Thank you, Chair.
I'm back on clause 35. I understand from the response that you were going to get back to me.
I went to look into section 2 of the Farm Products Agencies Act, which is the reasoning behind this change from people “engaged in the marketing of any regulated product” to anybody who is “engaged in the growing, production or marketing of” the product.
Under section 2 of the Farm Products Agencies Act today, a “marketing plan means a plan relating to the promotion, regulation and control of the marketing of any regulated product” including the following: “the determination of those persons engaged“ in the regulated product, “the specifications of those acts that constitute the marketing of the regulated product” and “the marketing of the regulated product on a basis that enables the agency” that is implementing the plan, etc.
To me, it's clear that this is focused entirely on marketing and marketing agencies, an agency that markets, an office of commercialization. All of these references don't include growing. I think that's a huge creep in scope.
I think the reference to producing is also potentially problematic. I think the packaging of things can be considered part of marketing, but producing things is not. I'm not comfortable at all with clause 35 and I would make a motion that we not include it.