Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate everyone's comments about how they'd rather be in their constituencies, but I think we can all agree that we are elected as members of Parliament and when duty calls, we have to come to Ottawa, and this is one particular example.
I don't have canola growing in my riding, but I certainly appreciate the importance it has to the Canadian economy. I don't want to belabour the points that have been made by my Conservative colleagues, but it's not just the canola; it's also the spinoff effects. Those farmers reinvest those profits in their communities. They make investments in machinery. They hire a lot of people. The canola doesn't come off the field by itself, so we also have to take into account the spinoff effects.
As has been said, farmers have to make their plans as to what types of crops they're going to plant months, if not a year, in advance. It requires a lot of planning. We in this committee have been seized with a number of studies, notably our recent study on farmers' mental health. We heard a lot of testimony about how the unknown variables, especially the environmental factors but also not knowing the commodity prices or whether trade deals are going to be honoured, all wear on farmers' mental health. We heard very substantive testimony in that regard. This is one of those moments where, yes, we do have a number of studies that we're working on, but at times like this, I think the committee has to come together and realize the seriousness of the situation, and we have to act upon it.
I want to address Mr. Drouin's point about the ministers. Next week we are going to have two ministers appear before the international trade committee. I think Mr. Hoback said it's down to one hour. We're going to have two ministers appear jointly for just one hour. That's the only interaction we will get to have. Reference has been made to the fact that, yes, we have access to ministers during question period, but come on. With 35 seconds to ask a question and 35 seconds for an answer, how in the world can we have a substantive discussion on such an important issue in question period?
With regard to what happened last week, Mr. Drouin knows perfectly well that in a majority government, the opposition has very limited procedural tools at its disposal. He knows that the whole 30-hour voting marathon was directly linked to what's going on with Madam Jody Wilson-Raybould and SNC-Lavalin. In fact, I was in the chamber a number of times when motions were moved on points of order to stop the voting marathon, if we simply allowed her to come and say her piece. I want to put that on the record, Mr. Chair. Multiple attempts were made through points of order to stop that and they were all rejected by the Liberals.
That's beside the point. The point I want to make is that the last time we had a minister appear before the agriculture committee was November 29. We did not have the chance during the recent financial cycle to have Minister MacAulay appear. We now have a new minister. Therefore, to say that having a one-hour exchange with two ministers at another committee is sufficient is completely off the mark.
I think it's great that the ministers are reaching out to industry representatives, but in our responsible system of government where we're lucky to have the executive branch sit within the House of Commons, one of the best things that the legislative branch does is its oversight of ministries and agencies.
The buck stops with the minister. We need to have more than an hour. If Minister Carr and Minister Bibeau are so sure of the policies they're putting into place, then I think they can stand up for themselves, appear before this committee for two hours and sufficiently explain their actions and defend themselves, if they're very confident that they're doing everything they can.
On a final note, as a member of Parliament, I may not represent canola farmers, but we have a number of people here who do. Members of Parliament speak for their communities. We are their representatives. We were sent here to Ottawa to represent specific geographic areas of Canada. It would be a shame not to allow members of Parliament who represent canola-growing regions to have that chance to have a polite, respectful exchange with the minister on exactly what's going on.
This is the crux of the matter. The conversation today and the amendment being proposed are precisely why we wanted to have this meeting out in the open and televised so that the Canadian public knows where the respective parties fall on this issue.
I hope the amendment that was made by Mr. Drouin is defeated and that we can honour the original amendment. I think it's incredibly important to have the ministers, and at the very least, the agriculture minister, appear before the agriculture committee. Canola is an agricultural product. This is absolutely an important issue.
I have a number of questions. This raises serious questions about our relationship with China. Look at the track record of China in international trade rules. They have a track record of systematically violating WTO rules. We know that they use their trade policy as a vehicle to give their state-owned enterprises access to strategic markets and critical areas. If it was a fully functioning, accountable and transparent democracy, I think we could all rest a bit easier, but it's not.
If in the future we are going to try to pursue more access to the Chinese market, I think we should be very concerned. We can look at this stroke of a pen whereby they can simply say no to 40% of one of our most valuable agricultural exports. What kinds of contingency plans does this government have in place for when that eventuality happens? This is happening now. If we are able to fix this in the next couple of months, what's to say it won't happen again in another year or two years with another agricultural product?
These are serious questions and we, as the people's representatives in a democratic open system, demand access to the ministers so that those two ministers can explain their actions.
I think I've made my point, Chair, as to why I will be supporting the original motion. I seriously hope that my Liberal colleagues have been listening to my arguments and will find it in their hearts to agree with me.
Thank you.