Evidence of meeting #42 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, a question was directed to our friends at the end on whether or not it is indeed gazetted. I'd actually like to hear the answer.
November 4th, 2014 / 12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Manager, Legislative Affairs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I think I just need to make a distinction between the regulation that incorporates the document, which is gazetted—that's in proposed subsection 5.1(1)—and then the document itself. What proposed subsection 5.1(4) says is that the document itself is not considered a regulation, because then it essentially would just be the regulatory process. It's removing it from the registration requirements in the transmittal to the clerk for changes to the document. There's a distinction there.
When the GIC proposes a regulation that says a document will be incorporated, that's a regulation that goes through CG I and II and all of that. When that document then later on has amendments, that's not considered a statutory instrument under proposed subsection 5.1(4). You then don't have to do all the exact same regulatory steps.
It's essentially saying that the document further on down the road will be treated slightly differently. That's the distinction there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you very much for that.
Shall PV-2 carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now to PV-3.
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is in relation to those sections of the act that allow for the minister to look to science capacity in governments of foreign states, subdivisions of foreign states, international organizations, or associations of foreign states.
As you've heard in testimony before the committee from the National Farmers Union:
Canada’s public science capacity has been severely reduced as a result of federal funding cutbacks. Canadian science should be used to make decisions about products used and sold in Canada and their potential impacts on our farms, agricultural ecosystems, economy, environment, animal and human health. Studies done in, by and for foreign countries or associations of foreign countries cannot adequately assess the products or processes as they might be used in Canada under our climate in various regions of the country or how they might affect Canadians. To allow for non-Canadian research to underpin regulatory decisions is to abandon vital Canadian interests for the sake of political and budgetary expediency.
Everything I've just read to you was from evidence before this committee. I'm attempting to delete those sections that deal with accessing foreign information.
It is also interesting to me that the way it's drafted is that in considering an application, the minister may consider information available from....But there's no protection for that being in addition to making sure that we have Canadian information, which is why I am persuaded by the National Farmers Union's evidence to the committee and prepared these amendments.
Just for clarity, Mr. Chair, PV-3, PV-4, PV-5, and PV-6 are all to the same effect, that under different acts we make sure that we're relying on Canadian science.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The current wording of the act says that the minister may consider information. There may be very relevant, very pertinent information. It may be supplementary information. He may consider that. He has to use his judgment, as he should, actually.
He's the minister. He should be able to use his judgment. Any type of research that is useful and meaningful would be considered. Why not? What would you be afraid of if it was being considered?
I don't see this being a threat to sovereignty or sovereign decisions. The Government of Canada makes decisions. It may or may not reference studies and reviews that occurred in other countries. But certainly, a decision that affects Canada is made by the Government of Canada and there's no forsaking of its rights regarding sovereignty in that domain, so I don't find the deletion helpful at all.
In fact, one of the aims of this bill is to encourage innovation, science, and research in the agricultural sector, and having more information available or potentially available would be helpful to the cause, not detrimental to the cause.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
My honourable friend may have misunderstood my point. It was not a sovereignty concern. The point is that Canadian science for evidence-based decision-making is especially required when dealing in a context as intimately connected to climate, place, local knowledge, and local science,
In this instance, this section might allow a minister, not necessarily the current minister but a future minister, to ignore Canadian science and base their decision solely on information from foreign states, allowing us to further deplete the capacity of Canadian science in the agricultural field.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
I have a couple of points. First of all, we have an amazing Canadian scientific regime that is doing some amazing work throughout and has been partnering with industry and doing wonderful things. This opens up the UPOV. It opens up these opportunities for us to work together and for us to be able to take our expertise and to move it to other places in the world. It is frustrating at times that we don't look at the other opportunities that we're going to gain from this.
I just wanted to bring you back to one of the other pieces of legislation or things that we have talked about in the House, and that is motion M-60 as it was debated in the House. Just to read it:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
So we are talking about these agencies as they take a look at what is out there and giving our Canadian farmers these opportunities and tools to work with.
You may be familiar with that particular motion, Mr. Chair, but certainly it's something that I believe we should pass in its entirety. That's what we have here. Bringing in this particular amendment would negate that.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I guess I'm just thinking about this. When I was in that situation, I would want all the data whether it's Canadian data or data from another country that maybe has in the expertise in that scenario with that crop type. To say that we're going to discount that expertise and just go with Canadian data, well, what has happened in the past in those scenarios is that it takes five or six years to actually acquire that Canadian data before you even get to a position that you already were in using foreign data. So to say that we must only use Canadian data, I think, is not really the way to go or in the best interests of the farmers overall. In fact, we heard that quite often in the PMRA scenarios, when we looked at different types of products that are used in the States that we want access to in Canada. They want to use U.S. data, because that data basically reflects on our standards here.
I think it comes back to what I said. If I'm sitting there making a decision, I want to have data from all sources available to me. I don't want to be restricted to data that I may not have, and because of that, I don't want to have to go through a timely process, an expensive process, to find out information that I could have had just by recognizing the data coming from another UPOV country.
This just doesn't make sense to me at all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you very much.
We have amendment PV-3.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 57 agreed to)
I'd like to move on to clauses 58 to 66. May we deal with those under one vote?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you very much.
(Clauses 58 to 66 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 67)
We have NDP-10.
Madame Brosseau, please.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you, Chair.
This is on page 44. It would be amended by replacing line 10 with the following:
time to time, with the consent of Parliament.
Once again it's just to omit incorporation by reference. I think we had a pretty good debate. It just wants ensure that regulations and laws come before Parliament.
I don't want to beat a dead dog.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Chair, I would just say we had the debate. The same debate that we had on the previous amendment would apply to this amendment as well.
Conservative
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
It's quite all right, Mr. Chair.
It's not to belabour the debate because my friends are right. We've had this debate, and we'll see this in a couple of other places. I will thank Ms. May for her clarification on Bill S-11, but I actually requested some notes from Bill S-11, and my friend across the way suggested that we didn't try to amend it. That's not actually accurate. We did try to amend Bill S-11 when it came to incorporation by reference. And we did vote against it when you didn't change it by that particular piece. So I just want the record to reflect that.
My memory is such that it doesn't always come back to me quickly enough. So the BlackBerry is a handy tool every now and again. Albeit I don't necessarily care for it most of the time, but sometimes it's helpful. So let the argument stand on incorporation by reference from before. You've articulated it quite clearly. My friends across the way don't agree. As I quite often say, this Scotsman can count. I believe it will be 5:4, but in any case I live to be disproved. We'll see how it goes. You never know.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
We have in front of us NDP amendment 10.
(Amendment negatived)
I want to move quickly to amendment PV-4.
Ms. May, please.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
As I indicated a few moments ago, Mr. Chair, this brings forward the same notion that has now been defeated, concerning the potential that we will rely only on foreign finance in the way that current clause 67 is drafted in relation to the Fertilizers Act. I submit the same points, and as we've just discussed on the previous amendment, we think we know which way the debate is going to go on this one.
I would only say that the effort here is not to say that the minister can't look at any science from other countries. The minister doesn't need a statutory empowerment to look at science from anywhere. My concern is by making it statutory, he may rely on foreign science without mentioning that there must be Canadian science that's applicable. We run the risk of losing Canadian scientific capacity.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
I think perhaps I should just read into our discussion some of the comments that were made.
This is from Clyde Graham, the acting president of Canadian Fertilizer Institute:
...the fertilizer and supplement industry supports new provisions in the Bill that enable tools such as incorporation by reference, licencing, export certificates and acceptance of equivalent foreign scientific data.
So we have certainly heard from witnesses what it is that they anticipate and expect from us.