Agriculture Committee on Nov. 14th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay.

I saw Mrs. Valdez' hand first, followed by Mr. Steinley.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Turnbull for his amendment.

I spoke to Ryan briefly. I propose to amend the time from eight years to four years to align with the time when we are completing the interim review of the pricing act, which the government has publicly committed to. That is 2026.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, Mr. Turnbull has proposed an amendment. Ms. Valdez is now proposing a subamendment to what Mr. Turnbull moved.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Steinley for comments.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I ask that we move to a vote. I think we've covered a lot of this during the last conversation with all three of the amendments we are talking about, so I think we can move to a vote now and see where we land.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Unfortunately, that doesn't rest completely with me, because if members want to continue to have a conversation, the procedural rules say that by and large I need to make that happen. Thank you for the suggestion, Mr. Steinley.

Are there any other comments or questions? We might get to what Mr. Steinley wants. Are there any other thoughts from colleagues?

Okay. We do get to what Mr. Steinley wants.

Madam Clerk, could we proceed?

Also, colleagues, just to be clear, we're on the subamendment to the proposed four-year timeline for subsection 1(2.1),as moved by Mr. Turnbull, as proposed in the subamendment from Ms. Valdez.

[Philippe Méla]

Just to be clear, we're voting on the subamendment from Ms. Valdez.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, the proposed subamendment is defeated.

Now we will vote on the amendment as proposed, which is Mr. Turnbull's suggestion of eight years for subsection 1(2.1) as opposed to 10 years, which I guess is what we'd get to in amendment CPC-2.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The amendment is defeated, so we will turn our focus to the last proposed amendment—

Pardon me for a moment.

Okay. I was a little in haste to go to what is actually essentially a new clause that is being proposed in the amendment, so the clerk will explain to you that we have to see whether or not clause 1 as amended carries.

I see Mr. MacGregor's look of confusion. It was mine as well, as I heard from our legislative clerk.

Essentially, all the amendments to date would impact what's called “clause 1”, which is the actual text of the bill. What you're proposing in CPC-2 is an actual brand new clause, so I have to ask whether or not you want to accept everything to date on the four amendments, and then we will go to CPC-2.

Did I get it right, Mr. Legislative Clerk?

My law degree at Dalhousie has come to some use. Here's a shout-out to Dalhousie University.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Look, all universities are good.

Unless there are any other comments, I would move that we vote essentially on what we've just done as it relates to clause 1 of the bill.

Shall clause 1 as amended carry? Would you like to go on division? Would you like a recorded vote? How would you like to do this? Do you just want to go on division?

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 2)

Now we will go to clause 2, which, of course, is CPC-2.

Mr. Perron, I see your hand, but I have to let Mr. MacGregor....

I don't know whether there's much introduction that has to happen on that. We've talked on this at great length.

I'll go to Mr. Perron, followed by Mr. MacGregor, and then to any of my other colleagues who might want to jump in.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

So if this is a good time to do so, I would move a subamendment to delete the words “but may not be amended” from subsection 3 of CPC‑2.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay, we're in order. We're good.

I see Mr. MacGregor's hand, and I'll leave the floor open to anyone else who might want to speak to proposed clause 2 or to Mr. Perron's proposed amendment to proposed clause 2.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Chair, I have an amendment, but I can't move it until we deal with Mr. Perron's subamendment. It deals with a different section. It's a very minor change.

Unless anyone else has the floor, maybe we should just go to a vote on Mr. Perron's subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

If that's the will of the committee, sure.

Madam Clerk, would you like to do a recorded vote?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I'm sorry; I'd like some clarity. I want to make sure of what I'm voting on.

Mr. Méla, would you just explain one more time, or Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We can let the legislative clerk explain, or are we already into the vote and it's too far down?

Let me do my best to explain this to you. I have a little more discretion, perhaps, as the chair.

Essentially, Mr. Louis, what is being proposed in CPC-2 would be a second clause after what we've already adopted to date. Above and beyond Bill C-234, this is being proposed to be added as clause 2. Mr. Barlow moved that clause. Mr. Perron moved a subamendment to it, which would strike, under proposed subsection 2(3), the words “but may not be amended”.

The conversation—as best I can reflect it—that we've had today was in relation to the fact that Mr. Perron, Mr. MacGregor and others wanted to make sure that the hands of future parliamentarians are not tied and therefore the text of a motion introducing this type of conversation in the House could be amended. That, at its core, is what I believe is the intent of this subamendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I should probably stick to the fisheries committee.

I'm wondering, then, with that great explanation—and kudos to Dalhousie University for the great education you received—if there's a process to rescind that vote and start again.

[Some hon. members]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

You guys are fine, then. You're good.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I think we can let it happen. If we—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

You've got a good friend from Cape Breton—Canso. Mr. Kelloway, you're doing your best to be a Mr. Drouin.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Mr. MacGregor, you wanted to move another amendment. We'll go over to you.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Yes. With an assurance to Mr. Barlow that I will support the overall amendment CPC-2, I move that wherever the word “10th” appears, we change that to “8th”. Instead of it being the 10th anniversary, it would be the 8th anniversary. Later on, in proposed subclause 2(4), where it says “the day that is the 10th anniversary”, that would also be changed to “8th”.

It's just really a nod to my Liberal colleagues. I'm trying to find a halfway point here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

There's my olive branch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Would you like to hear the bad news, then?

There are always options. The legislative clerk is acknowledging to me that this might be a problem, Mr. MacGregor, but I'll let him explain that and whether there's any recourse for you.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With every problem, there's always a solution, as we say.

When the committee voted on amendment LIB-2, it voted against an eight-year sunset clause for proposed subclause 2(1). Now you can't go back and say you want it, so that's the problem.

The solution would be to say nine years for all of it, but who am I to say?