Evidence of meeting #36 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Yes, indeed.
In my opinion, and I think almost all committee members agree, the important thing is to delete the words “may not be amended”, regardless of how or when it's done, be it now or later.
The how and the when are technical details that I'll let you sort out because, clearly, I'm no expert. The important thing is that these words are no longer there.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I apologize, Ms. Taylor Roy. I forgot that your hand was up.
It will actually be Ms. Taylor Roy, Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Barlow.
Just before you go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy, the legislative clerk has asked for the ability to add one more element to this discussion before we turn to you.
4:05 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Perron, to get around the problem you seem to have, the solution could be to adopt CPC‑1 and CPC‑2 now and, at report stage, to propose an amendment that would amend CPC‑2 as you suggest.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I have a very quick question: so is it impossible for me to do it today?
4:10 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
No, it's not impossible. To do so, however, CPC‑1 and CPC‑2 would have to be separated, which could raise the risk, if any, I mentioned earlier.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand that these two have to be put in together. Is it possible to make amendments to CPC-2 now, before voting on CPC-1, and then vote on them together?
If so, then I have something I'd like to suggest.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I think the legislative clerk might have addressed that.
Why don't you, for everyone's clarity, explain it again?
4:10 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
If the will of the committee is to separate the two amendments, then yes, it would be possible to amend CPC-2 later on when it is called. Otherwise, it would not be possible, because they go together.
It's the will of the committee that matters here. It may be that the will of the committee is to proceed with CPC-1 and do whatever they do with CPC-1 and go to CPC-2 after that. It's the will of the committee that matters.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Ms. Taylor Roy, would you have any further comment now that this has been clarified, or would you like to reserve that until you hear from Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Barlow? I can always come back to you.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Well, I'll just state what my concern is with CPC-2, and then I don't know if I'm comfortable voting for CPC-1 knowing that we have to vote for CPC-2 without knowing whether CPC-2 will be amended or not.
In any event, my concern with CPC-2 is twofold. One, it allows for an extension of the sunset clause per se from the 10th anniversary into something postponing that to a later date, but it doesn't allow for that to be brought forward if, for example, technology is developed and something is available.
The second thing is that to me the 10 years, the 10th anniversary, is problematic. I think that in LIB-2 there is the suggestion of the eighth anniversary. Given that, we could perhaps debate.
I'm still a little unclear. I guess we could vote for CPC-1, but then if CPC-2 isn't amended sufficiently, I'm not sure what happens to the bill.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I take the clerk's warnings about messing up CPC-2 because of how tied it is to CPC-1. My question is, if the committee does decide to split the two—and I'm only talking about very minor surgery—in CPC-2, in the third subsection, and if we were to remove the words “but may not be amended”, that to me doesn't seem like it would have any consequential effect on CPC-1.
I would just ask, Chair, if we could have the clerk's direction on that, because that's not interfering with the substance of CPC-2. It's a very minor change. I just don't want to handcuff future parliamentarians on what they may or may not want to do.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Chair, that's our amendment. We're fine with that change, if that helps in terms of.... We would take that as a friendly change.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. MacGregor, just so I'm sure, what you're asking of the legislative clerk—and while I give him time to contemplate what you've said—is whether or not it is possible to move an amendment of that provision because it doesn't have consequence in a material way to CPC-1.
4:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I was going to add a layer of complexity to the discussion, but I won't.
Unanimous consent can solve a number of problems. That's one of them that I could maybe suggest. If you ask for unanimous consent to do it that way. You may get it, or not, and then I'll add my layer of complexity after the answer to the question.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
I can help with that conversation. If you don't mind, I'll explain what the legislative clerk has explained to me.
The other procedural challenge of how best we move forward here is that if CPC-1 is adopted and approved, we then go to LIB-2. According to the legislative clerk, we would then study the amendment from Mr. Turnbull. If for some reason that were to pass, it would then move that CPC-2 would be invalid.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
This is the other element. I'll leave it to the expert to speak, but that's what I'm being told.
4:15 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, that was the second layer of complexity. Indeed, if CPC-1 is adopted, we would move to LIB-2 because it's in the order of the bill, and if Mr. Turnbull were to move LIB-2—without the first part of it, because that's been dealt with already—we would deal with the sunset clause that would be eight years. If the sunset clause is approved by the committee, then the sunset clause is literally closed for debate, so to speak. You would have an eight-year sunset clause for only one part of the bill—the proposed subsection 1(2.1).
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
No one suggested that parliamentary procedure is straightforward.
Ms. Taylor Roy, I saw your hand, but it might have been from the last time. Is this is a new hand?
It's a new hand, so we'll hear from Ms. Taylor Roy, followed by Mr. Perron.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm trying to understand whether the amendment that Mr. MacGregor put forward can be made. The amendments I was talking about similarly do not affect CPC-1. They're in the same vein of just altering some of the provisions in CPC-2. I'm confused as to why one amendment could be made but others couldn't be made.