Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 87
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here on such a compressed schedule.
Dennis, could you explain to the committee how the beef industry is going to reconfigure itself to exploit the new market opportunities in Europe? I'm wondering as well what role the CCA plays in that. In other words, individual farmers probably have a role to play in terms of what they will or will not do if they see an export opportunity, but I would imagine there might be some networking going on. Could you explain to the committee how your industry is going to reconfigure itself and who the key players are in determining how best to reconfigure to exploit new opportunities in Europe?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
As a clarification, are we talking about a point of order? Like, this is a question that's—
A voice: The question.
Mr. Pierre Lemieux:Okay, then I do have a comment, Chair.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I think you are right.
What happened was that Madam Brosseau put forward a concurrence motion in the House on the report, and that was amended. The House sent it back to committee with a specific recommendation that the committee look at amending the report. That is what will probably happen, right? There will be an amendment made to the report and then the report will be sent back to the House.
To clarify, we didn't vote against concurrence in the report. We voted for the amended motion, which was saying that when the report comes back to the House in its amended format, then there will be a concurrence vote. I will watch with interest to see how the NDP are going to vote on that because I'm getting such mixed signals.
The final text document is going to come back to the House, and then all MPs will have a chance to vote on whether they support CETA as negotiated because the details are now known.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Chair, I would just say that generally in committee meetings like this meeting today there is latitude given to the witnesses, and there is latitude given to the MPs with regard to exactly what it is they'd like to talk about. It generally has to be on theme, but there's a lot of latitude given.
The presentations that are made and the discussions following them are one thing, but what about the report? When it comes down to reviewing a report and amending the report, the House has given specific direction to the committee about having a single amendment to the report. It is not to completely rewrite it, not to remove other recommendations and replace them, and not to redo all the work on the report. It has given the committee specific, detailed direction regarding an amendment to the report, and the committee will ultimately decide whether or not it will follow the request of the House.
This has happened in other circumstances too. When the House gives direction to a committee, it doesn't open the doors to a complete overhaul of the report or of legislation. It is very specific. So although we might have witnesses come in, and we might have discussions, and the discussions might be wide ranging or narrow ranging or something in between, ultimately the committee will have to decide whether or not to follow the House's specific direction in amending the report.
That's my understanding, Chair.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
As I read the amendment I'm wondering if there's a problem that we don't know about because I don't remember this coming up in committee from witnesses. The amendment would make me think that it happens at least frequently enough to warrant an amendment, where varieties are taken off the market and the farmer is left saying, “What just happened? Why did that happen? I'm disadvantaged somehow.”
What I'd like to ask the officials is, based on Agriculture Canada experience, how often is a variety removed from the market? Does it happen a lot? Not very much?
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
First of all, it's a comment I made during committee on several occasions. The move from UPOV 78 to UPOV 91 does involve some change, but really it's an extension of plant breeders' rights that are already inherent, for the most part, in UPOV 78. It's not a leap from no plant breeders' rights to UPOV 91. It's an extension of rights, for the most part, that are contained within UPOV 78. I'm hoping that Mr. Allen will agree that a 2% incident under UPOV 78 and simply extending the plant breeders' rights under UPOV 91 is not a cataclysmic change in plant breeders' rights—it's more like an evolution forward—and does not really pose a risk to farmers across Canada.
The other thing I would say is, if I understood the analogy he was giving, that plant breeders might pull product A to come out with product B because they can make more money and it might be only a small technical change of some kind. But I would go back to what we discussed this morning, which is on page 3 of the act. When you look at the plant breeders' rights, first of all it's not retroactive, but second, what is it that is protected? Well, there are the four key characteristics: it has to be a new variety, it has to be distinguishable, it has to be stable, it has to be homogeneous. So it has to be a new variety of plant, and I don't think changing the colour of the seed or something like that would necessarily put it into that category.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
I'm wondering whether, once again, we could have.... I'm not sure why, but right now the bill is worded “with or without conditions”. In other words, there may be times when conditions are required; there may be times when conditions are not required.
I'm not too sure exactly what this particular amendment is doing. It's “with justifiable conditions”. It's eliminating the “no condition” situation—that's the way I would read it—and is inserting a word, “justifiable”. But I don't understand the problem with the wording “with or without conditions”. That covers the full spectrum. Why we would constrain that and offer only one imposed solution, which is that you must have “justifiable conditions”, I don't quite understand.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not sure the discussion we're having is actually about what is in front of us as an amendment. For example, I don't see an appeal process being delineated within the amendment here. But I will tell you that there is an appeal process. I'm on the website right now, and CFIA has a complaints and appeals office. If a fine has been levied against an individual or an organization, they can file a complaint to the complaints and appeals office, and it will look at the quality of service, administrative errors, regulatory decisions. There is a process in place.
Going back to what the amendment is actually talking about, one concern I have is that the type of consultation being advocated in paragraph 1(c) is vague in terms of how broad that consultation must be. For example, would consultation for a regulation through the regular gazetting process be sufficient, or is it not sufficient? It's unclear here.
For example, there's a separate consultation required outside of the gazetting process, outside of the normal regulatory process, and the fact that it's not clear can allow someone to challenge the validity of a violation by saying, “You didn't consult broadly enough: you didn't consult me”, or “you didn't consult them”. So it's too broad.
Right now, the minister has the authority to make regulations. There is a consultative process that takes place through the regulatory process. This just seems to be blurring what kind of consultation should take place, when it should take place, and how wide it should it be. I think that is going to lead to a host of future problems.
As I said, if someone has grief with something to do with the application of a regulation or with the application of a fine, there is already a complaints and appeals process through the complaints and appeals office at CFIA.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much, Chair. I'm happy to move amendment G-2.
I'm not going to read it because we have it all in front of us. It's been submitted and it's quite technical in nature. What I want to let the committee know is that this amendment has been moved based on consultations that the minister and officials have had with stakeholders. It has to do with AMPA and it has to do with guarantees.
Rosser was involved in some of these consultations and I'm just wondering if he might put into layman's language some of the technical jargon that we have regarding this amendment.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Our witness, the minister, was kind enough....
But the point is that I'm not questioning what witnesses you might have heard this from; it's more a question of what stakeholders you've heard certain things from, so that I can better understand the amendments.
The bill was tabled back in December, so obviously it has been out for eight or nine months, and it's fair to say that your side, our side, the officials, and the minister have been consulting, even though not every person who provided feedback or comments has come in front of committee. But on that particular point, the minister himself was here.
Thank you.
View Pierre Lemieux Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to move amendment G-3. It simply changes a bit of the wording in the English text to say “continuously owns the agricultural product”.
This came about again from feedback from stakeholders. The language in the French text was better than the language in the English text. The discrepancy was noted, and so this is simply changing the English text to better match what was in the French text, because the French text captured more thoroughly what was meant in the first place. It's really just a translation amendment.
Results: 1 - 15 of 87 | Page: 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data