Agriculture Committee on Sept. 18th, 2025

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

All of these FPTs are individually negotiated per province.

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

That's why, yes.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

We can just add that, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Is it a friendly amendment? Are you fine with it?

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

It's still friendly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

In the spirit of co-operation, we agree. I'm not going to take a vote on that. There's a consensus there. Is that fine with everyone?

Okay.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Now that we have agreed on the friendly amendment, I just wanted to ask the clerk what the difference is between just tabling.... I agree with MP Barlow that we should not tie our hands with a study immediately, because a lot of things could happen between now and January. We are living in turbulent times with both the climate and trade. I agree that we shouldn't tie our hands.

If we table it and say we will study it, is it cast in stone or could we always move it? I like to plan ahead. That's the way my mind works. I like to have a plan for the whole session, but I totally want flexibility as well.

I just want to know what the difference is between tabling it and adopting it today, because there's agreement that this is an important topic, but there's also agreement that we should be flexible if something else comes up. My preference would be to adopt it today, but only to the extent there's flexibility. If there's no flexibility, then I agree with John.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm going to let the clerk speak to this issue.

Would you like to address this?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Wassim Bouanani]

Mr. Connors, you have moved the motion. That's my understanding. The debate took place and there was an amendment. It is before the committee.

It's the committee's decision, if it is the pleasure of the committee, to further debate the motion and then move to a vote or just leave it as is and come back to it.

It's also possible, if you wish, to add an additional amendment and remove something from the motion, specifically the date. You have, in the motion, June 2026. If that's an issue, someone can move an amendment to remove that from the motion and leave it open.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Could we move it to June 2027?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Why don't we hear from other folks, and then we'll come back to Mr. Connors?

Mr. Barlow, go ahead.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

My suggestion to Mr. Connors is this: You've moved it, and there's obviously a bit of concern with some of the issues with it, so why don't we leave it, and we can decide to revisit it in the spring when we get there? In the meantime, Mr. Perron and I, or whoever, can work on some amendments so that when the time comes and we debate it again in the new year, we can amend it at that time when it's on the table to be moved.

I think you have the support of everyone here when the time comes, but I just don't feel it's.... There is some work to do on the motion, but, again, I think we're pretty full. We've booked ourselves up pretty good from now until the new year at least.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Mr. Perron, the floor is yours.

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

I want to address two things.

First, I don't think that we should remove the June 2026 date. The partnership will be renewed in 2028. I think that the minister will be working on this soon. I think that we want to provide relevant information. We all know that corporate risk management systems no longer work and that they aren't suited to the climate change situation or to resilience in the face of it.

I would like us to adopt this motion. I don't understand why the committee isn't adopting it. We've always been clear on this point. The committee has always been the master of its own business. We could adopt it. We clearly agreed on this in the subcommittee. However, it might also be a good idea to adopt the motion during a public committee meeting.

Furthermore, it was made clear that we had other topics to propose and that, as a result, the committee would retain some flexibility in its business calendar. I don't see how adopting this resolution interferes with the flexibility of the business calendar.

I already told my colleagues that I plan to ask the committee to take another look at some issues, such as the reciprocity of standards, a topic that we studied in the previous Parliament. However, I want to do this at the appropriate time, not right now. I also want the committee to take another look at food labelling. Mr. Barlow will surely raise other issues as well, and so will Ms. Chatel and her team. As a result, the committee must decide on the flexibility of its business calendar.

I think that this motion is relevant. I'm prepared to adopt it. The motion doesn't specify when the committee will carry out the study, but it does state that the study will be done before June 2026. If the other committee members don't want to adopt it, I'll go along with them. However, I think that we should adopt it today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Mr. Connors, what would you like to do?

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I think we'd like to adopt this. Let's put it to a vote to adopt it. If we have to adjust the timelines later, we can certainly adjust the timelines.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Is there any more debate on the motion?

Go ahead.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

We're voting on the amendment. Are we removing the date and the issues that Mr. Perron raised about the provincial and territorial distinction? I want to make sure we know exactly where we are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We're going to vote on the provincial jurisdiction amendment first.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Okay. It was adopted.

We're back to the main motion.

Is there any debate on the main motion as amended?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Are we removing the date or keeping the date in there?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

He hasn't removed the date. He's left the date in there.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'll make an amendment to remove the date from the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

There's an amendment to remove the date.

Go ahead, Sophie.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

On the review, I understand that with the way the federal-provincial partnership is being negotiated, if we want to have a relevant impact.... My information from the department is that they will start working seriously in the summer of 2026. If we want our recommendation to have an impact, it has to be before June. After that, it will have less of an impact, just because of the timeline of the negotiation of the FPT partnership agreement.

That's the reason for the timeline.