Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, Mr. MacGregor, for bringing this forward. I think this is a very important issue.
Many of my concerns with the motion as it reads are quite similar to those of Mr. Perron. I am not opposed to supporting a study of this nature. I guess my concerns would be on a few things.
I believe there is a balancing act here between industry and finance. I believe this is being done at finance right now or something similar. When we get into the discussion of wages and CEO actions, I think we're talking about competition, which I don't think is necessarily under our mandate. I think there are ways we can tighten this up, and I would concur with probably most of Mr. Perron's amendments.
One other thing that we would like added, Mr. MacGregor, if we get down that far, is something about increases in input costs and the impact that's having on groceries. We can have more discussion on the impact this is having at the farm gate, on farms and on grocery prices as well—not just further down the supply chain.
I don't think I have much more to add other than that I understand where Mr. MacGregor is going. I don't think I have a problem with that. I just have an issue in terms of what the mandate of our committee is. We are the agriculture and agri-food committee. I get what Mr. MacGregor is saying, but when we start getting into some of the stuff about CEOs and costs in relation to the wages for their staff, I think that's not really in our scope.
I do agree with Mr. Perron as well when we talk about profit-driven inflation and record profits. I think we're already assuming the outcome of the study before we've even started it, so I would much prefer to take some of that language out, but I think the essence of that is still there.
In summary, I think if we were able to tighten this up and be more focused on the agriculture side, we could still get to what Mr. MacGregor is talking about. I know he has an opposition day motion tabled tomorrow. Congratulations on that, Mr. MacGregor. Thanks for more work for me. Apparently he has a bee in his bonnet, which we will talk about later.
I do think I understand where you're trying to go. I think we can get there. I just have some concerns with the scope of what the motion says in terms of what is under our mandate for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to actually action the items that would come from the study.
The last thing I will mention is what we would like to see inserted in this. I agree with Mr. MacGregor that this is important, but obviously you know where we stand with C-234. I want to see C-234 finished. We would like to add in there that we start this study as soon as the clause-by-clause on C-234 is finished.