Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to second-guess my colleague's motives, but I have a number of problems with the motion that's before us.
First is the sheer size of the motion; it is much longer than Bill C-44. To expect us to engage this motion with any degree of vigour and come up with a reasonable solution within a two-hour period is rather unrealistic.
There are a couple of comments, words, or phrases used here that I think are problematic. For example, under number 1, it refers to “a degree of consensus”, and I think that gets to the heart of what we talked about with a number of our witnesses. Virtually every witness who appeared before us admitted that getting a consensus on this would be a pretty tall order. There are really no degrees of consensus; either we have it or we don't.
She refers to a non-derogation clause. When the Canadian Human Rights Commission appeared before us, they did not support including that.
There is no addressing of the timeline or costs of the steps that she proposes. What would the timeline be? What would the cost be?
There are too many unanswered questions for me to give any degree of support to this, so I'd definitely be voting against it.