moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-35, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46 on page 33 the following:
“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” means harm that is more than negligible and that is not immaterial or trifling.”
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-35, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46 on page 33 the following:
“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” has the meaning given to that expression by the regulations.”
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-35, in Clause 51, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 36 the following: f.3 ) defining the expression “material harm” for the purpose of section 44;”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to those of the secretary of state. I believe it was highly appropriate to have you continue, because languages are learned through practice and besides, hearing you speak French here in the House was music to my ears.
Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 concern the notion of “material harm”. In our opinion, the definition of material harm is also problematical.
The Bloc Quebecois calls for insertion of a definition for the expression “material harm” into the Special Import Measures Act. This, coupled with the criteria suggested in the present regulations, would clarify this important concept for everyone.
For the benefit of all our colleagues in this House, I would like to read the various motions.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-35, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46 on page 33 the following:
“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” means harm that is more than negligible and that is not immaterial or trifling.”
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-35, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46 on page 33 the following:
“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” has the meaning given to that expression by the regulations.”
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-35, in Clause 51, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 36 the following:
“(f.3) defining the expression “material harm” for the purpose of section 44;”
The bill would thus leave no uncertainty for Quebec and Canadian businesses. These motions are very important, because the bill is supposed to improve the Canadian system of special trade measures so that it can better reflect the new economic context and the changes in the rules of international trade, and leave no room for confusion.
This motion is, moreover, far more constructive than that of our hon. colleague from LaSalle—Émard which, by substituting the term “dommage important” for the term “dommage sensible” in the French, only makes the scope of the concept even more nebulous.
This is why we have introduced these three motions, and we hope to obtain the enthusiastic support of the members of this House.