Agriculture Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I would suggest that my esteemed friend withdraw amendment BQ-3 since we do not have to vote on that.

Since we know the result of the previous amendment and since, in light of the testimony we have heard, amendment BQ-3 is not necessary, that would be a possibility.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

That's fine, Mr. Chair.

If we are guaranteed that amendment BQ-3 is not necessary and that pilots will not be held responsible, I do not see a problem. We will withdraw it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I just need unanimous consent on withdrawing it. I don't see any issue on that from this committee.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

(Amendment withdrawn)

I do see your hand, Mr. MacGregor, but let me go back to my procedural sheet here.

That takes us to the end of clause 4 in terms of amendments.

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

For a new clause 4.1, this is amendment BQ-4.

Without going into further detail, I will just reiterate that it's the same principle that has applied on the last two rulings. The advice I'm being given on BQ-4 is that it is adding conditions.

However, go ahead, Monsieur Perron, if you want to explain.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I'm sorry. Perhaps I was not very clear earlier, but the amendment submitted at the last minute was intended to replace amendments BQ-4 and BQ-5. The goal was to suggest a better way of doing it or doing it in a way that we thought might be more admissible. If that had not been accepted, we would have voted twice on the same content. That was our intention earlier. The goal was to save time.

You may disregard amendments BQ-4 and BQ-5, if everyone is in agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You didn't actually move it yet, so that's fine. We don't need unanimous consent. I was just pre-emptively saying where we would be if you did choose to move it.

(On clause 5)

The next amendment would be CPC-2, which is admissible.

Mr. Barlow, if you or whoever would like to speak on that amendment would like to move it, go ahead. It is over to you.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks.

Because that declaration clause was removed, we just want to make sure that there is no false or misleading information, so “It is prohibited for a person to provide false or misleading” information or make a false or misleading statement in “respect of any [other] matter related to the export by air of a live horse.”

That's really the focus of our amendment here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

That was premised on the idea that there would be an ability for the horse to move under conditions, which we've ruled out of order.

Would you still like to move that, or do you feel that it's...?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

As it was explained to me by the procedural clerk, this would apply to any horse being moved by air, outside of those being moved for export, because the bill is very strict on that.

It would talk about—as you can see from Mr. Barlow's amendment—anything that's misleading with regard to any horse being moved in that context.

I'll leave it for any debate or open conversation, or we can call a vote.

Shall CPC-2 carry?

(Amendment negatived on division)

(Clause 5 agreed to on division0

(On clause 6)

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

CPC-3 is admissible, based on other elements.

Go ahead, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

We definitely heard about the onerous responsibility that this legislation puts on exporters, pilots and those who are associated with the industry. I certainly appreciate my colleague'S putting in some very stiff penalties, but again, this has now been banned. I don't think it's going to be any breeders now in operation, which is going to be another consequence of this legislation. The government's now taking on a multi-million-dollar liability here.

This amendment is to lower the penalties for the offence under this act, from $250,000 on a conviction on indictment to $100,000, and from $50,000 on summary conviction to $25,000. Again, the feedback we had from testimony was that this is very onerous legislation, and I don't think such high penalties are necessary. We just want to reduce those fines to something a little more commensurate with what's going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, is there any discussion?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I will add that these fines are in line with what the Liberals put forward on Bill C-275. They're in line with what they supported in previous legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

If there's no other discussion, I will ask whether CPC-3 shall carry.

(Amendment negatived on division)

(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to on division)

(On clause 8)

On clause 8, we ruled that CPC-4 was inadmissible. That's part of the original decision, Mr. Barlow.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Before we get into clause 8, I will ask about the rationale on whether we need clause 8 and whether we need to modify paragraph 107(3)(c) of the Customs Act. I ask folks from the CBSA to speak to that. I'm just getting a signal that it may be redundant. I propose that we strike clause 8, but I will speak to the officials first and ask the question as to whether or not this has any impact. If we do remove this clause, is there an impact to the Customs Act?

[Graeme Hamilton]

Mr. Chair, because the information under this bill is not collected under the authorities of the Customs Act, by definition it's not considered customs information.

Section 107 is specific to the authorities that the CBSA has to release customs information to other parties, including other government departments, and because the information collected would not be collected under that authority, it does not need to be in section 107.

If there is other information that is collected upon export that the CFIA would like to access, there are existing provisions within section 107 that do allow us to provide that information to another government department upon request, so removing the reference to Bill C-355 in section 107 would have no impact on the CBSA's ability to share information with the CFIA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you.

Mr. Drouin, I guess what I'm hearing from you is that you may not be in favour of moving clause 8 as is, and perhaps you're trying to strike it down.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Well, we can vote on.... In terms of procedure, can I move an amendment to strike clause 8, or do we just not carry clause 8?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

It just doesn't carry.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

(Clause 8 negatived)

(Clause 9 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're at clause 10 and CPC-6. I believe that was deemed inadmissible as well.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

What about clause 8, which is not necessary?

I apologize, Mr. Chair. I have just been informed that it was withdrawn.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Shall clause 10 carry?

(Clause 10 agreed to on division)

(On clause 11)

I'm now at clause 11 and CPC‑7. I believe this amendment is in order. I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Barlow.