Evidence of meeting #31 for Canada-China Relations in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was china.
A video is available from Parliament.
9 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
The wording of the motion is:
That the [committee] express its deep disappointment that the Finance Minister ignored invitations sent by the committee; and, that the Minister of Finance has chosen not to appear during the committee's meeting on Canada's freeze in government-led activity with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; and that this be reported to the House.
9 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, again, these are matters that can easily be handled among MPs and not necessarily even at committee. I think Mr. Seeback is after some clips for theatrics, or I'm not sure what. We had a very productive meeting that took place weeks ago.
He seems to be agreeing with me. That in and of itself is interesting.
The point, Mr. Chair, is that we have witnesses here who want to present. I want to hear from them and I hope the majority of members do. Therefore, I move that we adjourn debate on this motion.
9 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Can I suggest a compromise, or do we have to vote now?
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
We have a motion, unfortunately, and there's no debate on that one. We will need to take a vote to adjourn debate on this particular motion.
Madam Clerk, I will ask you to call the roll.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We will continue.
All right, you wanted another shot, didn't you, Ms. McPherson? Go ahead.
9 p.m.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I did.
Because this is a committee that works very well together—and I'd like us to continue to work collaboratively—would it be possible to have a compromise?
Can we move this now and choose for the minister to have one more chance to come before the committee, and then perhaps next week have that vote, knowing very clearly what the vote will be at that time? This might give the minister the get-up-and-go to respond to our committee and come before our committee. I think we would all be more satisfied with this if we knew we were bringing it back in one week for a vote.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
We have a motion on the floor, and you've essentially made another motion, Ms. McPherson.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
I have to look to our clerk to see the order in which we do things.
Mr. Seeback.
9 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I would consider it to be an amendment to the motion.
Let's give it one more week. Let's amend the motion so that, if we don't have a date from the minister within the week, we then express our disappointment.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I'll accept that as a friendly amendment. If we don't have a date within a week, the committee will then express its deep disappointment and report it to the House.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Mr. Chair, I want to understand a procedural component.
What does this mean for the motion my colleague put forward and the amendment? Does that mean we hold the vote until after a week's time?
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
It's an amendment to the motion we have to vote on, and then we vote on the motion as amended.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Then we could bring another amendment to the amended motion.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Are we going to call the question on the amended motion? Is that where we are?
Then let's do that.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
How will this now read? What are we voting on now that the amendment has been put forward?