Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 180
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
I would like to thank Mr. Speller for his questions about what I did during five or ten minutes of my life. I appreciate that.
Madam Chair, first of all, the issue of formulants is important to us, whether we are talking about amendment PC-8 or amendment PC-67. So, this is very important to us. We can get into arguments about the definition. We think the definition must be more complete, and if we can agree on that, then of course, we would also like to discuss the issue of labelling. We did talk about it this morning, in fact. We discussed PC-40 this morning.
The purpose of these three amendments is to ensure that the active and non-active ingredients in a pest control product are listed. That is what we are asking for. Why? Because even if there are some non-active ingredients, these ingredients can and do cause health problems.
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
Madam Chair, I will be very clear. Depending on whether or not amendments PC-30, PC-67 and others are accepted or rejected, we still have another amendment, PC-76, that appears in other amendments. It is simply about reviewing the bill; there is no other information.
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
There is no review. As we know— [Editor's Note: Inaudible] —30 years ago. We therefore suggest five years. Some people want a review in 10 years, and others want it to be in 6 years and 9 months, but we would like this issue and the legislation to be reviewed. A provision of this type appears in most bills.
In the case of Bill C-56, even before we study it, there is provision for a review after 3 years. I am sure we can agree on a reasonable length of time for reviewing the legislation. And that would be all: we would withdraw the rest. But the others would have to be accepted.
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
Amendment PC-76.
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
We've already debated most of those amendments, so, yes, I mean pass those amendments.
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
Madam Chair, it is true that it was not you, but rather your colleagues on the government side who rejected my proposal. So since I was turned down, I think we should go back to where we were at noon. You did not make a decision, but your colleagues as a group rejected my offer. So we should go back to where we were, as you suggested initially.
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Essentially, PC-40 is about combining the re-evaluation and special review provisions that appear under the heading “re-evaluation”. We have all the time we need to look at this now. After looking at the proposed amendment, people will understand that following clause 15, we give the minister an opportunity, in clause 16, to have a much more detailed process. In addition, we ensure that consideration will also be given to international developments in this regard.
As we know, Canada often merely reacts to developments in the area of pest control products. That may be good, but we must ensure that there is a system whereby any new information can be passed on to the minister if there is a risk, so that the latter can take action.
There is also the issue of endocrine disruptions, which we discussed this morning. You will appreciate that this amendment is quite substantial. However, since we are talking about pest control products, I am sure that my colleagues on the government side are very eager to discuss this and to vote for the amendment.
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
This is very interesting and we are going to continue. Earlier, you were saying that a 15-year timeframe had been included to provide as much time as possible.
What is wrong with having a deadline for the re-evaluation? You say that you agree with this 15-year limit and that you hope that certain products or types of products will be re-evaluated before 15 years. In that case, why not have a deadline for product re-evaluation, as proposed by my Bloc Québécois colleague? Why would having a deadline bother you?
As my colleague from the Canadian Alliance was saying, if it is not one year, it could be two. Why has it been set at 15 years? It could have been 13 or 10. Where does this 15-year period come from? Why not say that a product could be re-evaluated within a one or two-year period? Why not?
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair. This issue has been debated at length, but I would once more like to take advantage of my time to ask the following question in the interest of refreshing my memory: how long does it take on average to re-evaluate a product?
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
I have two brief questions, Madam Chair, with regard to this bill.
Have you already started an exhaustive product re-evaluation or are you waiting to find out what the parameters will be under the law?
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
In that case, on what basis are you proceeding? Is it on the basis of the regulations, since the bill has not been passed yet?
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
As it now stands, there is nothing new which would give you... You mentioned the problem with regard to the one-year extension and financial and human resources. In fact, if the deadline is too short, there is a financial and human resource problem, but, for now, if the bill is passed, will you be in a position to do everything, to begin anew within the timeframes contained in the legislation or will you need additional resources?
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
They will be re-evaluated. I want this to be clearly understood. The re-evaluation process will, at the very latest, begin 15 years later. The re-evaluation will not be completed. When you say that they will be re-evaluated after...
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
I would like a recorded vote, please.
View André Bachand Profile
Ind. (QC)
I believe the discussion took place. All that's needed is an amendment to make the act much simpler and really to ensure that the rights of aboriginals, of the First Nations, are respected. So essentially what we can see when we compare the old page 54 to the new is that we have merely simplified matters to be sure that aboriginal rights or the treaties of the aboriginal peoples are recognized, simply. You had a discussion on that, and amendments were put forward and debated at that time. The idea then is simply to take those amendments into account and to take a position.
Results: 121 - 135 of 180 | Page: 9 of 12

|<
<
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data