Evidence of meeting #36 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Okay. We'll look into that.
We have 20 minutes left, and there is probably a good chance we're not going to get every one of these done, but I thought we might get the easier ones done first. There is one by Randy Hoback, who is not here, and by Francis. It's together. I think we're addressing that, but maybe Francis wants to step up to the plate on that one. I'm just trying to get the low-hanging fruit done here first.
Francis, do you know which one we're talking about?
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
It's pretty self-explanatory. Are you comfortable with where we're going with the committee on it?
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
The motion is self-explanatory. It will be an effort to:
...conduct a study on the status of the Canadian biotechnology sector, in which it travels to the universities across Canada where this technology is primarily being undertaken, and that it recommend, where necessary, legislative, policy and regulatory changes in order to foster an innovative and fertile biotechnology industry in Canada. And that the committee report its findings to the House.
I'm hoping we'll have a vigorous view and review of all areas of the biotechnology sector, Mr. Chair, and I'm hoping this committee supports that study.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you very much, Mr. Valeriote.
Just for the record, because Mr. Hoback is not here, in order for this to go through we need unanimous consent. So unless there are some problems....
Alex, and then Brian.
A point of order.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I have a point of order first. I think Mr. Hoback has introduced this as well, so I don't know why we would need unanimous consent if both movers have tried to move this.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
10:25 a.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Hoback had talked about the motion in committee, but he hadn't yet officially moved the motion in committee. So if Mr. Valeriote is intending to move officially and then proceed to a debate and a vote on this motion.... Because the standard only requires us to have one person's name, my minutes can only reflect one person's name. If it is the desire of the committee for the motion and the minutes to be done in both parties' names, it just takes the unanimous consent of the committee.
10:25 a.m.
An hon. member
So we should move forward with that right off the bat.
10:25 a.m.
The Clerk
If we are just discussing it, it's not necessary; but if he's moving it and we're going to proceed to a debate and a vote, I require unanimous consent for both names to appear there.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Is it not true, though, Mr. Chair, that we've already in effect...? I don't know why we're dealing with this motion.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
No, but we've already agreed that we're going to commence a study on the biotechnology industry starting December 14.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
That's right, but in all fairness, because Randy's not here, we just have to agree with it, I guess. This is just housekeeping.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
You don't have my unanimous consent for the motion as it stands.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
On a point of order, then we can't move forward with this.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Okay. Let's park it.
Just because of time constraints, there is no use getting into it, because Mr. Hoback is not here and we don't have unanimous consent.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
An hon. member
Alex.