Evidence of meeting #1 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was motions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
First, I support Mr. Drouin's idea. It is one of the motions I wanted to put forward. The clerk has the three motions that I wanted to propose to the committee.
May I read them now?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
It is up to you, Mr. Perron. We can also pick up the discussion about continuing the study on business risk management programs. It is up to you.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I do not want to lose my turn. So I will present the other two motions.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Okay.
Here is the first motion:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the issues faced by and impacts on the affected sectors (supply managed commodities under the last three free trade agreements, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA)) and that it focus on those to which the government has not paid all due compensation.
The second motion is as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study with witnesses on the measures the Government of Canada could implement to recognize and fund agricultural practices that are beneficial in terms of the environment, land use, local economies and regional development, among others; and that the Committee report its recommendations to the House.
I believe that the second motion, in particular, may address the concerns of several members from a number of the various parties present.
The third motion simply asks that we do what we intended to do before prorogation.
Thank you.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Can I just clarify something?
Are you moving the other motion for the BRM?
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I understood that Mr. Drouin had recommended that we take up the report again and continue the study. That is essentially what my motion says.
I can read it again. Here it is:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the business risk management programs; that the evidence and documentation the Committee received for the study during the 1st Session of the 43rd Parliament be considered by the Committee during the current session; and that it finalize the nearly completed report.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Yes. That's what I was wondering about. The procedural part of me is now happy because I believe we finally have a motion before us about formally continuing the BRM study. I think it includes all the language we need to include and all the witness testimony we've heard.
The majority of us have that draft report, so if this motion is authorizing us to pick up where we left off, I'm good with it.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Lianne Rood Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
I think we would be in agreement as well to pick up where we left off on the BRM study, provided that the language has all of the necessities in it to be able to take into account all of the previous testimony and the draft report that's already written.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
I see other hands up. We do have a motion on the floor. Put your hand up if it's to discuss this motion, and then we can vote.
Mr. Blois, do you want to comment on this motion?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I'm just seeking a little bit of clarity. What I understand is that we have a motion right now to basically bring back the BRM study from where we were in the last session. Is that correct? Am I fair in saying that's what Mr. Perron just brought forward?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Okay.
Now, the secondary ones, I think, have merit, but I wonder whether or not they would be best suited.... We've just established the subcommittee under routine motions. Obviously, we have work to do right now on the BRM for the next couple of sessions in preparation for the ministers conference in November. I wonder whether or not that can be best established in the subcommittee, so that we can work collaboratively to set an agenda.
I think Mr. Perron raised some good measures, but perhaps they can be tabled for now, and we can deal with those in subcommittee and come back with more.... I don't have it in front of me either; that's part of the challenge.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Only one motion has been moved. The other ones right now have been read. I think we could deal with this one right now. I think it would be appropriate if we get that out of the way, and then we could move on to other business. Are we good on that?
Mr. Perron, do you have anything else to add?
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair, I would like a clarification.
You say we have one motion. We are actually voting to resume the supply management study. Is that right?
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Yes, that is right.
We shall vote on that motion.
Monsieur Perron, can you read your motion again for the group?
4 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Yes, of course, and perhaps I can read it slower. So I move the following:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the business risk management programs; that the evidence and documentation the Committee received for the study during the 1st Session of the 43rd Parliament be considered by the Committee during the current session; and that it finalize the nearly completed report.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
You've all heard the motion. Are we ready for the vote?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you, Monsieur Perron.
Now we can move on to other business.
Kody, do you have anything else to add on to your intervention?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we've now set the course, thanks to Mr. Perron and his motion, and that BRM is going to be our focus for the next couple of weeks in terms of getting that report ready.
This committee has a great history of working together, all members on here. Of course, Ms. Rood is now the shadow critic, and I believe whoever would be on our side and you, Mr. Chair, along with Mr. Perron and Mr. MacGregor.... I think we should leave that work to them to decide if we can come to some type of agreement and then basically move forward on any additional work from there.
I would recommend that we've done our part here. We should focus on working with the clerk on what our schedule could look like in terms of the drafting of where we left off. I think that the additional motions that Mr. Perron has put out have merit. I'd like to see them in more detail. This is the hard part of meeting virtually; it's difficult.
I like that he mentioned the environment. There were some elements in the Speech from the Throne that members might want to do, but I think it's best to deal with that in the subcommittee where it's a little bit tidier and easier to exchange ideas and information.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Just on a point of technical clarity, Mr. Steinley had raised his hand on camera and did not get recognized. When we want to speak, would you suggest we use the participants menu—the raised hand or the lowered hand—or would you like us to raise our hands?
I just want to make sure Mr. Steinley gets in there.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
The only time I ask for a raised hand is when we vote. That's how I recognize everyone in favour or not. If you want to get into the speaking order, use the “raise hand” function, if you can.