Evidence of meeting #36 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
I'm proposing an amendment along the lines of what he suggested.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
The Clerk
Of the motion or the amendment?
10:10 a.m.
The Clerk
The amendment that was just voted down was that the committee study the right of farmers to load producer cars to ensure that Canadian railway companies do not arbitrarily close down producer car loading sites.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Okay.
What I would propose, then, is that we change the.... Let me just have that in front of me.
I propose that the committee recommend that the government study the right of farmers to local producer cars, to ensure that Canadian railway companies do not arbitrarily close down producer car loading sites, and then take any necessary action.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Is there any seconder on that amendment, or do we need a seconder on amendments?
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I do think that amendment is out of order. It changes the intent. This committee is recommending to the government an action. The government can determine how it wants to do that action. If they're going to amend legislation, then I expect they, in their own approach, have the option of doing a study. But we're asking the government to amend the legislation to prohibit railway companies from arbitrarily closing down producer car loading sites. This is going to a study rather than a recommendation, so I believe the amendment is out of order.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Unfortunately, I know Mr. Easter was maybe not paying attention, but Mr. Richards' recommendation, in the first part, was exactly as Mr. Valeriote had said. In the first part, it's to recommend that the government study this, and then take the necessary action, he stated at the end of it.
So this motion is still asking for the government to take action. Mr. Valeriote wisely said that the government should first be studying this and then take action on it. There's a definitive difference there--
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
In all fairness to both sides, I think the line in the sand is pretty well drawn. One way or another, you guys want a study—
10:10 a.m.
An hon. member
No, it's different.
10:10 a.m.
An hon. member
We want action.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Well, I can read the motion. It says “study”. It says “that the government study”....
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Not the committee, “that the government”....
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
But there's still a study. This side doesn't want studies. Maybe I'm....
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Okay. Are there any more comments on this before we bring the amendment to a vote?
10:10 a.m.
An hon. member
You should read it, Chair.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I'd like to know exactly the words that Mr. Richards has added and where he's added them, and if he's prepared to put a time limit on it, because a study could take one year.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Just to respond to that, all I've done is to take the suggestion you made, Frank, that we have the government study, and then at the end I've added “and take the necessary action”. So I've made very clear in there that the government will take a look at what needs to be done and then they will take action. As far as a time line, yes, I'd be open to considering that. It's just simply a matter of....