It's an interesting comment by my friend across the way, that there are some that are and some that aren't. I take what he says. that this really is an amending of the act for many things. That's part of the problem of how we see it.
Not only that, the reason we tried so hard to change the incorporation by reference is that so many of these things may change, and we wouldn't actually see them come to us as parliamentarians per se. The intent of reviewing what really is an omnibus act is always difficult because it is exactly that and it affects so many other bits and pieces. I think it might have been deemed out of order if we had suggested a five-year review of this act or that act. The clerk might have said that we're not actually studying that act per se, so we may not have been able to actually do that. That was why we tried to look at it as one piece, albeit we know that this affects different legislation.
I hear what my friends across the way have said. My hope is that there would be some understanding that this is indeed a comprehensive change to agriculture in this country, and that some form of review, whether those pieces are in the statutes now and in those acts that this bill will change... If they are not, hopefully the government will think about it and decide to place review pieces inside those particular acts that may not have them at the moment. I would suggest that the term of five years is an appropriate one so that we can actually take a look to see if this worked the way it was intended or if there are problems with what it was intended to do.
I don't have a value judgment on that, because I don't know. You may well have gotten it right and you may well only have to tweak it. Or you may have to take it back and say, “Oh my goodness, it's time for the drawing board.” But then again, it may be somebody else who's doing it for you, because you might be on this side of the House. It's for Canadians to decide how that happens next year.
Let me just leave it at that, Mr. Chair. As Mr. Eyking has said, thank you for steering this through. I think you've done an admirable job, sir. I greatly appreciate it.
To my friends across the way, it's always a pleasure. I think there were some good comments coming back and forth, as Mr. Lemieux has said. Let me be clear: in this game, you win some and you lose some. That's okay. That's the way it's played. I don't have a problem with that. I do appreciate the conversation back and forth. In my view, it was respectful. We don't agree on certain things. Who would have thought that in Parliament, we don't agree in an adversarial system? That's just the way it is sometimes. Hopefully we'll be able to craft other amendments at some point in the future that we may agree on more than we did on some of these, Mr. Chair, but let me end my comments there.
