Madam Chair, I want to compliment all the members around the table. It's evident to anybody who's new that there's a passion about the issue.
For Ms. Hoeppner to make an impassioned plea to get support for this is commendable, but you'll forgive me if I say that this is really a procedural question that someone is proposing. In the House, the government proposes and Parliament disposes. Parliament has considered a proposal of the government and said no.
I think in terms of committees, and perhaps you will get the clerk to research this position, what happens is that a committee can make a recommendation in its report, but I'm not sure it can, with a motion, compel Parliament, the House, to do anything.
So while it's a commendable expression of position and viewpoint, I think you will find that it is procedurally impossible to do. Unless someone wants to say that we want to have this as a recommendation as part of a report--that's not what this says--and the report in its entirety will be recommended to the House for the House to respond to within the usual 120 days, I don't think the committee procedurally can usurp the authority of the government by going to Parliament to impose, on itself, a decision that the government will then have to effect.
As I said, while I commend the principle behind the concept, it really might have great difficulty, procedurally, in passing anything. It eventually, I think, would be ruled out of order in the House itself.
It's better to accomplish the passing of an amendment--however it is subamended--to the motion that still conveys the principle and tells government and the House to come up with a different solution, or at least to address the procedural impediments that the debate in the House has put forward on the initial legislation.
That's my view.