Agriculture Committee on March 22nd, 2011

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

So where I'm going with this, Chair, is we should discuss motions because we don't have witnesses here, but we should start at the top of the list of motions and work our way through them in the manner in which we normally do. That's my motion: that we go back to committee business, we go to motions, but that we go to motions in the order in which they were received. That's the way this committee operates. It's the way this committee has operated. It's the way this committee should operate. That protocol was put in place in good faith. There was unanimous consent when we established this at our very first meeting of the agriculture committee. We should not be breaching that and we should not be carrying old business forward like this.

I move that we stay on committee business and that we move to motions in the order in which the motions were brought in front of this committee, out of respect for the members who put those motions in front of committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

There is no debate on this. I'm going to call the question.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Why is there no debate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Because there isn't under the rules.

Do you want me to read it to you?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Order, please.

It reads, “If a dilatory motion is accompanied by a condition, it becomes a substantive motion.” It also says, “Dilatory motions do not require notice, nor can they be amended or debated. They are therefore put to a vote immediately.” That is on page 1057. I think that's all you need to know.

I'm going to call the question.

All those in favour of Mr. Lemieux's motion?

Those opposed?

(Motion negatived)

We are back to debate on Mr. Easter's motion, and I have you on the speakers list.

Sorry?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm on that list?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, but I had Mr. Lemieux first on the list, Mr. Hoback.

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

Okay.

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

I would like to raise a point of order.

I am concerned with the way the motions were dealt with in the last meeting. I reviewed it and I believe this goes to parliamentary privilege. As a member of Parliament, I have a right to put a motion forward as long as I respect due diligence, due process, 48 hours, everything else. Some of my colleagues have already gone through that process, and what we've experienced here is the tyranny of the majority. The opposition bands together and decides that my motion, anybody else's motion, doesn't matter. Only their motions matter.

I would like to know that if I put a motion forward, it's not going to get skipped over because another member of Parliament decides that his motion is more important. Frankly, I believe this goes to privilege, and I believe it is something you need to take under consideration. I'm not asking you to change a ruling you've already made, but in the future we need to have something in writing on this, because this is not an acceptable process.

We still have all these motions sitting in front of the committee. Who knows if we're ever going to get to some of the motions? Clearly, some of Mr. Easter's motions were political at the time. He had his press releases out. If he could just take them off the committee table now, we could at least move our motions forward, rather than have his motions sit there and then jump ahead of us when he has an issue of the day. I believe this is a real concern. I'm not asking you to address it now, but I'm asking you to take this under consideration and come back with some amendments, whether in writing or not, that will allow this committee to move forward in a structured process that respects the privilege of all members.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Storseth, I agree with you. God only knows, it would make my job much easier if we had this in writing. It's been on the honour system and has worked well up until now.

Back to you, Mr. Lemieux.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

There have been a fair number of things said here. I believe the way this motion came forward was in accordance with the rules, with parliamentary procedure. I believe the clerk said that at the last meeting. It is interesting that the government members are playing these games here again today. I would suggest that we get to the motion and debate it. It is under the rules. When an urgent matter comes up, a member of Parliament—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

This is an urgent matter, and when urgent matters come up, it is within a member's rights in this Parliament to move that motion forward and bring it on the agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Easter, I believe I ruled that way at the last meeting.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's what happened here. I want to put that on the record, because we've had a lot of malarkey from the other side.

Thank you. Let's get to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Is there debate?

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Actually, I would like to bring up perhaps a follow-up on a few of the points just made by Mr. Easter, because I think this strikes at the essence of this motion. What is the urgency? This is a question that we asked before. Is it important? Yes. It's important. Every MP sitting around this table realizes that this type of issue, this particular issue, is important. But we don't understand the urgency and why, as I was mentioning during my point of order, everything has to be cast aside, or why special rules seem to be in effect for this particular motion.

The reason I put it in that framework is that we as a committee are studying biotechnology. It's a comprehensive study. We've had witnesses come in front of committee. We've had the committee travel to actually speak to the agricultural sector, and speak to the research and development sector, to have a better understanding of biotechnology, of how biotechnology is affecting and impacting the agricultural sector, of the advantages and disadvantages.

We've been conducting this study and we're not done. There are more witnesses who should be coming in front of the committee. We know there are more witnesses who should be coming in front of committee, and for some reason we're not getting around to it.

One would say, oh, this is more urgent than the study. But the point I'm making, Chair, is that this is part of the study. This motion that we see here is part of the study. We should be including it as part of the study, not breaking it out.

Why don't we all break out our pet motions from the study? Instead of having a study and having a final report, we could have 15 individual, fragmented pet motions--

[An hon. member]

You win some, you lose some.

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

--that serve the MP himself rather than the greater good of the agricultural sector and the greater good of the committee.

I think that's what is rankling here, Chair. This particular motion is on the table in front of committee not because it's in the best interests of the committee. Certainly it's clearly the case that this is not in the best interests of the committee when you see the seeds of unhappiness and discontent that Mr. Easter has managed to sow in such a short amount of time, when we spent years building up goodwill on the committee. It's not in the best interests of the agricultural sector. Yes, there are some who would like to see a motion like this pass immediately. We've heard from them. But there are some who would not.

My point is that we're not done with this study. How can we possibly move ahead on a particular motion that's worded so strongly? It prejudges the study and it prejudges the report.

If it's not in the best interest of the committee, it's not in the best interest of farmers, or it's not in the best interest of our biotechnology sector and our biotechnology study, whose interest is it in? It's in Mr. Easter's best interest. It doesn't go much wider than that.

I'm going to explain why I do think it is in Mr. Easter's best interest. Mr. Easter has basically been painted into a corner. I'd like to point out that when Mr. Easter was the parliamentary secretary for agriculture under the previous Liberal government, they were the ones who approved the plots of Roundup Ready alfalfa. It's his government that would have done that. He would have been the parliamentary secretary at the time.

It is somewhat hypocritical to now, all of a sudden, be taking such a strong stand against what he supported when he actually was in government and when he was the parliamentary secretary. I find that a bit baffling.

Then we had Mr. Atamanenko's bill come forward. Mr. Atamanenko's bill was fully debated in the House. It was debated here in committee. It was studied here in committee as well. As you remember, Chair, we had witnesses come forward to look at Mr. Atamanenko's bill in great detail.

Mr. Easter's line of action regarding Mr. Atamanenko's bill was to support Mr. Atamanenko's bill, which effectively would have had a very detrimental impact on the research and development field of agriculture and would have hurt the biotechnology sector of agriculture.

Mr. Easter voted in favour of Mr. Atamanenko's bill every step of the way--at second reading, at third reading, at committee.

In fact, Mr. Atamanenko ran out of time at committee, if we remember well. He asked for an extension, which--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could at least get his facts right. I believe I did support it during the debate.

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

Don't constrain me.