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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
If we take Mr. Seeback's motion, I think we've added basically that, if we don't have a date within a week, then the committee will express its deep disappointment that the Minister of Finance ignored invitations and this would be reported to the House.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I can't hear you. There's too much talking.
Could you repeat that, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Mr. Chair, could we ask for a small suspension just to review this motion, please?
January 29th, 2024 / 9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
The first thing we're voting on is Heather's amendment. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Correct.
Actually, because it was a friendly amendment, I think we can just vote on the whole thing as amended.
Liberal
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I don't think we have friendly amendments. Do we? I don't know. Anyway, we'll vote on Heather's amendment, and then we'll deal with the rest of it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
If that's the way you'd like to approach it, then I'm easy on that.
Basically, the amendment is to allow one week for the minister to respond. It's to give us a date. It's not to appear but to give us a date.
Can we take the vote on the amendment, please?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to the main motion.
Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We would like to bring a few amendments to this motion. I'll start with the first one, if I may.
I'll read what we would be proposing: “That the Special Committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China Relationship express its deep disappointment that the Finance Minister was unable to appear.” This is what we would like to add.
We would like to strike, “ignored invitations sent by the committee; and, that the Minister of Finance has chosen not to appear”. We would like to strike that as a first proposed amendment, please.
The reason we're saying this Mr. Chair, with all due respect, is that I think the wording makes it sound like the minister does nothing every day as the Minister of Finance and that she has intentionally refused to come. That is probably not true. Actually, it's not “probably”; it is not true. The fact is that, unfortunately, she was unable to appear, and on this we need to express our deep disappointment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
I will look to the clerk to process that, so that we have a very clear text of the proposed amended motion.
Can you repeat that for us, Madam Clerk?
The Clerk
Mrs. Lalonde, I would ask you to repeat what you said. As I understand it, you’re proposing to replace the word “ignored” in the English text with the words
“was unable to appear”. It's to delete “that the Minister of Finance has chosen not to appear”.
As per specifically what you cut and where you cut, I would like it if you could be a bit more precise.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Yes. I apologize, Madam Clerk.
On the removal, we would strike “ignored invitations sent by the committee; and, that the Minister of Finance has chosen not to appear”. This is what we would like to strike.
We would like it to read, “that the Finance Minister was unable to appear”. That's as a first proposed amendment, and there will be three.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
Okay. Let's vote on it.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I think that Mrs. Lalonde was on to something. If it helps, this could be a compromise to deal with some of the concerns that the Conservatives have and that Ms. McPherson was also trying to address.
We would keep the spirit, if not entirely the words, of Mrs. Lalonde and add to it that, if in one week the committee has not received a response from the Department of Finance, the committee proceed to consideration of the motion from Mr. Seeback.
I will repeat that slowly if you wish, but that's the—
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
We were taking out “unable to meet” rather than “ignored” because obviously we know there's been correspondence back and forth with the regular clerk of the committee, who was kind enough to provide updates to the clerk tonight. There is clear back and forth, and therefore an interest on the part of the Minister of Finance to come before the committee. The question is on a date.
I understand that colleagues across the way want to get this settled. I hope that it can be settled. I think it can be settled within a week's time. If it's not, then we would go on to consider Mr. Seeback's motion.
It's almost 9:30. I hope we can squeeze in some questions. Why don't we just agree here that, if we haven't dealt with this in a week, we come back to Mr. Seeback's motion.
We can do an honourable thing here and just agree. As Ms. McPherson said, we've worked well as a committee before. I'm willing to take that message back to the Department of Finance to make clear that we need an answer in the next few days.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken Hardie
It would occur that we have Mr. Seeback's motion. We have dispensed with amendments except for the one about “if we don't have a date within a week”.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I would move to adjourn debate again, Mr. Chair, with everything I just said in mind.
