Evidence of meeting #26 for Canada-China Relations in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
The Clerk
Yes. I do have it here. We're essentially taking the b) from the motion that was adopted on March 31, 2021, and just replacing the b) from the amendment from Mr. Genuis as a subamendment.
When we are doing motions in this committee, we don't need to put the name of the committee, because it's understood that we are talking about this committee.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Chair, I would only suggest that perhaps if this is going to the House, it might have to identify the committee in some way or other.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
If it's going to the House, it would be by way of a report from the committee, would it not?
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Whatever's proper precedent is fine. I rely on the clerk's advice on that aspect.
The Clerk
Yes, absolutely. It would have the headline that says “Special Committee on Canada-China Relations” and then the text of the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you.
It currently doesn't include reporting to the House, does it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
We all do that sometimes.
Mr. Oliphant, I presume that's not by accident.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
No; it's maybe by regret.
I'm in favour of this change. I would prefer that this happen before it goes to the House. I think it comes back to committee before it goes to the House; however, I can live with this. To me, the timing should go from the law clerk to us to the House. I would support the subamendment, which would mean I would be supportive of the amendment, which would mean I would be supportive of the motion eventually.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you very much, Mr. Oliphant.
Does anyone wish to debate the matter further?
Go ahead, Mr. Harris.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Oliphant, given your experience in dealing with the public health agency and your experience within government, what are your views on the timelines that are being proposed here and the opportunity for the potential of a compromise? Is this indeed a set-up that might lead to some opportunity for reason to prevail, shall we say?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Mr. Oliphant has used the raise hand function, which makes me think he wishes to reply.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I think that in the context of the pandemic, giving the health agency a little longer would give them a little longer opportunity than the seven days to negotiate or to rethink and to come back with something. We can't do a sub-subamendment, so I would only try to get unanimous consent to move that to 14 days instead of seven days. I just want to respect the fact that these people are already working seven days a week, 15 hours a day. I'm just going to try for 14 days. If we can get unanimous consent, we could do it that way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.
Is there an objection to Mr. Oliphant's request for unanimous consent to—
Conservative
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I go back to what we just heard from our colleague Mr. Oliphant. The Public Health Agency of Canada is working day and night. I think every party ought to admit this, and if it's not going to be 14 days, would the committee consider 10 days as a compromise, through unanimous consent? We've gone this far. I think there's a great deal to be said about the manoeuvring on our side to meet in the middle somehow. Instead of seven days, can we go to 10?
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
With great respect, we're on a subamendment from Mr. Harris, so my suggestion would be that we complete consideration of that subamendment. That might give members a couple of minutes to chew on Mr. Fragiskatos' suggestion, and frankly, the appropriate time to consider that suggestion would be once we're back on the main amendment anyway. Why don't we just take the vote on the subamendment and then return to this issue?
