Public Safety committee  In this case, the amendment is dealing more with the issues of parameters and the inquiries that the board would be making. From what we understand, based on our knowledge, they already have the power to make inquiries to ascertain that there has been good conduct...all of those

Public Safety committee  In this case, you could add it afterwards. We could deal with whatever is left over from Mr. Dubé's amendment. If we're dealing with paragraph 7(b) and Mr. Dubé would like to deal with paragraph 7(a), we could deal with it, but conceptually it would make sense to address the issu

Public Safety committee  That makes sense.

Public Safety committee  Procedurally speaking, right now we are dealing with the subamendment, and we can only deal with one subamendment at a time. We could deal with the subamendment and if Mr. Dubé wants, he could either move another subamendment after we've dealt with this one to further amend it an

Public Safety committee  Because they address the same thing, yes, they're tied together.

Public Safety committee  I think it would make sense to at least answer Mr. Dubé's question and then see how he can proceed at that point.

Public Safety committee  No, unfortunately.

Public Safety committee  In other circumstances, there are examples of creating an obligation to report back to the House or something like that, and it's still within what the department does and within what the bill foresees. In this case, the concept is clearly to allow the applicants to apply on th

Public Safety committee  In the case of adding criteria to something in a bill, when you have a list of criteria, you can always play around within the scope of what's required. In this case, we're going beyond just requirements and giving the board additional responsibility, creating an additional admin

Public Safety committee  Essentially, as Mr. McKay said, in this case the scope of the bill is fairly narrow. It creates an onus on the applicant and allows them to apply for a record suspension. It also waives the fee. Because of that fairly narrow scope in this bill, introducing a new concept that woul

Fisheries committee  CPC-2 would essentially delete the definition of “ongoing”, from lines 24 on page 2 to line 3 on page 3, but CPC-3 would amend lines that are in that definition. If we delete the definition of “ongoing”, and insert a new definition, then CPC-3 doesn't have anything it would amend