we've seen the good work that we're able to do. Let's continue the debate on a study, without the threat of legislation.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When something is wrong, it's wrong. It's wrong. Why carry on a bunch of debate on an issue when it's very clear that it's not in the best interests of farmers? It's certainly something we've had a lot of debate on in the House. We've had debate here in committee on it, and certainly we've all had an opportunity to hear from farmers, certainly over the summer particularly. We all had a chance to travel in our ridings and other parts of the country.
I very clearly have heard what farmers want to see happen with the bill. They want to see it defeated, and they've made that very clear to me. I know they've made it very clear. Certainly our government has been very clear that we support farmers in that and we want to see this bill defeated. We voted against it, and we've been against it here in committee. Yet, of course, we have the opposition, particularly the Liberals, being quite unclear as to what their intentions are.
Not only has this been a bad bill and one that we don't want to see carried forward, but I think it's also been a waste of the committee's time when we could be dealing with other issues, particularly the future of farming study that we've been doing. I think that's one we need to get back to dealing with, because certainly there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with out there. I think this bill goes against some of those interests. I don't see the future of farming being furthered by this debate. If anything, this debate does more harm to the industry than anything else that it could be doing.
We heard from young farmers when we were doing our study across the country that they understand where the future is in farming, and certainly a big part of that is research and development and new opportunities. This bill would go a long way to harming those kinds of opportunities for our young farmers.
So it's very clear to me that this bill is one that we want to see defeated, and I think farmers want to see defeated. If that's the case, I see no reason to support this motion to extend the time allotted for the consideration of this bill here at committee or anywhere else.
As I said, if it's wrong, then let's defeat it. I'm prepared to defeat this motion and I'm prepared to defeat this bill today, if given the opportunity. I know farmers would be glad to see that. I know our party would support farmers in that.
When it's creating all this confusion in the industry, it's something that we really need to think about and we really need to try to do our best to deal with it.
If there are calls for further debate, and I've heard that from some of the opposition, I certainly have no desire to see debate stifled by any means. Mr. Hoback and Mr. Valeriote have co-sponsored a motion, clearly a non-partisan type of motion when it's supported by both sides, to study biotech and its implications for the future. I certainly support that, and I think we should be moving forward with something like that without any question. That's something we could be discussing, because it is important for the industry.
In the context of this bill...and from all accounts that I'm hearing from farmers and farm groups, both in my riding and across this country, they are very concerned about the confusion this bill is creating out there. They are very concerned about the uncertainty they're seeing created by this bill. They want to see this bill defeated and off the table. I think we should be doing everything we can to ensure that happens as expeditiously as possible. That's why I will have no support for this motion, and I believe our party doesn't want to see this motion supported. We certainly want to see this bill defeated and we want to see it done as quickly as we possibly can.
It's unfortunate that the Liberals want to try to ride both sides of the fence on this issue, because they could certainly be very helpful in assisting farmers and seeing this off the table as quickly as possible if they would choose, just for once, to take a position on something.
I find it very frustrating when you have individuals here.... Certainly Mr. Valeriote was part of the motion with Mr. Hoback to see the study on biotech, which we all support, yet he represents Guelph, a riding in which we have certainly one of the leading agricultural institutions in the country, and they would certainly not want to see something like this bill move forward there.
It really frustrates me when someone isn't representing the wishes and needs of their constituency. Certainly, to me, that would seem to be the case with this when you have a member representing an institution such as that who would sit here and ride the fence on an issue like this when it would very clearly harm the interests of an institution in his very own riding. Certainly, we need to carry on some debate on the biotech, and that should be done in the context of the motion that Mr. Hoback and Mr. Valeriote put forward, but not with a bill like this one.
The Liberals have kind of said or indicated today for the very first time that they wouldn't support this bill. I have a really tough time trusting them on that. They've been consistently riding the fence on this issue, and I have a really tough time trusting their position, which, for whatever reason, they have now decided to come out with here today.
Certainly in the context, as an example, of the gun registry and the debate on the private member's bill we had there, it was clear that particularly Mr. Easter was not a supporter of the gun registry. And then suddenly he had a conversion. I don't know if it coincided with the fact that his party was being whipped. I have to imagine it was, and I guess he was whipped into it by his leader, but it makes me really question whether we can trust what they're saying here. I would imagine the voters back in the good riding of Malpeque on Prince Edward Island would also have a really tough time trusting that position.
I have some quotes here from Mr. Easter that make it very clear where he claimed to stand on the gun registry, just as we've heard their claims today that they oppose this. I see here from Mr. Easter in November 2009 something that I would say is a very clear indication of where he stands: “I do not favour a gun-control system that makes criminals out of farmers and hunters.” That sounds pretty clear to me, as clear as the kind of statement that we heard earlier.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
That's right. I want to remind Mr. Richards that we are not talking about extending the debate on the gun registry; we are talking about extending Mr. Atamanenko's bill. That's all I wanted to say.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Can I respond to that point?
Certainly, yes, we're having a debate here today on whether we would extend this motion, and there have been some statements made by the Liberal members. I am trying to decide whether we can trust those statements that have been made, and I'm using an example to try to decide that. That's all I'm doing here, so I believe it is relative to the point.
Anyway, Mr. Easter made it very clear that was his position, but then--it was funny--we had a vote a couple of weeks ago at which I didn't see him stand up and vote that way. Following that vote, when he stood up and voted against the very wishes of his constituents and the very wishes of farmers in this country--
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Richards said I voted against the wishes of my constituents. Could he table before this committee the poll he has that would prove that? We've heard Pierre Lemieux say the same thing in the riding.
As for my position on making criminals out of farmers, the proposal that I support is the proposal that Michael Ignatieff put forward, which showed some leadership on finding a way of going to a ticketing offence rather than a criminal offence. So let's get the record straight.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Richards is doing an excellent job of bringing up some points.
I wonder if Mr. Easter would be willing to table the poll that he did in his riding showing that his constituents are in fact in favour of the gun registry, which is why he voted for it, if he wants to get things on the record.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Yes, well, we'll wait for both of those documents.
Mr. Richards.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thank you.
Certainly I think Mr. Easter has just made a perfect illustration of exactly what the problem is here. He is saying he's going to represent what Michael Ignatieff wants rather than what farmers or his constituents want. That, to me, is the very point here. How can we believe what they're saying here today in this committee when we know that tomorrow Mr. Ignatieff could come out and just whip them into doing something completely different? That's the whole point we're making today. It's very concerning to me to see that.
Mr. Easter says there is no proof that his constituents want this. Well, I have a quote here from an individual from the Prince Edward Island Outfitters Association. He says he was very disappointed in Mr. Easter and what he did. He says that the registry is annoying and one more piece of paperwork for hunters and farmers. And his quote, after the vote—