Thank you, Madam Chair.
My understanding of what we're doing here is obviously to correct things, to bring things in line, to coordinate between English and French, and to change Queen to King where necessary. I think anything should be flagged if it would have any substantive impact, but we're not in a position to know if that broader definition doesn't change the scope.
Regarding what Ms. Gladu just raised, we're not in a position to know whether that broader definition is just reconciling two different provisions and has no impact, or whether passing this broader definition here would mean that someone who is not currently subject to some rule or regulation would now, by virtue of the broader definition, be subject to that broader rule or definition.
If in fact it's the latter, and if in fact by a change that we're making in this legislation someone is impacted by some law who currently isn't impacted, we would have to remove that provision and not pass that provision, because this committee is not in a position to pass judgment on farm products or the impact of that legislation or who would be impacted by the legislation.
We would need some clarity on that, on whether there's any individual anywhere in Canada who would now be subject to something they're not currently subject to under the act by virtue of passing this legislation.