Go ahead.
Evidence of meeting #12 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #12 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A video is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I would like to make a formal amendment to change it to “Deputy Heads, including the Deputy Minister”, just so that it is abundantly clear.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Yes. I consider that friendly. I mean, that's what I was indicating—
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Is everyone okay with that amendment?
Okay.
(Amendment agreed to)
Is everyone okay with the motion?
Perfect.
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The motion is adopted.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I would like to introduce a motion. The motion is as follows:
That the committee conduct a review of eliminating food waste from all points of the supply chain, from: producer to distributor, retailer, restaurant, and customer; that the study include an examination of the root causes of food waste in the supply chain, identify and assess existing solutions developed in Canada, and include best policy practices from other countries; that this study be conducted over six meetings, and the results be reported to the House.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Saini has moved a motion. Does anyone want to debate the motion?
Mr. Albas.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, in regard to this, I'd like the Liberal Party or someone to clarify whether the intention is to have this studied instead of M-34 as the first study of the Liberal Party in our cycle of Bloc, New Democrat, Conservative and Liberal. It's my understanding that he already tabled three notices of motion previously. I'm just looking for some clarification.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Saini Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Albas, as you can appreciate, M-34 was sent by the House, just like Bill C-206, I believe, or Bill C-208 was sent from the House. Those are two separate things. This is a Liberal Party motion, just like the other parties are putting in other motions, but the other two studies referred to are from the House, not from a particular political party.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm having trouble with my screen, but I have Mr. Longfield next, then Ms. Collins and then Mr. Albas again, I guess.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You were up and then you were down.
Anyway, we'll go with Ms. Collins, Mr. Longfield and Mr. Albas.
February 17th, 2021 / 6 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
This is just for a point of clarification about the study. M-34 is directing the committee to do a study. To my understanding, in order to get support from other parties, there was an agreement that this would be either this round of Liberal studies or the next round. It wouldn't take precedence over other studies. I think the difference between that and the actual legislation that's being passed should be clear.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
In terms of process, we had a notice of motion, but I don't think we actually adopted the motion from Mr. Saini. In terms of studies coming to us, it coincidentally came from a member of the committee through the House, but it still came to us through the House. I think at this point, adopting the motion and getting it onto our schedule would be something that we could be working on in the subcommittee.
6 p.m.
Liberal
6 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, as a member of this committee, you could have brought this motion, your M-34, to the committee. I don't want to dive too deep into the conversations that were had, but it was always my understanding that the Liberal Party would either choose to do yours...and you made an argument that they should have more meetings than what other parties are asking for. For example, I think we said between four and six meetings and whatnot.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Again, to be fair, Mr. Longfield may not have been there and neither was Mr. Saini, but that was something we came up with together.
I would like to ask the question here, because M-34 has no timing on it, and it's really up to the Liberal members to decide whether they want four meetings or more for us to study Mr. Saini's motion, or they want to have M-34 come forward, which has seven. I've always put it to the Liberals to decide what they want to do, but we should know that and we should plan that, because it seems to me, Mr. Chair, that by agreeing to the steering committee report today, we've actually indicated that we would like to have witnesses go through a process according to M-34.
We need a little clarification as to who is first. Are we going to go to M-34, whereby we've actually agreed as a committee to open up a process for witnesses, or are we going to go by Mr. Saini's? Now, if we just want to have a vote on this and that's going to be the Liberals' next study after M-34, that's fine, but I would just ask Liberal members to decide which one.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I think what Mr. Longfield is getting at is that the two are separate. You're right that the steering committee report mentions M-34. Mr. Longfield's point is on the substance of the motion and not the scheduling of it.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I'm fine if this is what the Liberals want. I just need to know from Liberal members which one they are going to do so we can schedule this.