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
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The Conservative members in this committee played games--as they're doing right now--that prevented us from hearing from some pretty legitimate witnesses, including the Canadian Wheat Board.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't done.
You're right that I said third reading and what I should have said was report stage. And I would have said—
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I am on the motion, Chair. I'm actually talking about why it is that Mr. Easter has put forward his motion and why it is that his motion is disrupting committee. Who does this serve best? This is all about his motion, Chair. And what I'm saying is that Mr.—
NDP
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Chair, I think what we're seeing are personal attacks. I'm not sure if that fits with the motion we're discussing. We're discussing a motion to try to do something for people who might be hit by genetically modified alfalfa. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to personally attack Mr. Easter. I think Mr. Lemieux should save that for the election campaign.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm surprised you took the point, because there has not been a single personal attack in there. I'm simply stating fact. If I said Mr. Easter was dishonest or if I said he was a thief, that's a personal attack. For me to say he voted in favour of Mr. Atamanenko's bill at second reading and voted in favour of Mr. Atamanenko's bill at report stage is not a personal attack; that's a statement of fact. The way in which this particular motion was forced upon committee is a statement of fact. I haven't called Mr. Easter a name, so it's not a personal attack. I don't know why the point was taken on that.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
If I thought you were making personal attacks, I would have ruled so. I didn't, so carry on.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Easter finds himself in a tough spot. The tough spot he finds himself in is that he supported Mr. Atamanenko's bill at all of its stages. Mr. Atamanenko's bill ran out of time. Forget the fact that I can't remember the number of months it sat in front of Parliament. It still wasn't enough time for Mr. Atamanenko. It's because he saw the end coming that he passed a motion for an extension.
Mr. Chair, a motion came forward before that. Witnesses came in front of this committee to say that the prolonged debate or simply the lengthy debate on Mr. Atamanenko's motion or bill was actually having a detrimental impact on the research and development sector of agriculture. They talked about investors, companies that would normally invest in biotechnology and in research and development in Canada. We have a fairly robust research and development sector. They came in front of the committee to say that with Mr. Atamanenko's bill in front of the House, it was sowing uncertainty in the field. It was actually giving investors pause. They were withholding decisions in favour of our research and development sector.
They were coming to see me. If they were coming to see me and my colleagues on the committee, I'm certain they were going to see Mr. Easter and Mr. Valeriote. In fact, we had many discussions on who was coming to see us, despite the breakdown in relations at committee. We had better relations at that time and we were communicating as we should, being members of the agriculture committee. I know they went to see Mr. Easter and Mr. Valeriote to explain the concern they had that Mr. Atamanenko's bill on GM was hurting the sector.
What did Mr. Easter do? Despite all of that, he voted in favour of this committee reporting back to the House to ask for an extension to Mr. Atamanenko's bill. When it got to the House, we had debate on whether it should be extended or should not be extended. Mr. Easter again voted for the extension, not only in committee but in the House, and that Parliament should give more time to Mr. Atamanenko's bill. It's all on the public record. Mr. Valeriote voted that way as well.
Mr. Easter was basically sending a message to people who would support the position that he's with Mr. Atamanenko a hundred percent. He was a hundred percent on board with the contents of Mr. Atamanenko's bill, every step of the way, vote after vote and debate after debate. Everything that Mr. Easter did in terms of action would lead the people who supported Mr. Atamanenko's bill to believe that Mr. Easter fully supported the bill. Then came the final vote in the House on Mr. Atamanenko's bill, and Mr. Easter voted against Mr. Atamanenko's bill.
Did he vote the right way in the end? Yes, he voted the right way in the end. I think the companies that were involved in research and development in the biotechnology sector in Canada were appreciative that Mr. Easter had finally, at the very end, voted against Mr. Atamanenko's bill.
Chair, you can imagine the surprise of the people, groups, and organizations that followed Mr. Easter's every move from the beginning of Mr. Atamanenko's bill. He voted for it, supported it, debated for it, and argued in favour of it. At the very last minute, at the last vote when the bill could actually pass into law, Mr. Easter then voted against it. He changed his colours. It was a 180-degree turn. You can imagine the shock.
What did they do? They got on to Mr. Easter. They started lobbying him, phoning him, peppering him with e-mails, and bringing tremendous pressure to bear. They may very well have mentioned that he was the president of the NFU for many years and that, as an organization, the NFU supported Mr. Atamanenko's bill.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I understand that we shouldn't have personal attacks here, but Mr. Lemieux referred to Mr. Easter as president of the NFU. That is a type of personal attack.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
It's just a statement of fact. I'm showing the predicament that Mr. Easter finds himself in. The NFU, perhaps supporters of the NFU, and certainly some of the witnesses we had in front of committee or their supporters would have been in favour of Mr. Atamanenko's bill. They would have fully supported Mr. Easter right up until the moment when he cast the deciding vote against Mr. Atamanenko's bill and it failed to pass in the House of Commons.
Mr. Easter has been under tremendous pressure from all of these groups and organizations that were in his camp, so to speak. They've probably been thumping him and asking what he was thinking, why he sold out on them, and why he threw in the towel. What kind of pressure could have been brought to bear to be such a turncoat to what they wanted him to do?
Now Mr. Easter has to make it up. Somehow he has to come up with a way to appease them and say “No, wait. You don't understand. I was always for you and your interests.”
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Are we going to get into debating this? You can say what you like about me and it isn't going to bother me a bit. I take positions on what's the right thing for society. I always have, even when it was against my own government, and I'm not going to stop doing that.
Mr. Chair, my point of order is that they can talk like this all day if they like, but the fact of the matter is we have a motion on the table. It would be nice to actually debate the motion and the merits around it, have a vote on it, and get on with parliamentary business.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you.
Chair, as you know, that's not a point of order.
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
This is talking about the motion. I brought up a question right at the beginning of this meeting and at the beginning of the last meeting. Why is this motion so special, and why is it of an urgent nature? That's what I began with.
Conservative
