Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 31-44 of 44
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

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  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  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  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

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

Environment committee  There was already a clause 2.1. We always--

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

Mike MacPherson

Environment committee  Yes, we're on clause 3.

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

Mike MacPherson

May 3rd, 2007Committee meeting

Mike MacPherson

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