Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank all my colleagues for allowing me to say a few more words on Motion No. 3 brought forward by the member for LaSalle—Émard.
The amendment proposed by the member for LaSalle—Émard seems somewhat vague. Replacing the term “dommage sensible” by “dommage important” in the French version does not add anything constructive to the notion of harm itself. The new adjective used to describe the kind of harm is not defined, and we would like the member for LaSalle—Émard to give us some clarification on that.
I would also propose, in case our motion is defeated, that the government define this notion of “dommage important” in the regulations, so there is absolutely no confusion as to what it means.
A case involving material harm resulted in a conviction in the United States whereas a similar case was judged differently in Canada. In fact, there was no conviction. That is why we want some clarification on this definition so we do not end up with a double standard.
I thank all my colleagues in the House for allowing me to make these few remarks on Motion No. 3.