Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 9 of 9
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2015-06-04 12:56
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of our witnesses today.
Part of the purpose of our study is to expose some of the things that I think all of you gentlemen have clearly articulated today, which is a clear understanding on the part of the fishing community, outfitters, and organizations like yours that not only have the knowledge about what's going on in the fisheries ecosystems, but also invest your time and your financial resources, your volunteerism, and technical expertise into vibrant and healthy fish stocks.
On that point, thank you and congratulations. I hope there is some measure of success for all of us in undertaking this study, us, and that Canadians more generally will understand and appreciate the value of your organizations.
My first question will be for Mr. Lévesque and Mr. Bouchard. You noted, and if I've written this correctly, the damage of pleasure crafts to the river mouth and the reduction of currents leading to an increase in cyanobacteria in the area and, as you just mentioned, some of the migration of yellow perch. You also spoke a fair bit about the cormorant populations and a cull in that respect.
I see some overlap here between provincial responsibilities and federal support. I'm wondering if you can talk most specifically about some solutions around how to deal with the pleasure craft issue and the other things that lead to an increase in cyanobacteria. In other words, what solutions would you propose that would fall under the federal mandate to assist with improving the water pollution conditions in Lac Saint-Louis or Lac Saint-Pierre?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2014-11-20 12:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all our witnesses.
I want to get a point of clarification on the continuing harm aspect of it. If I understand right, the strict liability application is certainly applied to the non-reporting, or the steps to mislead. Does it apply as well to the section on error in reporting?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2014-11-20 12:19
Okay.
Obviously your testimony today is greatly appreciated, but I would suspect, given that you said you've been highly involved in working with this legislation and working with the government on this, that this isn't the first time you've raised this particular aspect. I'm just curious; while I can appreciate what you're saying, without sort of going back and asking some more questions to understand any unintended consequences or the rationale behind this, have you heard any rationale for the continuing harm section and the consecutive offence option, versus the higher penalties that you're proposing? Have you heard any feedback on that?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2014-11-20 12:20
It was effectively that: had you raised the issue before, and if you had, what was the response?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2014-11-20 12:21
Okay. So effectively, this submission is a fairly new discussion piece for the committee.
Mr. Pierre Gratton: Yes. That's right.
Mr. Ryan Leef: Thank you. I just wanted to get a sense of that.
I'll put this question to everybody. Do we know the order of magnitude of this legislation in terms of how many payments are made by these sectors over $100,000? I can appreciate that we're not going to have an exact figure, but what's the scale of this? What's the order of magnitude?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2014-11-20 12:23
My understanding is that it will be broken down in that manner. As mentioned by I think everybody here, Canada has an excellent global reputation. I think the development of this legislation is effectively to be a key partner in transparency.
I guess I'm wondering—
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2012-06-19 16:38
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Minister, thank you very much for attending committee today. I would like to say congratulations for your steps here in closing off what I think has been viewed by Canadians, particularly the northern Canadians I represent, and has been aptly described as a backdoor loophole to maintain a registry.
I think we were very clear with Canadians in our campaign commitments during the last election. You aptly described in your notes today that the spirit and the intention of Bill C-19 was quite clear. I think that was clear when we talked to our constituents about it. It was clear during debate. It was very clear during all the votes that took place in the House of Commons.
Now, unfortunately, we're having to go these extra steps because the spirit and the intention of what we put forward hasn't been respected.
When we look at which governments, which sides of the House, are committed to ensuring Canadians aren't needlessly turned into criminals or aren't treated in a criminal fashion, this is another example of our government being the only government with a crystal clear agenda to make sure that law-abiding Canadians aren't impacted by this kind of legislation.
I will say, with one caveat, we are the only government with a clear direction in that, but we aren't necessarily the only members of Parliament who believe the long-gun registry was wasteful, ineffective, and misguided. Members of the opposition stood and voted along with our government on that. One of the members, from Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who sits on this committee but is conspicuously missing today, voted along with the government.
Can you expand on the history of this, from an 11-year-plus message that you would have from your experience as a longer-term member of Parliament and minister, how long this has been going on for Canadians, and what this will mean to finally bring this to an end?
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2012-06-19 16:44
You touched on it right there toward the end, Minister.
We've talked a lot about the need for Bill C-19 to protect individuals, hunters, and farmers who utilize long guns as tools; aboriginals and first nations people in the north who utilize them as day-to-day tools in their way of life; athletes who represent our country in sport shooting events; collectors. But you touched on, right at the very end, how the requirement to bring in this regulation is now to add further protection to retailers and to the people in that business.
View Ryan Leef Profile
CPC (YT)
View Ryan Leef Profile
2012-04-23 16:54
We did hear some talk about the enforcement aspect of it. One step is to bring in regulations. It's a whole other step to have enforcement. Yet again, it's another step to have meaningful enforcement of it.
One of the comments made in past testimony when we talked about return on investment—earlier you provided an example—was that there's such an excellent return on investment in that market that it's worthwhile for people to risk getting caught, having the law imposed upon them, and losing a load and still being able to make money doing it.
I hear your suggestion. This is maybe more of a comment than a question. Support from the U.S. in enforcing the Lacey Act and stepping up enforcement initiatives and education around the market might be helpful in that regard.
Do you know what the appetite outside the province of Ontario is for the respective provincial bodies to deal with regulations around the importation of live carp? Because obviously it's the fisheries act of Ontario that has the regulation preventing it from coming in.... Or is it a different provincial body of legislation that prevents the movement of Asian carp?
Results: 1 - 9 of 9

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data