Evidence of meeting #25 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
At the risk of glowing slightly less than some others, in the spirit of the interventions we've received, I think there are just a couple of things.
I think the reference to violence did not speak particularly to kids. Am I right? I think it should. It's a reasonable thing that Mr. Bigras' intention was to deal with it as it relates to kids.
In regard to the second point, Mr. Abbott, the witnesses “confirmed”...and although I don't want to split hairs, I think this is important. “Confirmed” suggests that somehow we had it in our minds and they came here and confirmed that. I think they “convinced” us. I think it's a more appropriate way of expressing what happens in these kinds of committees.
Witnesses don't come here to validate our position; witnesses come here to create our position, and they convinced us, I think, of the merits of their case. It may be hairsplitting, but I think it is legitimate hairsplitting—not that I have a lot of expertise in hairsplitting.
Well, neither does Jim.
The chair is about to weigh in.
Finally, to try to capture what I think Mr. Siksay is trying to capture in this, we should speak to the number of interventions we received that asked us to support more proactive interventions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I was taking some consultation here. We could have a friendly amendment, but it would have to be unanimous.
Liberal
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair. It seems quite clear to me. A motion has been presented by my colleague Mr. Coderre. Mr. Abbott has proposed a friendly amendment which was accepted by Mr. Coderre. So we are presently debating the motion.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Chair, would it be acceptable to you if Mr. Scott and I dialogued for just a second on the record here?
Conservative
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Okay.
Mr. Scott, “Bill C-327 has the laudable goal of seeing a reduction in violence in society...”. Can you give me your suggestion, please?
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
And “particularly as it relates to children.” That's the whole purpose.
Liberal
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Okay, then it would be: “Notwithstanding the goal of Bill C-327, witnesses have convinced committee members”—
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Then, “convinced the committee that Bill C-327 is the wrong means to achieve the goal.”
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Next, “The committee unanimously supports freedom of expression, including in the media of film and television.”
And your additional point is...?
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Finally, “The committee further recognizes the large number of witnesses who spoke to the need for more education, media literacy”--
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
I don't have any problem with “parental engagement”. So add, “and parental engagement.”
Conservative
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Yes, “who spoke to the need for education, media literacy”—is that the language they used, Bill?—“and parental engagement”, or “parental guidance”.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I think “parental engagement” is probably....
May I reread, Chair?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
First of all, I guess Mr. Scott is proposing a subamendment, an amendment to the amendment.
I understand it's a friendly amendment—I've seen you talking back and forth—so could you read the amendment to the amendment?
