Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Transport committee Basically, a letter is sent out as soon as the order of reference is received by a committee to study a bill or any legislation. A letter is sent out to all members of the committee identifying who the legislative counsel is, who will be drafting amendments, and who the legislati
December 12th, 2006Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Environment committee Hold on.
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Environment committee Yes, we're on clause 3.
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Environment committee There was already a clause 2.1. We always--
May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Public Safety committee You would have to look at the legislation. The bill clearly says “article”, but the act uses “paragraphe”.
November 3rd, 2009Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Public Safety committee “Clause” in English is “article” in French.
November 3rd, 2009Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Public Safety committee Yes, that's true. But, in the act, the English word “section” is equivalent to “paragraphe” in French.
November 3rd, 2009Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Public Safety committee Perhaps “subsection” is “paragraphe”. In any case, that's how it is.
November 3rd, 2009Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Industry committee It's because of the consequential relationship. In a vote on Lib-5, because of the changes to the schedules, we would have schedules 1 and 2, whereas I think in Lib-4, the part it's deleting refers to “the schedule”, and if you've removed them, then that doesn't make sense anymor
October 28th, 2010Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Industry committee No. I think several parts of the bill refer to the countries “listed in the Schedule”, and if one of the schedules is a list of pharmaceutical products or drugs, or whatnot....
October 28th, 2010Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Industry committee Bill C-393 appears to be including a definition for the term “pharmaceutical product”. It states that it is the same definition as “section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act. If we go to section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, we have “drug”, which is what this would be referring to, and
October 28th, 2010Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Industry committee It appears that Bill C-393 is defining “pharmaceutical product” according to section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, and the amendment is replacing that definition with a reference to schedule 1 of Bill C-393, which is actually the old schedule 1 of the Patent Act.
October 28th, 2010Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Industry committee It's meant to be the new schedule 1. So if you removed the first two lines of that definition, lines 18 and 19, it just grammatically wouldn't make any sense.
October 28th, 2010Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Industry committee What I'm going to suggest—and it's up to the committee—is that the vote on Liberal-5 be applied to Liberal-4, specifically because of the references to schedule 1 or 2. That was creating the confusion. That vote was a strictly consequential relationship. It appears that this has
October 28th, 2010Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson
Industry committee Could you repeat that please?
October 28th, 2010Committee meeting
Mike MacPherson