Mr. Blois.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I just want to make sure—and, John, correct me if I'm wrong—that we have the words, if you're willing, “Therefore, the committee shall study ways in which the Government of Canada can partner, support and/or invest directly on farms to help farmers and producers reduce energy costs and adopt new technologies”.
Can we just have the words “partner, support and/or invest directly on farms”. I think “invest directly on farms” is important. I thought we had agreed—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
If the government is willing to commit to investing directly in farms....
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
The parliamentary secretary is having a nervous breakdown, but sure, I'm totally fine with that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Does it have to be an amendment, or can it still come from his original motion?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
I am fine with that friendly amendment from Kody.
Kody, what do we have just before “report”? Can you read your amendment to me again?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I'll just read the first part. It would be “pursuant to Standing Order 108(2)....recognizing that in order for the Government of Canada to meet its Paris Climate Accord, investments in rural communities, particularly the agricultural sector, will be key”—I think that was fine.
Then, John, your part comes in. Where you had a period, we have added, “Therefore the committee shall study ways in which the Government of Canada can partner, support and/or invest directly on farms to help farmers and producers reduce energy costs and adopt new technologies to reduce GHG emissions.”
That's what I have. If you're not okay with “GHG emissions”, that's okay.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
No, it's in there. I'll rewrite it nicely and give it to you after, if that's okay.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
You have all heard the motion. We will write it up.
Mr. Perron, would you like to ask a question?
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Yes. As I understand it, you have removed the following part:
that the study include an assessment of current agricultural practices and innovation already in place to improve conservation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve management of the carbon cycle;
Things are happening fast. I am sorry to slow you down, but I'd like to know if that has been removed.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Do we really want to remove that?
I, for one, think it would be worthwhile.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I don't know if this is the right time, but I would like to propose an amendment to that.
After “greenhouse gas emissions and improve the management of the carbon cycle”, I propose that we add “as well as other industry efforts to reduce environmental impact, such as reducing the use of plastics and alternative growing methods”.
I think it would be interesting to hear from the industry about the efforts they are making right now. That could guide us in terms of investment, and where we should be going in this regard.