In response to André, I was not suggesting that you brought your motion forward to make mischief. Quite the opposite. I think this is an important issue. I listened carefully when the poultry producers were here talking about the issues they're facing and their belief that article 28 is the right remedy for them. I remember when similar arguments were made in the past regarding dairy, and the government has decided to go down that path. I also know in both cases there's been some debate that an article 28 remedy under WTO could actually have some unintended and negative consequences in the realm of NAFTA, and I'd like to hear answers to those questions.
My point was simply that, using your motion as an example, when we get to that I'm going to be hoping that we can amend it and that we can actually hear from other people and have a fulsome hearing on it. That's why the suggestion of “let's just pop through these four today quickly and then move on to the APF report”.... I'm just saying, as an example, I think it's the substance of the motion that causes me to want to deal with it. To just pass it as is, in my view, would be irresponsible. I want to deal with it.
So I don't know where we land here, and I'm certainly no expert on process. But I think in committees it's been pointed out a couple of times that this is a minority government, and whether it's in the House or whether it's in the committee, different members or caucuses have different tools at their disposal. Certainly members of the Bloc and the NDP would appreciate that there are times when in a minority you use your right to speak extensively to an issue as a way to influence outcomes or to try to change other people's points of view or to try to convince them to your point of view.
While it may be unusual in the Canadian context that government members are doing this, I think that's because it's unusual in the Canadian context that we have minority governments like this. Typically the majority and the government is the same group of people and the minority is the opposition parties. We're in an unusual situation here. I do not think it is at all inappropriate for any individual member or any caucus to feel that it's within their rights to speak to a motion and to speak extensively to it, if they think that may alter the outcome.