Evidence of meeting #122 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We will resume, this time out of camera.
I'm going to Ms. Dabrusin first.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for allowing me to put forward this motion right now.
11:30 a.m.
An hon. member
We're not in camera?
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
No, we're not in camera.
For the motion I've tabled, would you like me to read the wording just for clarity as to what the motion is about?
11:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
June 14th, 2018 / 11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay. That's perfect. I'll just jump in.
Recommendations b) and c) were specifically referenced by the minister in his speech when he spoke to Bill C-71. We had some very fulsome discussions about the Bill C-71 legislation. All of the points raised in this notice of motion are about things that are more operational and perhaps regulatory. They're not legislative matters but things that are coming out of what witnesses have said, and what the minister himself referenced in his speech in the House as things that should also be considered.
I would propose that we adopt this motion.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I was going to add a paragraph d), that any undertakings of the Government of Canada be done in thorough consultation with all appropriate stakeholders.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
My only concern is how broadly it goes beyond this. Is that tied to paragraphs a), b), and c)? How does that fit in as opposed to what that would reference?
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
My understanding would be that one would hope that any undertaking of the federal government would be done in consultation with all appropriate stakeholders, and I just don't see any of that wording anywhere. I think, given the diversity of viewpoints and the importance of these listed.... If I can backtrack for just a moment, I'll support the motion regardless, but in a spirit of good faith, in order to show a willingness to work with all stakeholders and not fall into a trap where things are being proposed and people feel like they haven't been consulted, I think just adding it.... Perhaps it may seem purely symbolic, but I think it's an important addition.
I'm open to different wording, if that's what's required, but given the vastness of this country and the viewpoints on these particular issues, I just think it's an important piece to get in there, notwithstanding my support for the motion as is.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I actually have no problem with the wording, except that I was wondering how it fits in. It could be for paragraph d) “any above undertaking”—
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
—just so it's clear that it's referencing within the motion and is internally consistent. That would be my suggestion, unless someone has a better placement that might make more sense.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I have a question that's more for the analysts.
The word “appropriate” is often in a person's mind, as opposed to whether they're actually appropriate.... Is there a better word than “appropriate” for stakeholders that would give more direction?