Evidence of meeting #55 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 motions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
If you were being honest about it, you would admit that you guys prevented witnesses from coming before this committee whom Alex and all of us had invited in. With your games over there, you prevented witnesses from coming forward.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I understand what you're asking, Chair, but the point is that what Mr. Easter is asking of the committee is unfair and breaks with the tradition of this committee and does nothing but sow hard feelings amongst members. That's not conducive to the work we need to do for farmers. I actually think that farmers want to see that this committee can work in a cohesive manner, that members can work together from opposite parties, and that partisanship is not part of this committee. And that's not what we're getting today.
I'll come back to this lack of consultation, Chair. On many other issues, particularly when we're doing a study, we've had consultation. There have been times when I have spoken to members in the House of Commons, simply crossed the floor to talk to them after question period or before question period to verify a point—this is what we're thinking of doing next, and what do you think of it?—so that we work in a cooperative fashion. We're not pulling fast ones, which is what's happening today.
On top of pulling fast ones, he's trying to ram it down your throat, Chair, by getting you to limit me and to limit other members who want to speak on this motion. That's what's happening.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I understand that. This is on the eligibility of the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm asking you to finish up, because I think your position is quite clear.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
It is clear. It absolutely is clear. What I'm saying is that this committee should not allow Mr. Easter to move his motion to the front of the pack, because it is unfair to other members who have tabled motions, who have respected the modus operandi of this committee. It is unfair to them, and it's strong-arming.
They know that they sit there with more votes than we have, and they're going to ram this down not just our throats but down your throat, Chair, because they're going to challenge your ruling--watch what will happen--unless you rule in favour of them.
Either way, they're going to run with this, and for that reason—
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
--okay--I actually I think that Mr. Richards, to go back to this issue, should have a say in this matter, because he has a motion. You should hear from him on his motion that sits before Mr. Easter's motion. Your ruling has an impact on Mr. Richards, yet you have not heard from him.
I think it would be premature for you to rule on the eligibility of Mr. Easter's motion if you have not heard from MPs who have motions that sit in front of Mr. Easter's motion and would be materially affected by the ruling you give.
Even if your ruling is in favour of everything that we've been saying, or that I've been saying, it will be challenged.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm not taking anybody else.
Mr. Bellavance, on a point of order.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I only want to say that Mr. Lemieux is once again challenging your decision. I believe it is time to move forward.
Furthermore, my translation system was not working. Could he repeat what he said, please?
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Yes, I can.
Chair, what I'm saying is that I think you should at least let Mr. Richards speak on this, because he has a motion that sits in front of Mr. Easter's motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.
I agree with a lot of the facts. I do agree that our precedent here has been in dealing with motions as they come up; call it respect or what have you.
With regard to allowing Mr. Richards to speak--no offence, and knowing him, I don't think he's going to take any--I've made a decision on that. This is not debate on the motion; as I said earlier, I think we've had a very good dialogue, and I think we have a pretty good feeling.
Where my hands are tied...although I personally disagree with how this is coming forth, we have nothing in writing, and I have no choice but to rule that Mr. Easter's motion is allowable.
With that, Mr. Easter, you can move it, and we'll move into debate.
Yes, Mr. Hoback.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Are we actually now proceeding on to Mr. Easter's motion?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Once he officially reads it into the record, the debate on it will start.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Easter, read your....
On a point of order, Mr. Van Kesteren.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Stanton and I are both just visiting this committee, and maybe we could just get a little bit of a “pre-empt”, just to know what's going on. We're a little bit vague; we just came in at the end of this thing.
Maybe the clerk or somebody could fill us in.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We have 16 motions in front of us that have been tabled by various members. Mr. Easter has moved number 16, and the debate was on whether that should be.... It hasn't been the practice that we do that--we usually go through them--but under the rules, I have no choice but to rule the motion in favour.