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.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you.
We now move to Mr. Bellavance.
Mark, could you take the chair for a couple of minutes?
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I don't know how we are going to manage to work because of the attitude the parliamentary secretary has just exhibited on a mere formality, a mere request to extend consideration of a bill. It makes me laugh when the parliamentary secretary talks to us about the priorities that have been established. In fact, the steering committee, and the Conservative member is on that committee, put Bill C-474 precisely on that list. We have to complete our consideration of it because we have no choice. It is part of our work as legislators, and the House is where we will have a final vote on the bill, as is the case for any other bill.
The Conservatives themselves told us, when we came back to continue the session, how important it was that we consider this bill, and that we had to hear a number of witnesses. At one point we were up to 30 or 40 witnesses. That request came from the Conservatives. Obviously, I realized right away that this was so we would waste time in committee and not consider the other priorities. In any event, it is no longer a priority for the government, maybe, but that is not what's important here. We are talking about a mere formality.
Personally, I have been on Parliament Hill since 2001, as a parliamentary assistant or a member of Parliament. I don't recall—there are more seasoned parliamentarians than myself around this table and I would like someone to give us examples—a single occasion when a committee prevented a 30-day extension of consideration in committee. It is a mere formality, it is done virtually automatically. This is not where the fate of Bill C-474 will be decided, it is in the House of Commons. That is what democracy is, even if it is not what the Conservatives wanted, and when things don't go their way, they want to muzzle everybody.
In this case, we don't want to discuss just Bill C-474 until December 10; we just want Mr. Atamanenko to have the necessary latitude to be able to finish the consideration of his bill in committee. I myself have sponsored a bill that is at the report stage, this very day in the House. I know how important it is. We don't do it for the fun of it and to make the headlines. I didn't make the headlines with my bill. We do it because we have worked with people we want to help and we think this kind of legislation will help them out. That is what we are trying to do. It isn't very complicated.
So I find it hard to understand why the parliamentary secretary is telling us today, for purely partisan reasons, that he opposes extending consideration of this bill, with a long-winded speech about how we should oppose the bill. He is entitled to oppose it, there's no problem on this side there. But come on! Allow the extension as is done everywhere. Give us the chance, as is always done at the stage that comes next, to have an agenda. So such and such dates will be devoted to Mr. Atamanenko's bill, when he himself wanted to consider it for six meetings at the outset. After that, he agreed that we could maybe consider it at three or four additional meetings. We will make a list of the witnesses we want to make it a priority to hear. We won't keep going to December 10 on this, but I don't understand why we have discussed this for half an hour and why big speeches are being made about this today.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In listening to the parliamentary secretary, I'm not quite sure exactly what the position is here. It seems that not long ago, a week ago, in our discussions, the impression I got was that the government wanted to give me time to extend and have discussions on this bill. The next priority then would be to look at the report of the committee, which I thought was logical. We also thought we might inject one meeting in order to hear from the department. We then would move on and get all this completed. Now there's a complete reversal.
I just want to remind him of two things. First of all, it was first tabled on November 9, 2009, and then we had prorogation, thanks to his government. We had to retable it again in March 2010. During this time we did get into our report on young farmers. We did some travelling and had witnesses.
So, in effect, if it was such a priority for everybody, and especially this government, why did it not say, “We can't do that, we must do the legislation first, and then we'll move on to talk to young farmers and do our tour”?
In the spirit of cooperation, when it was brought up to look at the report on young farmers, I thought, well, we've got some time, let's do that, this is important, we need to get on the ground, we need to have those witnesses, and then we'll come back to the bill. We came back to the bill prior to leaving for the summer break, and then of course we had summer. So there are all these factors that play into the extensions.
If it were a simple matter of the bill being introduced and we need to do it in priority fashion, then this would have happened well before June. But for various reasons this committee chose to have some other priorities. And I agreed to that. I didn't insist on getting this bill through.
All I'm asking now is to give the democratic process its worth. Let's have these witnesses, both for and against the bill. Let democracy work. For every person who is against this bill, I can probably get two who are for it. We've had them—
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
We've had them here in the meeting. Let's get on with it and let democracy work. Let's not get bogged down in process, as André said, and get on with discussing some other business.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you.
I should point out--in fact, I feel I have to point out--Alex, that your bill, yes, was tabled on November 2 last year, but nine months earlier, in February, this committee agreed that the future of farming or the future of agriculture was a big priority. A whole bunch of BS, that I won't get into, carried on and that didn't happen until this past spring. So I think that needs to be, in all fairness, pointed out.
Mr. Hoback.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
First of all, I want to say I agree with you, André. I agree with what you said in the first meeting when you said that we don't need any more meetings on this. Our positions are clear. Let's go to a vote and let's not waste the committee's time on this bill. Let's get on to other important business of the committee.
Alex, I want you to understand that we do have a joint motion to look at this issue outside your bill. That's the idea of the joint motion. That's the ability for us to actually go and look at the issue without having a gun to anybody's head or threatening the industry and scaring away investment. That's the problem with delaying this legislation.
I think we should vote on it now. I don't think we need any more witnesses, because we can hear those witnesses when we do our study later on, and we can have a good, honest debate at that point in time. We can hear all the groups, listen to their policies, and listen to what they think.
It will allow the committee to actually be proactive, instead of doing it this way through legislation without having a real understanding of what's going on unless we travel to the universities, unless we talk to the professors. I think if you did that, you would understand just how serious this piece of legislation is and how seriously it will hamper Canada's growth, how seriously it will hurt Canadian farmers. It's serious, Alex.
So let's get this bill thrown out. I hope Mr. Easter is going to stick with this on this one, because he knows that. He knows this is a bad piece of legislation. He also knows that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in investment that are being tied up or are in jeopardy because this legislation is sitting here in front of this committee.
Let's vote on it today. Let's get it done. Let's get it out of here and let's move on to some progressive committee business that we can all work together on and that will actually be beneficial to farmers. This one is not beneficial to farmers. This format is not beneficial to farmers. This is a waste of time. If we're going to take another five meetings wasting farmers' time...I don't see why, when we could be moving on to some other things that are more beneficial to farmers.
Chair, when I look at this motion to extend, no, absolutely not, based on that reason. The committee is actually going to hear a lot of these witnesses in the future when we do some of our future business, and we can hear them in a light that is actually more progressive and more constructive, instead of in a destructive motion or a destructive bill like Mr. Atamanenko has brought forward.
Plus, I think Mr. Atamanenko himself will really understand just how important this industry is to Canada. He'll really understand the research sector, what's going on, and how we're going to feed the world. This isn't just about organic farming versus farmers. No. This is about looking out 10 or 20 years at how we're going to feed ourselves. How are we actually going to put food on people's tables?
That's why to hastily say we can do this in five meetings.... No. We've done enough. Get rid of the legislation. That has to be gone.
If we pass this legislation, Alex, we would chase away so much investment to other parts of the world. Our farmers would be so disadvantaged. We would see flocks leaving the prairies in droves. That's how bad this bill is.
You do not want to pursue this. I'm speaking from the heart. You do want to start the debate, and I commend you for doing that. I think your intentions are very, very honourable, and I think we need this debate. I think we're hearing this from farmers and we're hearing this from industry, but not in the relevance of the legislation, not at this point in time. So I think let's get it done with now and let's move forward. Let's bring Mr. Valeriote's motion and my motion forward. Let's get on with doing some progressive business.
Mr. Bellavance, I'm sure you have some business you'd like to move on with.
Why are we wasting our time on this thing? Let's get it moved out.
We've been very clear on this side. Let's quit jerking around the industry. Let's just make a decision and move on.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Chair, I will just add only a few more points to the arguments that have been presented by Mr. Atamanenko and Mr. Bellavance.
I've had discussions with the industry people who don't favour this bill, and while they had concerns about it and have concerns about it, indeed, they have actually been grateful for this opportunity they've had to have this discussion, to demystify what was formerly an industry that few people knew anything about, including perhaps many of us around this table.
One of the things that I came to this committee with was a promise to myself to attempt to honour the rights of people to be heard. And regardless of where I stand on this bill, I don't believe in shutting out and shutting down the opportunity for people to be heard, notwithstanding that their opinion may not be consistent with my own.
Now, Mr. Atamanenko has consistently deferred discussions about this bill over time when those interruptions occurred. I regret that people around this table try to point fingers at each other. I really regret that, because it really doesn't lead to what I would say is respectful discussion about the issues at hand.
All of us around this table have participated in bringing about the disruptions, and I don't think there should be any finger pointing. I am prepared to support Mr. Atamanenko in his effort to pursue that which he thinks is important to those who he's representing, whether or not I support this bill.
Thank you.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support everything Mr. Valeriote had to say, but I feel the need to make a couple of points.
In part, this discussion has been delayed a number of times for very important reasons. The future of farming report that we've yet to do was an important study to get off the ground. Legislation could have taken priority and we could have gone to it, but I felt we had accommodation on this committee to deal with basically all of the issues that came before us.
I'm disappointed, Chair, in your remarks.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
In your remarks you said we had a whole bunch of BS happen. I don't consider it to be BS that a number of us.... Motions came forward from all sides. I know the parliamentary secretary tried to blame it all on the opposition. We saw lots of delays, obstructions, and motions from the government. But I don't consider it BS that the members on this committee from the opposition side asked that the food safety issue be dealt with, that the Weatherill report be dealt with--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Easter, I never said anything about food safety. I said the BS that goes on at this committee all the time--
Conservative
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
You said, and I quote you correctly, Mr. Chair, that there was a whole bunch of BS happened--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
There was. I did say that, but I never said anything about food safety.
Liberal
