Mr. Easter.
Evidence of meeting #17 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was renewable.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #17 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was renewable.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I agree with changing the six months to one year. But why would you go every year rather than two? And I agree with the comments made on “shall” or “may”. We have to go with either one. Why go annually? Why not go every two years after that, which would be appropriate?
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I'm fine with every two years after that.
Discussing with Mr. Atamanenko, do you like that suggestion?
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
An hon. member
I'm happy with that.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Could I just make one point, Wayne?
Wouldn't it be better for this committee, for agriculture and for everybody, if we had the option that if we wanted to do it in six months or eight months...? We're going to get tied up to this and we're going to give it a quick shuffle. We're not going to do what we're supposed to be doing.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
Well, what happens, Guy, is say, for instance, the opposition decides yes, but there's a majority government and they don't want to do it? There's no way that they can ever get a review. That's why you need this in there, and I think that's why I would support it. But there comes a time.... Right now we hold the power. Right now you couldn't even do that if you wished to do it, if we decided against it. So I think you need that compulsion driven by part of the act allowing that.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
First of all, I think that we're acceptable to making it every two years after the one-year review. We're okay with that.
There's the other thing, on the word “shall” versus “should” or “may”.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, I would just say once again to the committee that when you say “shall”, you are binding it, unlike what we have with PMRA right now. PMRA does not say “shall”, and we would have been in breach of the statutes already, because we went nine months. By saying “should” you are being more definitive. The department doesn't like it because you're being far more definitive on what should be done, but you are still giving flexibility to the committee in not tying its hands if an issue of the day comes up. And that's the real issue here.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
We're all over the map here. Could we just take a two-minute recess and maybe pull back a bit?
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I have a suggestion, Mr. Chair: that we defeat the amendment, change the original six months to one year, and leave it as is.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes, we have to first deal with the subamendment. We have a subamendment on the floor. We don't have any move to make a friendly amendment beyond that it's two years. Mr. Storseth wants to leave it as “should” rather than “shall”.
I'll read the subamendment to you one more time. You know that both “shalls” should be “should”. It will say “within one year after the subsection comes into force, and every two years thereafter”.
(Subamendment agreed to)
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Now we're voting on NDP-2 as amended. Are there any further comments?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
1:50 p.m.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
I'm sorry to barge in. I would like to draw the committee's attention to the point that in drafting this bill, we've overlooked one fairly minor point, but there is--
1:50 p.m.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Yes, sir.
I actually don't know how your documents are paginated, but I'm looking at proposed paragraph 140(1)(k).
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
1:50 p.m.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
Right. It says “the submission of reports on the quantity of fuel produced or sold for export”.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Yes. It's in the bill, guys. Go to the bill, page 2, lines 39 and 40.
1:50 p.m.
Director General, Legislation and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
This provides regulatory authority regarding reporting on fuel that is produced in Canada and on fuel that is sold for export. Since drafting the provision, we've subsequently realized that it's conceivable that somebody could drive a truck into Canada--in other words, import--and then export, and not be subject to these provisions.
We obviously want to capture that kind of activity. So what we would like to respectfully suggest is the addition of the word “imported” after the word “produced”. We're just trying to close all loopholes. When we drafted this we weren't thinking craftily enough, I guess, and we're just trying to close some loopholes here.