Hon. Pamela Wallin: On this topic about drying off-site, I happen to come from a province that has 40% of the country’s farmland, so this is what we do for a living. When you keep wet grain on your farm waiting in the queue to go somewhere else to dry it, you lose quality. That is the first loss of money.

The distances are huge in Saskatchewan to go to drying facilities, or they can be. There are huge transportation costs. The differential there is significant. The difference between old equipment and new equipment in terms of efficiency is also very important. I am looking for your thoughts on this, that we just keep a bunch of old equipment around because it might justify this kind of program is an absurd way to approach dealing with the environment or, for that matter, feeding the world.

Senator Wells: Senator Wallin, thank you for your question.

Sometimes people won’t upgrade their equipment because they can’t afford it. They have to make do with what they have. We see that not just in farm operations; we see that in homes as well.

Depending upon what the grain is, you will have different requirements in drying. Corn, I learned, takes longer because it absorbs more water. It does not dry as quickly. The weather is not always consistent for drying, so that is why they have to use automatic dryers.

I learned it is also true that if a product is not dried in the right amount of time, you will get mould and rot. You mentioned the reduction in quality. That is the elimination of quality and elimination of any revenue from that, despite having the costs to get it that far.

All I can say is, you are absolutely right: Having on-site drying gives not just a financial benefit but an operational benefit.

Hon. Robert Black: Senator Wells, will you take a question?

Senator Wells: Yes, Senator Black.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is on debate.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: On debate.

Hon. Denise Batters: I have a question.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-234 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, in clause 2,

(a) on page 2, by replacing lines 24 to 37 with the following:

(b) on page 3, by deleting lines 1 to 9.

Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Point of order. I was standing. I thought Senator Clement wanted to either ask a question or go on debate. This is extremely rare and very unfair.

I was standing on debate and for Your Honour to allow somebody to move an adjournment motion while people are standing on debate is, I believe, definitely out of order.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Clement, you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Wells, do you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Leave to permit questions? Usually after an amendment we go on debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is there leave to allow questions?

Will you take a question, Senator Moncion?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Point of order.

Not only is this outrageous, I have never before seen in my time in this place someone get on their feet, move an amendment without debating on the amendment. The tradition in this place is you get up on debate, move your amendment, make your debate, take questions on your amendment and then you go into debate. Then, after that, we can try to adjourn because obviously we know what we are trying to do here.

The fact that we are skipping all of these other necessary steps — amend, debate, ask questions of the amender, go to other debates and then ask for a question? Come on, Your Honour, please.

Hon. David M. Wells: No, I was going to go on debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: I recognized Senator Clement.

It is moved by Senator Clement, seconded by Honourable Senator Petitclerc, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Was it a question?

Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.

An Hon. Senator: Dispense.

The Hon. the Speaker: I will repeat. (a) on page 2, by replacing lines — may I dispense?