Evidence of meeting #133 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was canola.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a clarification. Once again, I tabled this motion to allow Canadian producers to hear the entire story about this matter concerning China.
The decision to reject this motion by interpreting it in this way brings up another point. I'm going to ask the clerk for a clarification. Now that my previous motion was defeated, how could the committee ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to testify? Is there another way of doing that?
Honestly, this motion is completely different from the previous one. This motion asks the Minister of Foreign Affairs to explain Canada's relations with China. The point is to invite a minister and not all three, as well as farmers and producers, not industry representatives. I do not understand my colleagues' interpretation that the motions are identical.
If I had asked the three ministers to testify here, I would have understood, but it is not the same motion. We want to hear the only minister who is not invited by the Liberals to testify either before the Standing Committee on International Trade or this committee. I think it would be entirely legitimate that we ask her to appear.
As I mentioned, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food herself indicated publicly to the media that it is the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is responsible for relations with China and for this file. So, I don't understand why we would refuse to debate the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Berthold.
We already voted on your motion regarding the appearance by the three ministers. According to my interpretation, it repeats the previous motion. I am going to disallow your motion because it is similar to the other one.
Thank you.
Mr. Dreeshen, you have the floor.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
From that reading, does it matter whether it's today that we ask, because we happen to be discussing, or does this simply mean that we will not have the opportunity in the ag committee to bring in the trade minister, to bring in the ag minister, or to bring in the foreign affairs minister? Is that what we are saying?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Mr. Dreeshen, this is not debatable. You can challenge my decision, but this is not debatable.
If there are no other matters to be discussed, that is all I have for today.
Mr. Hoback.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Can you shed some light? Are we going to have a meeting later today or tomorrow morning? How are you going to inform us of that?
Liberal
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
You said that you would start immediately, so I assume you're going to start either today or tomorrow.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
We're going to give the clerk a chance to call witnesses. We have a day decided on. It's no later than the 5th, and we'll see when the witnesses are available.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Are you going to waive the 24-hour notice then on this scenario? How is that going to work? You're going to have to waive it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
I will wait until I have information from the clerk about how soon they could be available and then we can decide on a date. It will be probably at this stage unless we can get all the witnesses who are invited to come in earlier.
Mr. Berthold.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, if we passed a motion allowing the clerk to disregard the 48-hour notice requirement, could she convene a meeting for Sunday, if necessary?
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, can we let the clerk do her job and not try to change all the rules? Let's have full confidence in the clerk. I have full confidence in the clerk. If the members express no confidence in the clerk, that's their issue. Can we just have a reasonable amount of time to let the clerk call witnesses?
I trust you, Mr. Chair, and I trust the clerk.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
On a point of order, I never said I have no confidence in the clerk. I asked the clerk a question that you didn't answer yet, Mr. Chair.
It's fine to try to play politics, but this is not an issue to play politics with right now. We want to help this committee have this meeting as soon as possible and I asked the clerk how we could do that.
I want Mr. Drouin to be prudent. I didn't put forward any doubt as to my confidence in the clerk.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify. We just want to empower the clerk to be able to call a meeting in the next two hours if she can find the witnesses. Waiving the 48-hour privilege is actually, in most cases, detrimental to the opposition. We're saying we're willing to waive that if she can get the witnesses together.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
You let Mr. Drouin speak on something totally opposite. I was just clarifying for the record.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Right now we have a meeting scheduled for April 2 and that is the date I'm going to set right now as the first meeting. It will give us enough time to make sure we can bring the witnesses in. We'll have the officials. April 2 is what I have decided will be the next meeting, which will be next Tuesday.
Mr. MacGregor.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
On a point of clarification, Chair, I just want to understand. Maybe the clerk can inform, through you, what our abilities as a committee are. If, as has been indicated, a number of us are here on the weekend and on standby, is it possible for this committee to waive the normal notice period? That's what we're trying to get information on, Chair. That's all.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
We don't need a notice right now. It's not about 24 hours or 48 hours.
My judgment is that we need to have the proper amount of time to get the people in here. April 2 is next Tuesday, which is four days from now. I think that will give us the time needed to get the right people here to make sure we can have a proper meeting and to get prepared. We need to get the background. We need to get all that information prepared with the clerk. We need to get all the questions and everything. My decision at this time is to have that meeting on April 2, next Tuesday.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, to expand upon where we were trying to go with getting information from the clerk, I think the question was whether we could have unanimous consent to move away from some of the standing committee rules. I think that's what we were asking for.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
There's no time.
That can be done, but my reasoning is that we need the proper amount of time to get information, to get the analysts to give us the proper background on all of this and to bring everybody up to speed. Then we'll have a quality meeting, where we can ask the right questions and get good answers from the producers.
Monsieur Berthold.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
In short, we don't need a change or unanimous consent or a motion to allow you to call the meeting when you think the time is right. You made the decision that the meeting would be held on April 2.