All right.
At any rate, these were the questions that popped up in my mind.
Let's have a quick look at what I am proposing. I spoke earlier with Mr. MacGregor and members of the subcommittee, and gave them a copy of my suggestions. Nothing is written in stone here, obviously. Looking at what I drew up in French and in English, the English wording may not be word-perfect, because I wrote it today. I will therefore read the French version:
“That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on inflation [...]. ”
I would take out “profit-driven inflation.” We don't actually know yet if this is actually the case, because we haven't studied the issue. I think we have to be careful about the way the recommendations are worded so as not to come up with conclusions before having done the study. We will probably learn that it is indeed the case, but we won't know for sure until we do our study.
For the same reason, I would cross out the part that says, “and the cost of groceries going up while large chains are making record profits.”
I'm not against the part of the motion that deals with CEO salaries and the wages of their employees. I do wonder, however, if we should be looking at this now or in the context of another study.
I am also wondering if this issue might not rather be the remit of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.The motion deals with the way companies manage the wages of their employees and the bonuses given to their CEOs.
We have, of course, all seen the news reports about huge bonuses that seem inappropriate, but I think that delving into this issue would take up a lot of time. Right now, I wouldn't include it. We could possibly undertake another study on the issue later.
I omitted “and their CEOs in relation to employee wages.” Then, rather than stating that the large grocery chains are leveraging their size to cut into the earnings of Canadian farmers, we could say, “examine the supply mechanisms with the producers and transformers. ” Again, I'm not stating that we will not come to this conclusion, but I don't think that we can do so before doing the study. The same goes for the other part that I crossed out earlier.
Finally, I would initially set aside four meetings for this issue, rather than six. We could always add meetings later, if need be.
Those are my proposals.
Colleagues, I await your reactions.