Evidence of meeting #75 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I just want to point out to Mr. Steinley that the title of the act, the Health of Animals Act, does not have a parenthesis behind it that says “biosecurity of animals”. It just says “Health of Animals Act”.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Okay, colleagues. Is there any further discussion before we call this to a vote?
Seeing none, Madam Clerk, I will turn to you to conduct the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, that brings us to NDP-2.
One thing I want to point out in the discussion that we should be aware of by now is that if NDP-2 is adopted, then G-2 cannot be moved. What Mr. MacGregor has passed around on paper—if, in theory, he presents it—could not be moved either.
I've heard comments about Mr. MacGregor's language around “reasonably be expected”. That's something that Mr. Barlow, at least, seems to be in favour of. Mr. Drouin's G-2 talks about eliminating “reckless” from that provision. That is something that Mr. Barlow has tabled on paper to the committee. However, again, procedurally, colleagues, there is a dynamic here.
Mr. MacGregor, I'll turn it over to you. Ultimately, it's your prerogative if you want to move NDP-2. Then we can talk about how we're going to proceed.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I won't spend too much time introducing it. I think we already talked a lot about lines 8 to 10. I will formally move it. I'm sure there are opportunities to take language from other amendments, maybe G-2 or LIB-1, and move a subamendment if we're not happy with how the language is in this amendment.
I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. Drouin, would you like to speak on this? Again, I think there are elements of NDP-2 that you might be in favour of. There's also your G-2, which procedurally can't be moved if we adopt NDP-2. Would you be willing to move a subamendment, or would you like to support what Mr. Barlow has on paper?
I'll turn it over to you.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Yes. If Mr. Barlow moves his amendment, I'll be happy not to.... Well, obviously, G-2 is going to become inadmissible anyway, but I'm happy to support what Mr. Barlow put forward, as we've all seen an advance copy.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Colleagues, procedurally, this is how it would happen. If Mr. Barlow were to present what he has shared on paper, it would go in the order of precedence, so we would have to vote on NDP-2 and G-2. To be honest, colleagues, we would have to vote those provisions down until we get to what Mr. Barlow has presented. That would follow amendment NDP-3 and what Ms. Taylor-Roy has tabled in terms of a proposed amendment on the penalty piece, and then we would get to what Mr. Barlow could propose to us and then vote on that.
Am I correct in saying that?
5:50 p.m.
Émilie Thivierge
No.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Pardon me. I'm wrong. It would actually be after G-2.
Mr. Barlow, do you want to move this, or at least signal your intent to move it?
Procedurally, is he allowed to move this when I turn it to him?
We have a Canadian standoff here. My understanding is that Mr. Barlow is not able to move his motion as presented now. We would have to vote down NDP-2, vote down G-2 and then entrust Mr. Barlow to his work.
Colleagues, the way it's being explained to me is that Mr. Barlow would not be able to move what he's tabled until after we vote on both NDP-2 and G-2. Mr. Barlow would then be in a position to table what he has on paper, but there's no way to pre-emptively put that on the table.
Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
If we are modifying lines 8, 9, 11 and 12, and NDP-2 modifies line 8, if we adopt NDP-2, I don't see how Mr. Barlow...once we've adopted or modified a line, I don't see how we can remodify a line.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Okay, colleagues. Let's test how resilient we are here in terms of procedure.
Is there any further discussion on NDP-2?
Seeing none, I call the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
All right, that's done.
That brings us to G-2.
Mr. Drouin, would you like to move or not move that motion?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
I will formally propose and table our amendment, which everyone has in front of them. This is a compromise on everything we've spoken about—except, maybe, for one of Alistair's—and it does a good job of bringing NDP-2 and G-2 together. It removes the word “reckless” and addresses some of the questions we had.
I hope to have everybody's support for this amendment.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
The procedural folks have told me that this is reference number 12615484 on the paper copies in front of you. Mr. Barlow and his team brought this around earlier in the meeting.
Is there any discussion, or shall we move to a vote on this? We will move to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
That's great. We'll move to NDP-3.
Mr. MacGregor, it's on paper, but it's your prerogative. It's over to you.
6 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Chair, I am not going to move this amendment.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Shall clause 1 carry as amended by the various pieces we've discussed this afternoon?
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 2)
You're up, Ms. Taylor Roy. You shared on paper that you might want to move an amendment to clause 2. We'll go to you.