This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

Evidence of meeting #34 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was market.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Robert Chorney  President, Farmers' Markets Canada
André Nault  President, Les amiEs de la terre de l'Estrie
Laurier Busque  Member, Board of Directors, Les amiEs de la terre de l'Estrie

4:35 p.m.

President, Farmers' Markets Canada

Robert Chorney

I don't think so, not at all.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

On both sides of the issue?

4:35 p.m.

President, Farmers' Markets Canada

Robert Chorney

I don't think government should be picking up membership fees to belong to professional associations. That's up to the farmer.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Okay, but you implied that government should for markets and what have you. Was I taking that the wrong way?

4:35 p.m.

President, Farmers' Markets Canada

Robert Chorney

What I'm stating is that Farmers' Markets Canada, in order to market the sector, needs help from government to tell the farmers' market story nationwide, to provide training to members, to further increase the awareness with health units. All of those programs we should be doing nationally, helping the provinces with those things. Some provinces don't have—

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Okay. You're getting away from what I was asking. You talked about memberships, and that's good.

Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

As I mentioned to you two minutes ago, Larry, I'm going to take the five minutes that we have to introduce a motion I have, and I gave Pierre a heads-up on this. I'd like to read this motion into the record, please.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Okay. You certainly have the right, Mr. Atamanenko. We talked about this earlier today. I think you're abusing your privilege here because this meeting isn't for this, but, again, you can go.

A point of order.

April 4th, 2012 / 4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Yes, I have a point of order, Chair.

I think this should be moved to the end of the meeting, and I'm saying this because this is the way we normally deal with this. When we deal with motions, we deal with motions as part of committee business. They don't pop up during our question periods.

Chair, I think you should consider what it is that he's asking. He may have spoken to me, but I'm telling you what I told him, and I'm telling my committee members what I told Alex, that it is inappropriate to raise it when we have witnesses here, when the theme of today's meeting is to look at the supply chain, to discuss with witnesses. So it's not following due process as set out by this committee. This is normally committee business.

If Mr. Atamanenko wants to have committee business on his motion, for example, at the end of the meeting, then I think it's appropriate for us to do it at the end of the meeting as part of committee business, as we would normally do. This is very disruptive, Chair. It's not fair to committee members who are here to dialogue with witnesses. It's being foisted upon the committee.

We have a protocol for dealing with this, and the protocol is that it falls under committee business. Committee business is not on the schedule, so, Chair, you could quite rightly say, not today, there's no committee business on the schedule, and this is clearly committee business. Or, Chair, you could also say, I'll move this to the end of the meeting when we will have committee business because we might wrap up this meeting early.

That's my point of order, Chair, that this is irregular. We have a process and a protocol for dealing with this, and I would say that's the way we should deal with it.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I take that comment. As I think I've basically verified what you said, I think this is inappropriate.

However, I would respectfully ask you, Mr. Atamanenko, if you would move it to be dealt with after the rounds of testimony are done.

But again, the way the rules are set out, if Mr. Atamanenko insists right now, I will have to accept that.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

On that point of order, I'm wondering if, when Mr. Lemieux suggests it be moved to the end of today's business and the end of the witnesses' testimony, he would commit to Alex's motion not going in camera. In other words, when he suggests it be moved to the end of the meeting, will that remain in the open meeting, and would he commit to not bringing a motion that it go in camera?

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

If you want to have those kinds of negotiations, Mr. Valeriote, go and talk to Mr. Lemieux.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

No, I just want clarification.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I'm dealing with this right now, and I asked Mr. Atamanenko....

We have witnesses here. But the ball is in your court.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC

I'd like to read it into the record.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Read it into the record then.

Is it a point of order, Mr. Hoback?

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

No, this is a comment, Mr. Chair.

In light of what's going on here and how embarrassed I am—I apologize to the witnesses—I move that we go in camera.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

There's no discussion on the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

We are now going in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]