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
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
No. I would presume that we could pick any date or request any date, but again, whatever date we choose has to be approved by the House.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Then if we don't approve this extension, basically that would mean either we--
Conservative
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I guess my question is, if the committee doesn't approve the extension, does that mean on the 22nd it will report back to the House whether we're done with it or not?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
That's the last date we have to report it. When you say if we're not done with it, I'm not sure.... It just gets reported back, I guess, in the form that it.... It would be deemed to be reported back without an amendment. Does that answer your question?
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I just want to speak in favour of Alex's motion for the extension. The debate has met with many interruptions because of other legitimate business that has come before this committee, but also for the very reason that Mr. Lemieux raises: that we'd have to get the request or motion for extension, if passed, before the House, which is not likely to happen until the week after we return, so that it could be considered. So I think it makes sense that we give that extension, on the understanding, of course, that it wouldn't mean that the entire month would be consumed by hearings on this particular issue and that if we did finish earlier it could be sent to the House before the end of the 30 days.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think basically Alex is asking for an extension to meet some of the requirements of Parliament. As my colleague said, there have been a number of interruptions. I do not see this going through to the deadline the clerk mentioned. I think we are in reasonable agreement to three or four more meetings to clean up the witness lists.
Another priority for us before the November break is to hear from the department on some of the programs that people in the farming community see leaving them in a financial dilemma. So we definitely have to have the department before us as soon as possible, but I do not see this extension jeopardizing that requirement.
We have to deal with legislation as a committee, but we have a responsibility to the farming community out there to deal with issues that are affecting them on a day-to-day basis. I'm just putting a caveat in that we need to hear from the department. I think all of it can be handled prior to the November break.
I'm in support of Alex's extension so that we can get all that done.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Well, the department is part of some other business that we need to deal with.
Mr. Lemieux.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Let me say that I don't support the motion. We are not in favour of the bill. We have never been in favour of the bill. We voted against the bill. We're the only party that voted against the bill in the House and that gave clarity to the agricultural community about what our position is on this bill.
We are legislators. The first priority of a committee is legislation. It must be legislation. There's a clock that ticks when a private member's bill is referred to committee. Legislation is supposed to take priority. This bill arrived in front of committee on April 14. There are 60 sitting days to deal with a bill—60 sitting days. We're talking about this bill having come in last spring. What has happened, Chair, is that our schedule has been continually interrupted. The Liberals have used nice words, saying that there have been many interruptions, but they've been their interruptions, Chair. They have been tabling motions meant to distract the committee, tabling other work, and engendering debate that didn't need to be taken.
Perhaps it's my military background, but I work with priorities. What is the priority of the committee? The priority of the committee is legislation. We should not be letting other things interfere with our priority. That has been our advice to our opposition colleagues, which they've thrown aside on many occasions because they have a different agenda.
Now we get to the point, Chair, where 60 days is coming up and there's a bit of panic on the other side because we haven't dealt with this properly. They feel they haven't dealt with it properly. It's inappropriate to, I'll say, have interrupted the committee's priority work over these past 60 days, or almost 60 days, and then at the last minute, as timelines are coming due, insist that we put in place a 30-day extension.
A second priority of committee is reports. When we go out and have many witnesses come in front of this committee, when we travel as a committee, we have a responsibility to issue a report on the work we've done. That's what Canadians are waiting for. That's what the agricultural community is waiting for.
Chair, I remember last December. Last Christmas we were doing a report on competitiveness within agriculture. Right while we were trying to review and finalize the report, a report that we should have put out much earlier than it went out, the opposition, the Liberals in particular, put motion after motion after motion in front of committee. I think, if I remember correctly, we had six or seven motions stacked up, blocking, interrupting, and delaying the important work of the committee. At that point, there was no legislation in front of the committee, so I would argue that the top priority would have been finalizing the report. But it was motion after motion. Our point at the time, Chair, if you go back and check the records, was that these motions were delaying and obstructing the work of the committee. But that did not deter our opposition colleagues from continuing to put motions in front of committee. As a result, the report was issued much later than it should have been.
Now we find ourselves in the same position. We have legislation in front of committee. That would be a number one priority. A number two priority would be the report. We travelled across Canada. We've been talking about youth and the future of farming, a very important topic. The farming community would like to know what the committee's thoughts are on youth and farming. We should not be entertaining other types of business until we're done with legislation and until we're done with the report, which are the two top priorities of this committee. But that's not what's happening, Chair. In fact, if you check with the clerk, you will see that there are numerous motions that have been put by members of the opposition, in particular by the Liberal Party. What do these motions do? They delay and obstruct the work that needs to be done on these two important priorities: legislation and finalizing the report.
Chair, we're just repeating a cycle here that we went through last December. I've spoken to my colleagues outside of committee to try to get them to focus on priorities. They won't do it. They would rather extend and continue to inject motions and other activities that will, in their words, interrupt the important work of committee. I agree with them; it interrupts the important work of committee.
The other thing I'd like to say, Chair, is that I am surprised the Liberals are supporting Alex Atamanenko's motion for a 30-day extension.
Quite honestly, I was out across Canada during the summer and I have been visited by many farm groups. I know the Liberals have been too--I know they have. And I know how much confusion this bill has injected into the agricultural community and into research and development.
Chair, we've brought this up at committee before. There are many, many farm groups, and rather than focusing on farming and the betterment of farming, they are expending resources to come to committee on this bill to lobby me and my colleagues and my Liberal opposition MPs. They are expending a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money trying to fight this bill.
As I said, Chair, the Conservatives are the only party that has taken a clear stand on being against the bill. The Liberals have been waffling, and this is what's injecting.... The Liberals could stop this right now. If the Liberals just said, “You know what, we've had an interesting discussion to date and we're going to vote against the bill”, this would be a great relief to farm groups and organizations that have expended a lot of time, energy, and money fighting this bill and trying to raise our awareness of the implications on them, on research and development, and on the farm community.
The sooner this committee is done with this bill, the better.
We know our position; I don't understand why the Liberals don't know theirs yet, especially when they've had countless meetings with these farms groups. That they would extend this agony in the farm community for another 30 days, to me, is unconscionable. I cannot for the life of me understand why they would want to extend this for another 30 days.
If they truly don't know where they sit on this bill, then I say to all those farm groups, seed groups, research and development groups, “Keep putting the pressure on the Liberal MPs, keep visiting them, and do not let up your pressure. Obviously they don't know what you're talking about or they're not listening to you or they really don't care.” If they were listening, Chair, or they did care, they would vote against this motion and bring this to an end.
Chair, it's been in committee for almost 60 sitting days--since the middle of April. How much longer does this have to go on?
Let me conclude, Chair, by saying that in my opinion this committee has had ample time to deal with this bill. We have been delayed and obstructed by the opposition, but we still have had ample time to deal with this bill. By the Liberals supporting this motion they are distracting the important work done by farm groups, particularly those concerning research and development--those groups that are trying to move the yardstick forward for our farmers.
This came up in our competitiveness report. What makes farmers more competitive? Research and development, new products, advancement. All of that is in turmoil right now, thanks to this bill, and thanks to our Liberal colleagues who have supported this bill to this point. I'd love to hear them say in this debate that they actually don't support this bill. I'd like to hear them say they are going to vote against the bill. But then I would challenge them and say, if that's the case, why are they injecting confusion and uncertainty into the marketplace for another 30 days?
If they're against the bill, let's vote against the motion, let's vote against this in the House and be done with it. Our farmers and farm groups would appreciate some clarity from the agriculture committee, and more importantly some clarity particularly from the Liberals.
They're playing it both ways: “Well, Chair, we're in favour of it, but we're not in favour of it. We're not sure yet.” I do not understand how they cannot be sure, given that this bill has been in front of committee for 60 days.
I'd maybe have to check with the clerk on that. When was this tabled in the House? Do you have that information?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Going by memory, I would think it was some time in May, but I stand to be corrected on that.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
No, it would have been tabled in the House before it came to committee. Alex would know.
Alex, when did you table your bill in the House? Was it June 2009?
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Okay. My point, Chair, is that this has been in front of committee for 60 days. There was debate in the House on this, and of course the bill was on the order of precedence before it was debated in the House.
I don't know how long it's going to take my Liberal colleagues to make up their minds on this bill. I don't know how much pressure they need to come under from the farm community. I don't know how many more farm groups need to visit them. But right now they're equivocating, they are unclear, they have no fixed position, and it's hurting our agricultural sector and our farmers.
This motion simply prolongs the agony, and for that reason we're going to vote against it.
I encourage them to vote against it. If they want to say they are truly listening to the concerns in the farm community, then they need to act. It's more than just talk, and we've had a lot of talk from Liberals. Oh, they do this, and they say this and that, but when it comes time to vote, that's when true intentions are known.
Our intentions are known because of our voting pattern on this bill. I challenge the Liberals to step forward and make a decision, and for heaven's sake, make the decision in favour of our farm community.
Thank you, Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I have answers to two of your questions. It was tabled in the House, first reading, on November 2, 2009, and reported to the committee in April.
Before I give you the answer to the request for an extension, perhaps I could ask everybody to put their phones on vibrate and take off their favourite ditty. No names are mentioned, by the way.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Here is the answer to your question, Mr. Lemieux.
Request for an extension. Upon presentation of a report requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider a bill referred to in section (1) of this Standing Order, a motion to concur in the report shall be deemed moved, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred to the next Wednesday, immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business.
There is more to it, but I can explain it in a nutshell. As long as there's a direction or a request from this committee prior to October 22, it can still get dealt with in the House after that date. But it still could not go beyond that 30 extra sitting days, which would take us to December 10.
Is everybody clear on that?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Chair, simply for clarification, there are two votes that have to happen here. The first vote is here in committee--
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
--and the second vote will be in the House. There are two votes in order to grant this extension, so the Liberals have two times here, potentially, to clarify their position, and they may or may not.
You don't have to comment on that last statement.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
And I'm not going to. So it's once at the committee.
Does that answer your question?
