Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding of the agreement to withdraw the provision is that had it been included, it would have nullified other provisions in Bill C-469. It would have nullified clause 13 and clause 26. Clause 13 deals with the right to propose any new act, regulation, or instrument; and clause 22 with the power given to an auditor to review any draft regulations in the bill. So it would have nullified the later provisions and it would have been nonsensical to include.
It is true it's in the Quebec statute, which I believe was enacted quite some time ago. On reviewing the bills of rights of other jurisdictions, I see they do not include such a limitation.
So the agreement was to withdraw it; otherwise it would have made nonsensical a good part of the bill.
Contrary to what the Conservative members of the committee are alleging, there are many substantive provisions in this bill, including extending the right of access to information, the right to participate, the right to review any existing law or policy, and the right to propose improved laws and policies.
If that amendment had gone through, it would have taken away those rights and opportunities, so the Bloc very graciously agreed to withdraw their amendment.