Public Safety Committee on June 14th, 2018

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

“Relevant”?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I think “relevant” might be.... I know what you're saying and I completely agree with it, but who determines who's “appropriate”? That's the only issue. I like “relevant” better.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I know it's semantics, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Glen.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Chair, I would propose another amendment as well, a paragraph (e), that we call on the House to return—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Hang on. I think we need to deal with this one.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'm sorry. Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Actually, we have three amendments on the floor.

[A voice]

I think “above”—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

He's agreed to both: to “above” and to “relevant”.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Can they be considered friendly amendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes—

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I know. It's always the answer, isn't it?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We could do a wink-wink, nod-nod—

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-Marie David]

There's no such thing.

Everyone's in agreement with those three changes....

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

—and assume that Mr. Dubé moved the “relevant” and “above” amendment, so that what we are voting on for the purposes of the amendment to the motion reads that “any above undertakings of the government be done in consultation with all relevant stakeholders”.

I'm assuming the debate on that is finished.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Motz, you have an amendment.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would propose that this committee call on the House to return Bill C-71 to the committee to complete the recommendation that's identified in this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is that a separate amendment, or is that relevant to this motion?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

It's relevant to this motion, in my opinion, simply because some of these issues for Bill C-71 are specific to what the government was intending to try to deal with inside of the bill, which unfortunately has failed miserably.

If we actually want to make Bill C-71 a bill that's going to impact public safety, let's bring it back to the committee. Let's study the things that both Ms. Damoff has in her motion coming up and Ms. Dabrusin has in hers, so we can actually study this. It could become something that will impact Canadians and not just a recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't want to be arbitrary, but in my judgment, it's way beyond the scope of the motion itself. I'll try to be—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

The motion mentions Bill C-71, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes. I'm going to let it ride for the time being.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I said it at the outset and I will say it again that these are not in respect of legislation. These are regulatory and operational types of things. That is why it's a motion. It wasn't part of the Bill C-71 legislative review. It came up as other issues, and they were specifically referenced by the minister in the House of Commons at the outset.

You're talking about advertising regulations. You're talking about research. We're talking about studying mechanisms. These are not about changes to the legislation itself. It's not about legislation. It's regulatory and operational.