Agriculture Committee on Nov. 16th, 2010

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

It's such a complicated motion. You were right, Chair, that either you study it or you don't study it.

It's clear. The way it's amended, whoever studies it, the committee or the government, it's another study; it takes time. Then there will be recommendations, and in a year from now nothing will be resolved.

I don't agree with that. I agree with this motion. We vote and we say this should happen. We recommend that this happen. We don't need studies. We've heard from people. It's either we study it...so we're voting on a study to do a study on another study. You know, that's what the amendment is on, basically. What I'm saying is that we simply do this.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Alex, this is a serious question. Why didn't you propose to change the legislation, then? If you already know there are no studies that need to be taken, why didn't you simply propose the changes that need to be made?

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

Vote on the motion.

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

Don't be mad at us. They didn't have enough members in the House to support you in the end. That's what happened. That's why your bill went down.

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

I understand that. You guys shut the debate down.

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

Okay, so don't be mad at us. We don't have enough votes to defeat anything, Alex. You know that. The Liberals were playing games.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We're tidying up the motion here.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, on the amendment--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Go ahead quickly, Mr. Easter, because we're almost ready to go.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I oppose the amendment, Chair, for this simple reason. Look, Alex is right. The government can handle this proposal, after we have reported it to the House, however it decides to. They can have a study. But for all this law and order legislation we've seen coming forward, has the government done a study on every single piece of legislation?

The proper procedure here is that if and when the government acts on this particular motion, they will then prepare amendments to legislation. I would expect they would have to bring those amendments before either the transport committee or the agriculture committee, and either one of those committees would study the issue at that time. This is just a way of delaying instead of getting something done for farmers. So I think we should move it up; we should pass this motion, and the government will deal with getting legislation together. Then proper procedure would be for the committee to have a quick look at it, and it would go to the House--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

For the record, Mr. Chair, there seems to be a lot of doubt right now about the efficacy of time limits and otherwise, and I'm having doubts about that amended motion being able to be properly conducted and it being Parliament appropriate.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much, Mr. Valeriote. It seems as though I'm not getting too much entertaining of this amendment on the opposition side.

Anyway, Mr. Richards, you have the final word on your amendment, and then we're going to bring it to a vote.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

I find this very frustrating, because we're trying to work together cooperatively in a non-partisan manner here. I think we all agree there is an issue here that needs to be dealt with. We all agree on that.

I think where we disagree is on whether, as worded, this motion Alex has put forward is the correct way to deal with it. I think what we're trying to do here is come up with a way to determine the necessary steps and take that action. We all agree that's what needs to happen. It's just that some of us disagree with the way this motion, as it currently exists, is worded. I was certainly making an attempt--and I believe that Frank, with his suggestion, was making an attempt--to be non-partisan here and to come up with a way that we can all work together and agree to do what's best for farmers. Unfortunately, the rest of the other side, the coalition, seems to take its direction from Mr. Easter. And it's very unfortunate that by making the suggestion that we not support these amendments, he has chosen to take this and turn it into something partisan, rather than trying to look at what's in the best interests of farmers. Certainly when it came from Frank, it seemed like a good idea to him, but when it came from this side, somehow or other he has now decided it's not a good idea.

It's very unfortunate, because we're all trying to find a way to deal with this issue so that farmers' best interests are taken care of. That's certainly the intent behind this motion. I would say to Frank and those on the other side, who I believe have the ability to play non-partisan--and certainly I think there are some who often do--let's take a look at this amendment. My understanding is that there is some doubt as to the timeline. Why don't we pass this amendment and see if that in fact is enforceable? I think it would be very unfortunate if we couldn't find a way to all move forward to do what's best for farmers. That's what we're trying to do here.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay. We're going to bring this to a vote.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay, folks, it pretty well boils down to this. The amendment states that we have a study and Alex's motion doesn't. When you get down to it and take action....

We are going to have a recorded vote on the amendment, and we're going to start off with--

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, I just want to make clear that it was Mr. Richards who proposed the amendment.

I'm looking at the original motion, and I see where your amendment would come in. I have here that with your amendment, everything after “and amend” in the initial motion would be gone. Is that correct?

The amendment you're proposing would read as follows:

That the committee recommend that the government conduct a study to uphold the right of farmers to load producer cars to ensure that Canadian railway companies do not arbitrarily close down producer car loading sites, and take the necessary action.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I think it is “within four months”, but it is “necessary action”.

[The Clerk]

Is it “within four months”?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I think that was accepted as a friendly amendment.

[The Clerk]

Okay, and the section in the initial motion that talked about amending necessary legislation is not part of your amendment. You would strike that part out.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Just as you read it.

[The Clerk]

Just as I read it. Okay. Perfect.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We're going to start the vote and it's going to be a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we're going to move on to the main motion from Alex. I'm guessing you want this recorded again.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Chair, it is close to closing time, but I have two comments.

One, let it show on the record that the government members, especially from western Canada, failed to stand up for western producers in that last vote and challenge the railways.

Two, I wonder if the clerk could find out and report back to us what meeting departmental officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada attended in Toronto and who was there from the department such that they were unable to come before this committee to answer some questions on safety net programs. I wonder if that could be reported back to us fairly shortly.