Thank you, Chair.
I understand what Mr. Bellavance is saying, but that's not what his motion reads. The second sentence of his motion reads: “That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food report to the House of Commons as soon as possible the following recommendations”.
If this motion passes, this means “as soon as possible” these motions—there's no report—go to the House.
Mr. Bellavance said he worded it very carefully, so I'm not understanding why when he describes his intent—and I agree with that—he's suggesting that these be included in the report, but the motion reads that these particular recommendations be reported to the House with or without a report, yet the motion doesn't make any allowance for a report.
Chair, to clarify my earlier comments about the fertilizer witnesses who we have coming, what I want to clarify is that if this committee feels that this report takes priority, then we would have to ask those witnesses to come later. But if we don't, if this motion were to pass and this goes to the House immediately and the report is not a priority, then we should have the fertilizer people come, for sure. They've got important matters to discuss with the committee, and the sooner they come the better.
What I'm asking the committee members is what's the priority of this committee, just in the near term, for the next meeting actually? Is it to move ahead with the report, or is it to move ahead with the next witnesses?
I realize that if the fertilizer witnesses can't come it's a great inconvenience to them. However, it depends on what the priorities of the committee are.
I'd actually like to finish my comments by suggesting an amendment to the motion, something that would align the motion so that it better reflects what Mr. Bellavance just said, that it's a suggestion and that these particular recommendations wouldn't be tabled in the House “as soon as possible” outside the report.