I can continue, then, in conversation on that amendment.
I think Mr. Bergeron raised an important point to say that the Standing Orders are the Standing Orders and that what happens if we were to pass G-1.1 is that we would essentially nullify that section, and it then would be simply the Standing Orders that would prevail. I think that's precisely true. I think he's made the point about why we're trying to do this, and I guess there still needs to be made—for me—an argument that this activity is somehow consequentially different from every other activity we do as a committee in terms of requesting government comments, reports, etc., or that any other committee does on very important work in the House of Commons.
I would be fine either way to defeat the actual clause that puts in these unusual requirements or accept ours, but I think he's absolutely right that indeed this is nullifying the difference and that the Standing Orders are Standing Orders. Through time, I think the Standing Orders have been tested by different governments and different opposition parties and have proven themselves to work.
I would think that if a case is being made that says there's an urgency about this or that there's a simplicity about it, it could be either one. It could be either that it's more urgent than any other work we do—that case could be made—or it could be argued that it's simpler. We've heard from officials that in fact it's not simpler, and that the burdens to attest for these sanctions issues are high, and we want due diligence to be done, because sanctions, if they are mistaken, have life-threatening consequences for individuals. We want to make sure our sanctions regime, which is already strong, is robust and works. We also want to make sure that when we do put sanctions on people, they're the right people at the right time doing that.
That's why I would still support our amendment that says the minister “must table a response”—it could even be subamended to a complete response or a robust response—“in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or the rules of the Senate that apply to government responses to committee reports”.
As I said, I'm agreeing with Mr. Bergeron that this does nullify that section, but I think it's important to nullify it either through an amendment or through defeating the clause.
Thank you.