Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
We've been discussing this for quite some time, and it's just an impression, but in discussing this we've gone over into the amendment that I proposed. And in fact they kind of overlap.
My intervention is designed to assure Monsieur Laframboise about what my perception of the difference is. It also indicates to Mr. Bevington that I don't think my amendment has any less impact than his own, inasmuch as my understanding of the way we work in Parliament is if there is a report that comes out of a committee on anything, especially regulations, once you report the findings of this committee, the House concurs in that report and that obligates the government to take that report as a newer aspect of that legislation--in other words, to implement those regulations as they are seen by this committee.
I could be wrong in my understanding of that--I've been wrong before--but for Mr. Laframboise and for those others who are looking at what the basic difference is, I see my amendment.... And I hope you don't see this as being too presumptuous, Mr. Chairman, because we are now talking about an amendment that's not on the table, but I'm going to ask you to do something in a second. I think my amendment is actually broader in its scope than the amendment Mr. Bevington proposes because mine refers specifically to any regulation made under this act, whereas Mr. Bevington refers only to those made under paragraphs 27.1(1)(b), (c), or (d).
And Mr. Bevington's amendment constrains the House by obligating it to send it here, essentially while it's got it on Canada Gazette part I. In other words, we'll actually be inviting those witnesses that the department is obligated to listen to under Canada Gazette part I.
I think mine goes a little bit further. And even though it uses the word “may”, it's part of the convention of this parliamentary process that we can take everybody after Canada Gazette part II and say okay, you've had six months or you've had a year, what problems do you see, and we can make the adjustment.
The reason I think that's wider is that Mr. Bevington, notwithstanding his good intentions, says “The committee shall, within 60 days...”. That's like two months. With due respect, that's probably not enough time to find out whether those regulations are actually workable, because they will not have been seen to work, inasmuch as they are in Canada Gazette part I.
So I'm going to ask, Mr. Chairman, without any arrogance or presupposition, whether you would sound out this committee to see if we can move immediately to determine whether we actually do want to accept Mr. Bevington's amendment, and if not, would we go directly to mine.