ENVI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Monday, October 19, 2020
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
I'll call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number two of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The committee is meeting today to discuss committee business.
The meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of September 23, 2020. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So that you're aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.
Members may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “floor”, “English” or “French”. For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the directives from the Board of Internal Economy regarding masking and health protocols.
Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. I have a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.
The discussion is on the amendment of Ms. Collins to add the word “vehicles” after the words “zero-emission” in the motion of Madame Pauzé.
Mr. Baker, I believe you had the floor when we finished our last meeting.
I spoke to Mr. Schiefke, who has an amendment that would cover my amendment and add something else, so I'd like to propose that we discard this amendment and move on to his.
Thank you very much, Ms. Collins.
Madam Chair, I have two amendments that I'd like to put forward on the motion put forward by Madame Pauzé, which read as follow:
[Translation]
First, between “the committee examine” and “that a report”, I would add “further measures that could be taken to incentivize the production and purchase of zero-emission vehicles, including a zero-emission vehicle law”.
Second, after “that four meetings be devoted to it”, I would add “starting at the next meeting of this committee with the appearance of Environment and Climate Change Canada officials and other relevant officials and stakeholders”.
[English]
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I want to move two amendments.
First, between “the committee examine” and “that a report”, I would add “further measures that could be taken to incentivize the production and purchase of zero-emission vehicles, including a zero-emission vehicle law”.
Second, after “that four meetings be devoted to it”, I would add “starting at the next meeting of this committee with the appearance of Environment and Climate Change Canada officials and other relevant officials and stakeholders”.
[English]
Madame Pauzé, that's the amendment that has been made. Do we have any debate on it? Are there any questions?
Yes, Mr. Jeneroux, just one second.
Alexandre, is anybody sitting there physically with you who raised their hand before Mr. Jeneroux? If they did, I apologize, but I am letting Mr. Jeneroux go first.
No, that's fine, Madam Chair. No one here in the room wishes to speak, but I will keep an eye open for them.
It's the chair's prerogative, Madam Chair, and thank you for letting me go first.
Following along with Mr. Schiefke, the one thing about the next meeting being where we start this, I believe that at the last meeting we made arrangements to invite the officials along with the minister...being that two-hour hybrid. I'm just clarifying if that's where this fits into the larger plan of the meeting.
Alexandre, do you have any information? If not, then I'll put the parliamentary secretary on the spot.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux, for your question.
The only thing I know currently is, I believe at the last meeting we said that the minister needs to appear before November 6. That's the only information I have right now. I think that was moved by your colleague Mr. Albas. We can follow up and make sure that we get a response, but I think that's what we're looking at right now, likely the first week of November, November 2, assuming we don't have two meetings that week. I know that our respective whips are working on finding a solution to possibly going back to two sittings a week, but that hasn't been decided, so I think we're looking at November 2.
I have a question about what's counted as a committee meeting. Right now we're doing committee meetings once a week for two hours. Usually we'd be meeting twice a week for one hour. Are the two-hour committee meetings considered two meetings? How does that work?
I don't remember committee meetings ever being an hour. Maybe I was asleep, but committee meetings were always two hours, and therefore—
—we had four hours of committee work, and then we had subcommittees that met for an hour.
Subcommittees meet for an hour, and the committee as a whole meets for two hours.
I think that's what Mr. Schiefke was saying. The whips are working to see if we can get two meetings per week. That way we would be able to complete the agenda that we want to, because otherwise we have no time.
[Translation]
It's a joke, Mr. Schiefke.
[English]
Is there any other discussion on the amendment?
[Translation]
Ms. Pauzé, do you agree with the amendment?
[English]
I don't have the text of the amendment. I wasn't able to write it all as I was working, so it wouldn't be possible for me to reread it with the amendment.
Okay. We'll put Mr. Schiefke on the spot.
Mr. Schiefke, you probably have the motion and the amended motion. If you wouldn't mind reading it into the record, go slowly so that everybody understands, and then we can take a vote on it.
Madam Chair, I'll read the amended motion for everyone. Would you like me to read it once in French and once in English, or does it matter?
Okay.
[Translation]
The motion in French, with the changes that we proposed, reads as follows:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development undertake a study in connection with the desire expressed in the Speech from the Throne to put in place a plan that will make it possible to surpass Canada's climate objectives and that to do so the committee examine further measures that could be taken to incentivize the production and purchase of zero-emission vehicles, including a zero-emission vehicle law; that a report be presented to the House of Commons and that four meetings be devoted to it starting at the next meeting of this committee with the appearance of Environment and Climate Change Canada officials and other relevant officials and stakeholders.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Schiefke.
I got ahead of myself. I should have asked for a vote on the amendment.
I will ask for a vote on the amendment. If I have confused the living daylights out of the committee and you want the amendment read, let me know. Put your hand up if you need Mr. Schiefke to again read the amendment.
No? Okay. The first vote is on the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Chair: Now we go to the vote on the motion as amended.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Chair: I have Madam Pauzé first, and then Ms. Collins.
Madame Pauzé, go ahead.
[Translation]
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank all my colleagues for supporting this motion. Of course, I'm counting on everyone's good faith to ensure that, as of the first meeting, the officials invited from Environment and Climate Change Canada and the other officials in attendance will be people who are involved in creating a zero-emission law. This is even more important following the announcement made two weeks ago by Mr. Ford, meaning the Ontario government, and the federal government.
We spoke at length to achieve unanimous consent. I'm very pleased, and I want to thank you. We're counting on everyone's good faith to work effectively on this issue.
[English]
Madame Pauzé, normally every party would submit a list of witnesses. Therefore, if you have a list of witnesses that you would like to hear from, submit their names to the clerk.
I would suggest that all parties—the Bloc, the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals—do submit. Then, if we can, we will have a brief meeting of the steering committee to streamline how many witnesses can come in four meetings.
[Translation]
Are we in agreement?
There don't seem to be any objections.
[English]
Alexandre, could you give a deadline? Could you send a note to everybody? If we are going to study it starting on October 26, we will need the list ASAP, and then we can start sifting through it.
Okay.
Today is Monday. By tomorrow, Tuesday, give a list of the witnesses you would like, the top witnesses you'd really like to get, and then the clerk will get in touch with them. Okay?
Okay. I think it is important. We have a very tight timeline, and the turnaround for you will be difficult. Otherwise, the witnesses won't turn up.
With that, I'll turn to Madam Collins.
Madam Chair, I have a motion. I've sent it to the clerk. It reads as follows:
That, for the fifth meeting of the committee, the committee invite the Auditor General of Canada and the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, to provide a briefing on the office, the role and the appointment of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development that they will be given up to thirty (30) minutes for the briefing and that the clerk ask the witnesses to provide written material in both official languages in advance of the meeting.
Sometimes that happens and you just can't change channels. I get it.
I also sit on public accounts, where we have the auditor general for the environment present and we have the Auditor General for Canada present. Normally, we would have the commissioner of the environment come and present to this committee. Would it not make sense for us to just have the commissioner of the environment come before us to talk about the report that will be tabled on October 27?
I certainly want to speak in favour of this motion. I think not just the commissioner of the environment but also the Auditor General coming would help set the stage for where we're going in the next few months in terms of our committee. I certainly will speak in favour of that.
Again, I'd leave it up to the subcommittee to determine the timing of that. We want to make sure we get the minister. Whether it's the fourth meeting or fifth meeting or whatever it is, again, I would leave it up to the steering committee to do that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
That's a great motion, Ms. Collins. I'm just wondering if you can confirm something that's of interest to me. I'm looking forward to the report that's being released on the 26th. I'm wondering if part of what you would like to do, in inviting the commissioner and the AG, is also to ask questions about the report that's being released. It will be in three important parts. I'm wondering if, as part of what you'd like to do, you'd like to ask questions on that report.
I just want to confirm with you that this is part of the reason you'd like to invite the Auditor General as well as the commissioner.
My intention behind inviting the Auditor General and the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was really to inquire about the role of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, the appointment of the new commissioner, as well as what's happening in the offices. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development is in the office of the Auditor General, and I'd like to inquire into that as a whole.
The report is coming out on October 27. We can ask any questions of the Auditor General and the commissioner. I think it's fair game to be asking about that report once it comes out.
That's fine; I had put my hand up before Ms. Collins responded. My question was just around her rationale for inviting the Auditor General. I didn't fully understand that.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I've served on the standing committee on the environment in the past. It's always worthwhile to meet with the commissioner of the environment. Ms. Collins' suggestion is very appropriate.
My sole concern regarding her motion is the length of the appearance, which is only 30 minutes. I believe that additional time will be needed so that all committee members can learn more about this institution. I wonder whether it's appropriate to limit his appearance to 30 minutes. We must bear in mind that there's a 10-minute presentation and rounds of questions afterwards.
I'll ask the committee members to consider this. Will 30 minutes be enough time to ask the commissioner questions and hear his answers?
[English]
I have a correction, Mr. Godin. We adopted the routine proceedings, and the routine motion laid out that the presenters will present for five minutes to give the MPs enough time to question them.
If we all read our material and then had plenty of questions, I think we'd have two hours.
Ms. Collins, with the two hours we have, do you want both the Auditor General and the environment commissioner here?
I am an accountant, and I can tell you that an Auditor General has a different focus from the environment commissioner. I wouldn't want to see a mixed-up version.
If you want to treat it as the environment commissioner comes the first time and then the Auditor General the next time, that would probably be a better utilization of everybody's time and ability to understand in depth what the commissioner is doing and which way he/she is going.
I'm just making a suggestion to you.
Madam Chair, to that point, we already had the commissioner of the environment come to the previous committee, in I guess the previous session of this parliament.
I think it would be worthwhile to have the Auditor General and the commissioner here at the same time. That way, if one of them can't answer a question about either the appointment of the commissioner or the roles and the offices, then the other one will be there to answer. I think it would be worthwhile to have them both for those two hours.
Thank you.
I want to reiterate what Ms. Collins just said about having both of them here. I think it makes a lot of sense to have the Auditor General and the commissioner at the same time. They are very interrelated in how they work, so I think that's appropriate.
I would suggest that we don't allow 30 minutes. That's a long time. I suggest that we do the five minutes each, which would be 10 minutes, and that would leave the rest of the time to ask questions. That would be consistent with the standing orders that we approved at that last meeting.
I did put “30 minutes”.
I'm very open to that amendment, if someone would like to propose a friendly amendment to adjust either the time or to scrap that portion from, “that they will be given up to 30 minutes for the briefing”.
I think Monsieur Godin was the first one to bring this to our attention.
Monsieur Godin, would you like to propose an amendment to Ms. Collins' motion?
[Translation]
Madam Chair, the motion states that witnesses be given up to 30 minutes for the briefing and that the clerk ask the witnesses to provide written material in both official languages.
I'd prefer to have a full meeting that lasts up to two hours and to give the Auditor General and the commissioner the opportunity to speak for 10 minutes each. After that, we, as members of Parliament, can ask them questions.
[English]
The amendment you are proposing is to eliminate the half hour that Ms. Collins suggested.
Mr. Redekopp, would you like to assist your colleague Mr. Godin?
Yes. It should not be 10 minutes each. It should be five minutes each, for a total of 10 minutes.
That would be consistent with our standing orders.
Right. It's in our routine proceeding that we adopted.
Mr. Redekopp, are you going to make the amendment to eliminate the half an hour that Ms. Collins has suggested? If we don't, then we will end up doing a study giving the commissioner half an hour.
Yes. I would propose that we just delete that sentence, and then our routine orders will take precedence, right?
[Translation]
I agree that the rules that we voted on two weeks ago should be followed. The motion clearly states that the written material will be provided in advance. I think that we said five minutes so that we could ask more questions. I want us to stick to what we voted on just two weeks ago.
[English]
Madame Pauzé, we will have to because that's what routine proceedings are and that's how committees operate. It's a friendly amendment that Mr. Redekopp has proposed, and unless somebody wants to talk to the amendment....
Do you wish to talk to amendment that Mr. Redekopp has proposed? No? Why don't I just take a vote on the amendment, unless somebody has...?
I'm sorry. I have Mr. Saini and then Mr. Godin.
Could you just outline the amendment? I'm not following it. Is the commissioner going to come for 30 minutes?
We will follow the due process that we adopted, the routine motions we adopted, as to how the committee will function and the order of questioning. They will each be given five minutes to speak.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I want the amendment clarified.
There will be a two-hour meeting attended by the commissioner of the environment and the Auditor General. They'll each have five minutes to give their presentations, for a total of 10 minutes. The committee members will have the rest of the time, one hour and 50 minutes, to ask questions.
Is that right?
I have a quick point. Because you're calling in the Auditor General and the commissioner, I don't think five minutes each really justifies what they have to say. I appreciate the fact that we have routine motions, but I think that sometimes we need to modify them. Right now, with five minutes for a commissioner or an Auditor General, after they say hello and do their introductory paragraph, the five minutes are up. If we're going to utilize their time efficiently, I think we should give them sufficient time to express themselves.
We have adopted those routine motions for a reason. There were times when the witnesses gave us information that they had provided us in writing anyway. They were reading those notes, so it is better.... As we said, we would like them to provide their notes in both official languages before they come. We read the material and we read the environmental commissioner's report and we are prepared, because we have to ask questions. We cannot let them talk us out. That's the reason why this was brought in, so that's the way the routine motions have stayed.
Madam Collins.
Can I call the question on the amendment to delete the section “that they will be given up to thirty (30) minutes for the briefing”?
Basically, you're calling the question on the amendment that the 30 minutes be eliminated, correct?
Mr. Clerk, can you take the vote, please?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Chair: Mr. Clerk, was Mr. Redekopp's hand up? I do not know. I'm just looking at my text. If Mr. Redekopp does not have anything to say, then I'll go to Mr. Schiefke.
Could you confirm, please, Mr. Redekopp?
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'm wondering, Madam Chair, whether or not my colleague Ms. Collins would be amenable to changing the wording and not making it specific to the fifth meeting.
I think all of us are in agreement here that we would like to have the AG appear, as well as the commissioner, and I think we also want to have the minister appear. Knowing their schedules, I think it might be difficult. If we find out that the Auditor General has something on that day, or that perhaps the commissioner has something on that day, with us not being able to get them, I'm wondering if she would be amenable to leaving it to the steering committee to say “at the earliest possible convenience”, so that we can interchange the schedules of the minister as well as the Auditor General and the commissioner.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Okay, so you're now tying the Auditor General and the Environment commissioner. If you put a date on it and they both are not available, what are you going to do?
My understanding is that we're going to have a number of meetings before that, especially if we end up switching to two meetings. There will be another time in the week of the 2nd as well as the 9th, and hopefully the commissioner and the Auditor General will be able to come. I feel that if the minister can make time before November 6, I think the Auditor General and the commissioner can also make time.
The only thing is that November 10 is not a sitting week. I would maybe push it to November 20 or something.
If that's amenable. I think it's a good idea, Ms. Collins.
Just knowing how schedules are, knowing my own schedule, it's tricky to get two people who are that busy in one place. I agree with what you're trying to do, but I think we should give them some flexibility, as opposed to getting a "no" back. I think November 20 would give them enough time to coordinate their schedules at their earliest convenience, but no later than November 20.
Mr. Saini said exactly what I wanted to say. I would only add that by putting the deadline of November 20, we would still work to try to have the Auditor General as well as the commissioner and minister come as soon as possible. So there is still a chance they would come the week of the 2nd, but at least we'd give ourselves the flexibility to be able to manoeuvre.
[Translation]
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think that we should put a date on the schedule. For more flexibility, we need a larger window, but we must also set limits. I think that my colleague Ms. Collins wants this meeting to take place. We wouldn't want it to fall through the cracks.
I agree with my colleague Mr. Schiefke's suggestion to put the deadline of November 20. It's a good compromise. The witnesses will have the chance to change their schedule in order to come and speak to us.
[English]
I want to thank Mr. Saini for flagging that the week of the 9th is a constituency week, and so I'm happy to put it on November 20 at the latest and hope we get to it as soon as possible.
Now can somebody please read the amendment for the record and then I'll take a vote on it and then I'll take the vote on the amended motion.
Mr. Schiefke or Mr. Jeneroux, who wants to go?
[Translation]
[English]
I was giving it to you because I didn't have it written down but I'll do my best.
Madam Chair, it reads:
That the committee invite the Auditor General of Canada and the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development to provide a briefing on the office, the role and the appointment of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development for the briefing and that the clerk ask the witnesses to provide written material in both official languages in advance to the meeting and that the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner and the Auditor General appear no later than November 20th, 2020.
Thank you, I think I missed the part where they're given five minutes each. Does the committee still want to have that in the motion or not?
The committee does not want to put a timeline to it, but you know that we did adopt those routine motions and so when you communicate with them, you will tell them that their opening remarks are five minutes.
Is there unanimous consent to pass it?
(Motion as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Good, that's done. Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Jeneroux. Oh, I'm sorry. You raised your hand for unanimous consent.
No, I was raising my hand to move to.... We just voted on our motion. It's to get the Conservative motion on the table. Are you ready?
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
After my colleague moved her motion, we looked at the timetable. However, we hadn't really set a timetable. Mr. Schiefke said that, starting in November, we'll probably have two meetings, but nothing was determined. We must summon witnesses in connection with the motion voted on earlier. Can we get an idea of the timetable or can we set something up?
[English]
Madame Pauzé, because this is committee business, we will entertain motions from any party. I would suggest to the committee members that, whatever motions we get, we should have the steering committee determine the timetable, if it is agreeable.
Mr. Jeneroux is in order to present his motion. We can all then decide that those motions should be collected from each party that wants to present and be taken to the steering committee for timetable allocation.
[Translation]
Is that fine with you, Ms. Pauzé? Okay.
[English]
Mr. Jeneroux, the floor is yours.
Thanks, Madam Chair. It's certainly my intent to put the motion on the floor and then leave it to the steering committee to determine the appropriate timing of the meetings.
With that said, I move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development conduct a study into the government's recent announcement of a ban on single-use plastic items and designating plastics under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That this study include, but not be limited to, the impacts to Canadian small business and the plastics production industry in Canada, including the impact to jobs. That the study be a minimum of 8 meetings and include, but not be limited, to the following witnesses; officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. That the Committee complete its study no later than December 11, 2020 and that the Committee report its findings to the House.
Sorry, Madam Chair, just on a quick point of order, because we haven't voted on our particular motion, would this include our motion or not?
Yes. I've submitted two motions that were sent to committee members. In particular, concerning the motion on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Volkswagen, I just want to make sure that it is in order to be discussed at the subcommittee coming up.
Because your motions are with the clerk, yes, they will be. The subcommittee will determine the timetable. We have the minister, we have Madame Pauzé's study and we have, off the top of my head, enough motions that we can fill up our time until December.
Alexandre, could you arrange for a meeting—
[Translation]
Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.
Madam Chair, we voted on the Bloc Québécois motion and the NDP motion. I want the committee to vote on our motion, the Conservative Party of Canada motion, so that the subcommittee can take it into consideration.
[English]
Okay.
Monsieur Godin, because we agreed to take the Conservative motion to committee, we don't have vote on it because it's going to go into all the motions for the study, unless you are afraid that it won't go, but it will.
Monsieur Jeneroux presented a motion. We all agreed that motion is going to go to the steering committee for a timetable, and because it gets into the timetable, there is no way it will get eliminated.
Mr. Jeneroux, you have your hand up.
Just with the logic that's being presented here, I'm left to assume that because all other motions passed, we would certainly have just assumed that this motion would have passed with all Liberal members essentially voting in favour of that motion.
I'm not going to make any such assumption, but I'm going to ask for unanimous consent for the study presented. If there's no unanimous consent then I'll have a recorded vote.
Is there unanimous consent for the study of the motion as presented by the Conservatives?
[Translation]
[English]
[English]
You are very right, Mr. Longfield.
The motion that you presented was a dilatory motion. Can you repeat your motion for the record, and then I can take a vote on that one?
Since it is a dilatory motion there's no debate.
Mr. Clerk, could you take a vote on it, please?
(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)
The Chair: The motion has carried and therefore all substantive motions will now go to subcommittee.
Madame Pauzé, you had your hand up. I'm sorry if I did not.... No?
Is there any other business?
Mr. Saini.
Madam Chair, just so I am clear, can I submit a motion, or if it's about a study, should I give it to the clerk and he will give it to the steering committee? Should I read the motion now?
The thing is that when Mr. Jeneroux read his motion, we said all substantive motions. Mr. Longfield then moved a dilatory motion. We voted that all substantive motions now go to steering committee.
I would like to ask the clerk if procedurally after this, you can present your motion, but that it will not be voted on. It will go straight to the steering committee.
Madam Chair, on a point of order, regarding the dilatory motion, I have never seen this in my life, and I'm not sure what Mr. Longfield is hoping to hide, but is this now for the rest of our committee a motion that's in place? Is this for today? I guess I would like some background on what this means.
I need a break of two minutes so I can consult on procedure with the clerk before I give you a response. Okay?
Mr. Jeneroux, the dilatory motion is only for this time. It doesn't bind the committee in the future.
Does that help?
I move:
That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development 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 eight meetings, and the results reported back to the House of Commons.
I can say it in French if you want.
No, I don't think so. I think people got the translation.
Are there any questions for Mr. Saini?
Mr. Schiefke.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but for a good part of what he was saying, the audio totally cut out.
Would it be possible, Raj—I'm sorry to put you in this position, Mr. Saini—for you to repeat that, please? I don't know if it was the case for anybody else.
I move:
That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development 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 eight meetings, and the results reported back to the House of Commons.
Is that okay?
Are there any questions? I would like the clerk to receive all motions so that he can distribute them, and then the steering committee will sit and discusses them.
[Translation]
Doesn't Mr. Saini's motion concern the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food? Is it in order here?
Also, two and a half weeks ago, I sent another motion. Since everyone received it, I gather that the steering committee will conduct a study, as is the case for the other motions, to determine when we'll speak about it. Is that correct?
[English]
On the first, he has to respond. On the second, the steering committee will take every motion it has received and come up with a timetable.
I can answer the second one. On the first one he has to respond to you.
Thank you, Madame Pauzé, for that really important question. I think the motive behind my motion is that—
On a point of order, Madam Chair, because of the motion by Mr. Longfield, I thought we didn't need to talk about or discuss or vote on any of these other motions. Don't they just get read and passed straight to the chair?
I think you are right, because that's what Mr. Longfield did say. Then Mr. Jeneroux asked whether the dilatory motion applies only today or in future. It applies for today only, so Mr. Saini's motion goes straight to the subcommittee. You are right. Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.
Is there any other business?
All in favour of adjournment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Have a good week and we will see you next Monday. Take care. Bye.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer