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.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Are you going to adjourn debate on your own amendment?
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Just hold on.
Has that amendment been received, then?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Here's what I'm going to propose.
If the spirit of this is basically to give the minister a week to come up with a date, then we could agree amongst us that this is what we will do. We'll give the minister a week. Then, per your suggestion, Mr. Fragiskatos, if we don't have a date in a week's time, we go back and act on Mr. Seeback's motion.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
We have wasted all this time. Let's just vote on the motion as amended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Mr. Fragiskatos has actually come up with a new motion, basically.
Have you not?
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I was just trying to find a way that we could strike an agreement tonight to give it another week. Then we'd come back to Mr. Seeback's motion and try to get some questions in to our witnesses.
If Mr. Seeback wants to persist on this, we can, I suppose.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
We have rejected some amendments. We've rejected adjourning debate on this. What we do have is an amendment to the original motion that basically says that if we don't have a date within a week, then....
That's the amendment we have yet to move on.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
When Mrs. Lalonde's amendment was defeated, I said that I was putting forward the spirit, if not the letter, of what Mrs. Lalonde had just put forward, which was voted down. I was adding to it that, if we hadn't heard back in a week, we would revisit Mr. Seeback's motion.
That's what I put forward.
January 29th, 2024 / 9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
If we deal with that as an amendment, then we can vote on that.
Be clear if you can, Mr. Fragiskatos. This is an amendment to Mr. Seeback's motion.
Restate it.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It's everything that Ms. Lalonde put forward—which the clerk already has the text of—with the following added: “that, if in one week the committee has not received a response from the Department of Finance, the committee proceed to the consideration on the motion by Mr. Seeback.”
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'm just asking a quick question.
This one's basically just doing exactly the same thing as Mr. Seeback's motion, so we're going to have to redo all of this work.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Why did you guys vote it down then? Why did you vote down the amendment by Marie-France?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It was because I don't think it's actually true. I do think she's actually ignoring us.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It can't be.
By definition we just heard that there's been plenty of correspondence.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It's been four months. I feel as though that's long enough to give us a date.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
We've had votes on suggested changes to some of the language to perhaps recharacterize the finance minister's reaction to the invitation to appear. We've had language suggested that we voted on and that was rejected.
What we now have is the amendment that Mr. Seeback has proposed that in essence—and the chair believes much the same as Mr. Fragiskatos has indicated—we give it one week, and if there's no date, then the rest of this motion will be acted upon. It's basically that.
What I would suggest we do is vote on Mr. Seeback's amendment, which would put us in the situation of having one week to come up with a date. If there is no date, then the motion with the amendments suggested by Mr. Seeback would basically be acted upon.
Ms. Lalonde, go ahead.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Mr. Chair, I do have another amendment—it's towards the end of the motion—that I would like to reflect on with my colleagues. I would certainly hope that, in the spirit of collaboration, we could agree on this last part of the proposed amendment to the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
All right.
I think though that to basically come to a landing on Mr. Fragiskatos'.... That's kind of like another amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
We are almost out of time.
We can hear your amendment now, quickly if you can read it.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I certainly can, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure for me.
I feel very disappointed that the first one was not agreed upon but, as I said, in the spirit of collaboration I really hope that my colleagues will consider it. For our clerk, our analysts and our interpreters, I'll go as slowly as possible to make sure everybody understands.
As the motion is written, if you go to the last part, it reads, “activity with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; and”. I would strike “that this be reported to the House” and instead add “that the committee request a government response to this motion”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
I'm informed by the clerk that the only time you can get a government response is if there has been a report to the House.
In essence if we expected the government to respond to this, we would have to report it to the House, because reporting it to the House is what you do to get a response. We cannot just say that we strike “and that this be reported to the House” and replace it with “that the committee request a government response” because what are they responding to? There's no report.
Mr. Fragiskatos.