International Trade Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Jason Flint]

No. In the act we looked at “belongs to” as being sufficient to give us the authority to do that. We would then go into the regulations, for example. We have other label definitions that could be included there. The specifics around an electronic label could be included in the regulations, rather than in the act itself.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Would you be open to this language being part of this? Would it change the intent? If it's presumed that it's included in that definition anyway, then at least the second portion of this proposed amendment would be in line with your thinking on what it represents.

[Jason Flint]

We would have to go back and review that second portion, consistent with the rest of the definition that was proposed.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Mr. Ritz has some final comments.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

On the last amendment, or maybe it was the second-last amendment, the argument was that we couldn't do that because it had to be at 100% to have adherence. Yet, now you seem to be arguing that “prescribed” is too broad and ministerial authority has to be maintained so that they can change definitions by regulation. Your argument that we couldn't do the one amendment seems to be at cross purposes with the argument on this amendment. I'm a little bit lost.

[Jason Flint]

“Prescribed” is in this definition as well. The same conditions would apply. By only using the term “prescribed” to limit the definition, then it would not include, for example, the conditions that would be applied on a label by the minister under section 8 of the act. Both definitions have that same concern associated with them. Then, because there's no reference to “belongs to”, but you've included some wording on digital, we could go back and look at the digital and see if there were specific references that could be incorporated into a definition, but it's not....

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Okay. Could this clause be held aside while they go back and check those definitions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We don't have much time left. Can we talk about it today?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

You said that was one of the options when you outlined how we could handle clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Can the officials come back with something in the next few minutes?

Let's continue on.

[David Usher]

Chair, I doubt that we'll be able to come back in the next few minutes on this. We know how complex this is. Obviously, we cannot at this stage provide recommendations on the proposed amendments. We'll have to take them back and consult with our respective experts. We will undertake to do so if that's your direction—

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It's across departments as well, which makes it more difficult.

[David Usher]

We're in your hands.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Since the department needs some time, if we pass it as it is, without amending it, is there a way we can come back to it, or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

My suggestion would be that we park it due to terminology and that we come back Thursday morning, but it's up to the will of the committee. You can come back Thursday morning and just deal with that one clause, and we'll deal with the rest of the clauses now.

For that one clause, the department will come back and then we'll decide if we're going to pass this. I'd like to get this into the House this week.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

My question is to the department. By Thursday morning, will they have enough time to respond or will they need more than that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

They kind of nodded to me, so I think they're good to go.

Okay?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

I think Thursday morning is fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I have unanimous consent to stand clause 33, correct? We'll deal with 33 only.

(Clause 33 allowed to stand)

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay. That being said, let's move on to the rest.

I see that there are no amendments, so I'm assuming that there are no problems with clauses 34 to 73?

Go ahead, Mr. Usher.

[David Usher]

Thanks, Chair.

Just for clarity, we have two amendments related to the last section we discussed. Which one should we be looking at?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It's the second one. The first one was defeated. It is just the second one.

[David Usher]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I don't hear any objections to passing clauses 34 to 73, so they will carry.

(Clauses 34 to 73 inclusive agreed to)

We can't move further than that because we have to come back.

I think right now there's not much sense in having any more discussion on this.

I don't know if we need all the government officials here for that. All we need are the one or two who pertain to that amendment. I don't want to take up the taxpayers' money and your time, but come in and give us your take on it and we'll deal with that clause right away. Then we'll be able to get this into the House this week.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.