Evidence of meeting #56 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 easter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I am debating the motion. That's my point. In debating the motion, I'm trying to establish why this might be so urgent, and I'm getting to the best part, Chair.
The best part is that Mr. Easter was wildly inconsistent in his support of Mr. Atamanenko's bill. He let down his supporters. They're probably being very vocal with him now and he's trying to make it up to them. The problem is he's doing it on committee time. Rather than just having a group hug with them and telling them that he is still working for them, he is using up committee time. He has blocked and obstructed progress on our study. As a result, he is blocking and obstructing this committee's ability to finish its report and submit it to the House of Commons. This is not a one-day interruption anymore; this is a two-day interruption, which is quite extraordinary for any one motion.
Why is he doing it? He's doing it to appease those people he angered by not voting for Mr. Atamanenko's bill. He's doing a little personal relations exercise here. What irks me, Chair, is he's doing it on the committee's time. We all have to suffer through this, committee staff included, because Mr. Easter has to make it up to those people who didn't appreciate his voting against Mr. Atamanenko's bill.
I think it's inappropriate that he do this. I think it's inappropriate that he strong-arm a motion like this, which is actually part of the study we are conducting right now. I think it's inappropriate that he strong-arm the committee to get his way, to harness forcefully the committee's resources into voting on his pet motion because he has to build bridges, because he has to make it up to people who were somehow disenchanted with the wildly contradictory position he took on Mr. Atamanenko's bill.
I'm both surprised and not surprised that he has the full support of opposition members. I'm not surprised because every time something like this comes up in committee, whenever a difficult subject or motion comes in front of committee, the MPs from the other parties could care less about the work of the committee; they just bond together. As you saw today, we were outvoted six to five every single time. We don't stand a chance in these votes. We know that, Chair.
In one sense, it is a rule of the majority, and we are certainly not the majority here on committee. We never have been the majority on committee. I'm not surprised that they bind themselves to him, in a matter such as this, but I am surprised, Chair, that they're not able to step back for a moment to see what's going on, to see what's behind this motion. I'm actually surprised that none of the other committee members seems to be the least bit concerned with the way in which this motion was handled, with the way in which this motion was brought in front of committee, and in the breakdown in committee relations.
As parliamentary secretary, Chair, I've been on radio. I have done press interviews. I have spoken with farm groups and farmers across the country. When they ask me about the agriculture committee and the work we do, I say that we work well as a committee, that in fact we're one of the few committees that work well together. I always reference the reports that we put forward.
We did an outstanding report on young farmers. The whole tour we did as a committee, the work we did and the witnesses we called, all of that was much appreciated. The report we tabled in the House of Commons was appreciated, and it was a good, non-partisan report. We then moved on to--
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Lemieux is still trying to debate whether or not the motion is relevant. I feel as though he is almost pointing fingers when he asks why no one on the committee is concerned by what is happening or how the motion was brought before the committee.
I would simply remind the committee members that we may occasionally want to put certain items on the agenda for reasons that are indeed relevant and urgent. For example, back when we were dealing with the golden nematode issue—as I'm sure you will recall, Mr. Chair—we brought in witnesses. I, myself, put forward a motion so we could take steps to help producers affected by the golden nematode. The problem was not confined to St-Amable, potato farmers in Brian's riding were also dealing with the same problem or, at least, in Alberta. We dealt with the motion on a priority basis, because the issue was before us.
So I believe Mr. Easter's motion has to do with the fact that we are currently discussing biotechnology. We talked about the problems surrounding alfalfa, and here he is with a motion that is entirely topical and related to the issue currently before the committee.
He did not bring forward some random motion that has nothing to do with anything. It is very much related to the topic before us. That is what I would like Mr. Lemieux to understand.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Lemieux, we know the feelings, I believe, of everyone, on whether we think this motion should be here and the reasons why it's good or bad or whatever. The bottom line is we are debating the motion, and I'll ask you to stick to the subject of whether this motion is good or bad.
Thank you.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Chair, this is what I've been doing. Part of the motion is why is it so urgent? Chair, I'm allowed to debate or discuss or present my thoughts on why this motion might be so urgent, so urgent as to disrupt the study we're now undertaking. I should not be constrained because one of the other members feels that it's not pertinent. It is pertinent. It's pertinent to me, and as an MP, I am allowed to express myself and I should not be curtailed in the way in which I express myself. If it's important to me, I have a right as an MP to state my point of view. I do not jump in and cut off others members based on that.
If there's a point of order, let them raise a proper point of order. But if there is no point of order, then you should not give it the time of day. You seem to be continually agreeing with them. I'm saying this is pertinent to the motion. The motion is disrupting committee--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Lemieux, I am not favouring anybody. We've had the debate about it, okay? Unfortunately, whether we agree with it or not, we are to the motion on a moratorium on GE alfalfa. That is what we're debating, rightly or wrongly. We've already been through the debate, and for the last time, we're going to debate that--
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
We are debating it. I'm the first speaker.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I will be the one making that discretion, and I don't want an argument with anybody else, including yourself, Mr. Lemieux. Let's stick to the debate on the motion.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Chair, this is one of the first times I have spoken on this motion, and I do not think it is fair for a generalization to be made that we, the committee, have debated this point already. If an MP has not expressed himself on a particular point, he or she is allowed to do so. It's not caught under the net of the committee, such that if the committee has made a comment on this, no other MP can talk about it because it's not considered to be pertinent. That's ridiculous. Each MP is allowed to express themselves on this motion, which is exactly what I'm doing, and the fact that we, the committee in general, discussed the motion last meeting should not in any way constrain me. I wasn't part of that. I wasn't saying what I'm saying now.
I appreciate the latitude, Chair, thank you.
To go to Mr. Bellavance's point, I'm agreeing that the subject matter is pertinent. Of course, it's pertinent, it's part of our study on biotechnology; our witnesses have brought it up. No one's arguing that it's not pertinent, Chair. What we are discussing is why is it urgent. When we look at the biotechnology study, we've had people come in and they've spoken about biotechnology, the broader issue of biotechnology. We--
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I ask for your patience for just one minute.
I thought there was something in O'Brien and Bosc, or, as Mr. Eyking refers to it, “the green book”. Mr. Eyking has been here long enough that I hope he would endeavour to read the green book one of these days.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
In your ruling in the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, you referred to the fact--and I would refer you to the blues--when we were debating as to whether or not it was actually legitimate to bring this forward in a manner that is against the tradition of the committee.... I think everybody agrees that the committee has--and you said yourself--in the past practised the decorum of going step by step through the other motions first. I'd ask if you'd allow me to go back to that, as you've already stated that.
If you go to page 1047 under “Practice” and rulings by committee chairs, it says:
Committee practice is the body of unwritten rules governing committee proceedings. It consists of procedures that have developed over time and are viewed as standard operating practice. For example, while there is no Standing Order to that effect, the normal practice is to have government Members sit to the right of a committee Chair and opposition Members sit to the left.
In the absence of written rules, a committee can refer to practice when the members are uncertain as to how to proceed on a particular issue. Practice may also be used as a factor to be taken into consideration by a committee Chair who is required to make a ruling.
That being said, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that gives you the leeway to take traditional practices that our committee has had for the four years I have sat on it and say that we need to go through these other rulings first.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Just to verify, Mr. Storseth, you're right. I wish I had seen that before, and I have to admit that I didn't. However, to deal with the motions, there is a place in there...and I will find it if you want me to.
I certainly would never question you as far as knowledge of what's in the book. On page 1052--I won't read this unless you ask me to--there is specific material that relates to that.
Even though it was past practice, I think I've been quite clear that I agree with you there, and to move from that is not traditional; however, under the rules that are in there...and that's why I ruled the way I did.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I would ask you to refer, or at least have the clerk refer, to the section you're referring to.
My concern here, Mr. Chairman, is that if you don't go back and....
I'll wait until you're done taking a look at it.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Can I speak on this, Mr. Chair?
It is in the ruling, Mr. Chair. The fact of the matter is--
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, he can't interrupt on a point of order.
Liberal
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Not when it's a point of order. You can't interrupt my point of order.
