I've never heard a less enthusiastic explanation of a motion than that it's self-explanatory, as with G-1
Madam Chair, I mention this because we have a bill that the government is now acknowledging is flawed. The minister is committing to making amendments, so I would ask why one amendment, amendment G-1, was put forward and the other amendments were not. The answer is that the government feels that what's necessary to address the fallout of passing this legislation might fall outside the scope of the bill and be ruled out of order.
I think it would still be of benefit to committee members to hear about amendment G-1, but also, more importantly, to have some kind of indication of what is going to be in the government legislation that Mr. Virani has said will be necessary to address the fallout of this bill, which attacks teachers and parents.
Teachers have raised a number of concerns about this bill. Mr. Virani has, I'm told, heard some of those concerns, but this might be a good opportunity, when the government has the floor on amendment G-1, to flesh out a bit more of what's going to be in this government legislation. We're eagerly awaiting any kind of detail regarding what is in that legislation, because obviously the government feels that's necessary if this bill is to pass.
Apparently the government is asking us to pass this bill today, this NDP private member's bill, which criminalizes parents and teachers, or else we will not study our own member's anti-Semitism motion.
That's what committee members are faced with today.