I agree with my colleague, Mr. Warkentin. Historically, the agriculture committee has worked together because the issues being discussed are very important and really affect the life of farmers.
Today we had the opportunity to welcome three witnesses, who will have to come back, no doubt. We would have liked to have heard them speak today.
We are debating a motion and we're not done yet. I'm sure others here want to continue debating it.
The interpretation is a real mess. What the minister seems to have told you and what he seems to have told us is different. The Minister of Agriculture has two versions of his mandate and vision of agriculture. We see a problem with that.
The Minister of Agriculture has a lot of experience, and we know him very well. I've known him for 10 years. I would tend to believe my colleague Mr. Warkentin's version that it isn't so urgent and that other topics are more urgent.
Tomorrow we will have to debate a motion in the House of Commons tomorrow thanks to my other colleague Ms. Brosseau because we are unable to discuss it here. There are many ways of debating agriculture, and we can do a lot of things in committee. If we never get to do them in this committee, we will have to do them in the House of Commons on opposition days or during emergency debates. In the long term, that isn't the best way to operate.
Let's assume our responsibilities and finish what we started, instead of discussing something that will not be implemented for two and a half years. We need to let federal and provincial public servants come to an agreement on Growing Forward 3. We need to be presented with a proposal that seems to have some agreement, if we want to study this issue and present recommendations. Certainly, if we are too premature on the issue, it won't even be considered.
I'll pass things over to the chair. I think that other people here would like to say something. So I'll let the second opposition party have a chance to speak. Ms. Brosseau would like to say something as well.