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.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
I just have a question again.
I'm fairly new at looking at bills. Can the person who puts forward the bill amend it? They can. Okay. That's great. I didn't realize that. I thought that you couldn't amend your own bill. That's good to know.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Again, I'm just going back to our first procedure, our first vote. If we can't amend line 6 anymore, then I'm just wondering how LIB‑1 can come forward. How could we have debated LIB‑1? I asked that at the beginning. You said that, no, we couldn't, because the committee voted on line 6.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
That was if the NDP amendment was adopted. That was the question you asked me. It was not adopted, so that's why we're here.
Colleagues, again, in the interest of trying to help inform and shape the debate, Mr. Barlow has put forward something that is a bit forward-looking to where we're going. We can go to a vote on this and vote now. I don't want to further delay the debate or the vote if necessary. However, what I think Mr. Barlow is trying to get at is that he is looking down the line at NDP‑2 and G‑2. There are some things there that I think he's expressing that he'd be willing to support. That's the piece of paper. It has not yet been moved, but you have it for your consideration. We need to decide how we want to proceed on LIB‑1.
I have Mr. Steinley, Mr. MacGregor and then Mr. Carr.
Conservative
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
This is just a process question.
We have to vote on G‑1. If we vote in favour of G‑1, then we can't go to NDP-2.
Oh, it's LIB‑1. If we vote in favour of LIB-1, then we can't go to NDP‑2 or to G‑2. If we vote in favour of this, then what Mr. Barlow sent out isn't on the table anymore. We do have to figure out what we're going to do here to get to where there is a point at which we can find agreement on NDP-2 and G‑2, so we might as well call the vote here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Steinley, if LIB‑1 is passed, then NDP‑2 and G‑2 are moot, as well as what Mr. Barlow could potentially move and what he shared with the committee.
Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to formally move a subamendment to LIB‑1. With regard to the part of LIB-1 that is replacing lines 8 to 10, I formally move as a subamendment that we take the language that was just handed out by Mr. Barlow and instead insert that language into LIB‑1 as a subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Okay.
Mr. MacGregor, what's being explained to me is that what you're proposing works just fine on the English copy in terms of your being within order to do that. There are complications because of how the bill is written in French. I think what I'm understanding from my procedural team here is that you need to move that on the English copy, and then the intent in the English copy would be reflected in a French translation that would be slightly different.
Are you good? Okay.
That has now been moved, colleagues. That is what we are now debating. To be clear, basically what Mr. MacGregor is saying is that the secondary portion of what Mr. Carr is moving, so “(b) by replacing lines 8 to 10...”, be replaced with what Mr. Barlow circulated. Let me find that.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Can I ask, for the sake of my sanity, that you or the clerk read it aloud? It's moving so quickly that trying to scramble the pieces together of how it would read is a bit confusing as I'm trying to determine my position. If someone could read the proposed bill as amended and subamended, that would be helpful.
We should also read the French version.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Obviously, as we mentioned, it won't be in French, because there is further translation, but as Mr. MacGregor said, the intent of what he is doing would then be translated and moved.
It would read that Bill C-275, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 1 with the following:
9.1 No person shall, without having taken the applicable biosecurity measures,
Then, of course, we go to line (b), replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 1 with the following:
are kept, or take in any animal or thing, if their entering such a place or taking in the animal or thing could reasonably be expected to result in the exposure of
You want me to read the entire paragraph of the bill. Okay.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Mr. Carr, I'll get you to listen intently. I have good procedural folks who will help me, who are much quicker than I am.
Émilie Thivierge
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It would read as follows:
9.1 No person shall, without having taken the applicable biosecurity measures, enter a building or other enclosed place in which animals are kept, or take in any animal or thing, if their entering such a place or taking in the animal or thing could reasonably be expected to result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
To clarify, should this subamendment be accepted, it means, because we've modified lines 8 to 10, that we can no longer modify lines 8 to 10—or can we? When there is a subamendment, can we?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Colleagues, Mr. MacGregor is talking about his time on public safety and all the dynamics at play. A lot of information has changed hands. I know there are conversations. I can allow people to continue to ask questions if they feel....
Go ahead, Mr. Epp.
Conservative
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
I have a quick comment. I think the stumbling block here in trying to put this into amendment LIB-1 is, as with other speakers, we've all heard, “One cannot do indirectly what one is not allowed to do directly.” That's what the concern is around the committee right now, and that is with regard to line 6. It's not so much lines 8 to 10.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
We're just voting on the subamendment right now. It's just lines 8 to 10 that we're voting on. That's the subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Kody Blois
Colleagues, are we ready for a vote on the subamendment that Mr. MacGregor has moved? Keep in mind that the result of that will dictate how we move forward.
Mr. Drouin, I'm looking to all my committee members. Are we all good for this particular vote? Okay.
Madam Clerk, over to you.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)
Colleagues, the subamendment has failed. We are now back on the original amendment, LIB-1, in Mr. Carr's name. If there is no further discussion, I would be happy to call that particular amendment to a vote if you would like.
Go ahead, Mr. Carr.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, I have one more question for Mr. Barlow, if I may.
Mr. Barlow, perhaps you could come back to your response from a couple of moments ago. You felt that the amendment expanded the scope of the bill beyond what you had originally intended. I take the point and I can appreciate that. Can you help me understand, however—notwithstanding that expansion—in what ways it does not help you meet the objective and the original intent of the bill you put forward?
Conservative
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
To Mr. Carr's question, we went through a lot of work—and I know that some other amendments may come forward—to try to keep this away from the Criminal Code and to keep it just on the Health of Animals Act. Everything we have in this proposed legislation specifically puts biosecurity into existing portions of the Health of Animals Act. In my opinion, what you have proposed in your amendment greatly rewrites a massive part of what we've proposed in the legislation, which we did not have in front of witnesses or testimony to that point.
Again, in my opinion, you are putting a lot of emphasis or an unknown amount of emphasis onto what the biosecurity protocols are for every single industry that is out there. That's chicken. That's pork. That's cattle. As we heard from CFIA, those protocols are there but in many ways are not mandatory. Although the stakeholder groups for the most part put that framework in place—not the CFIA—in my opinion, with your changes to this legislation you are now putting the focus not on our role as the federal government, on what we have control over, but rather on the specific biosecurity protocols that the industry groups, for the most part—Dr. Ireland can correct me if I'm wrong here—put in place and that CFIA in many cases plays a part in maintaining or overseeing, although that's probably the wrong word. They have inspections on farms, as we heard from stakeholders. Vets do as well. That's not what we're intending to do here.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question for Dr. Ireland.
Are the different biosecurity standards in place for the different farms—chicken, dairy and the different groups—enforced by the CFIA? I think that's what Mr. Barlow was saying.