Evidence of meeting #88 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Both of her amendments have been withdawn, and we are now on your amendment.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I just want to make sure that they withdrew both, if that was the intention.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I just want to clarify the status of my amendment before the vote.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll briefly do what I must do in every situation such as this, which is to remind the committee that I'm here because you passed a motion that requires me to be here, so that I don't have the right to put forward this amendment at report stage, which I would have vastly preferred.
In my brief opportunity to speak to this, let me say that I'm very gratified to see the government move an amendment that strengthens the bill. It obviously would nullify the one that I put forward. I just want to say briefly that it is a significant improvement to ensure that the minister's requirement to consider the risks is now mandatory and not merely discretionary. Assuming that my friend Anita's amendment is passed, it will in fact strengthen this legislation.
I need to put on the record, with your permission, Mr. Chair, the deep regret that we have not fixed the U.S. exemption loophole that remains in Bill C-47, unless someone in the course of this committee's clause-by-clause is able to amend that section of the bill to say that we will track U.S. sales and close what has generally been described by most of the groups before this committee as the loophole you can drive a tank through.
I appreciate the moment to support the amendment the government is putting forward. My amendment is put forward, and I have no power to withdraw it or not. It is deemed, under the terms of the motion this committee passed, to have been moved, and my opportunity is merely to come to speak to it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you very much, Madam May.
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Then we will go to other amendments within clause 8.
Also, as the Liberal amendment is now adopted, amendment LIB-3, which the Liberals are presenting, will also be adopted as a consequential amendment, but we'll remind you of that when we get to it as well.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Sorry, Mr. Chair, could you repeat that? I didn't get that very clearly.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
The Liberal amendment number LIB-3 that is in the package will also be adopted, because it's a consequential amendment, but I will remind you of that once we get to it. I just wanted to let you know in advance. That's the ruling of the clerk.
Also, since the Liberal amendment, Madam Vandenbeld's, was just passed, amendments NDP-1, PV-1, and Bloc Québécois-1 cannot be moved, as they amend the same lines.
Would you like to speak to this before we move on?
Mr. Thériault.
Québec debout
Luc Thériault Québec debout Montcalm, QC
Mr. Chair, Ms. Vandenbeld's amendment concerns lines 11 to 22. Our amendment would make an addition after line 22, so I don't see why we wouldn't discuss our amendment.
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Ms. Vandenbeld's amendment replaces lines 11 to 22.
Québec debout
Legislative Clerk
Yes, lines 11 to 22 on page 4. Your amendment replaces lines 13 and 14, so the lines you're trying to amend have, in fact, disappeared, so they can no longer be amended. It's possible to amend a line only once. That's why it's not possible to amend—
Québec debout
Luc Thériault Québec debout Montcalm, QC
Forgive me, but are you referring to our first or second amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Is there any further need for explanation? If not, then, of course, we will go to NDP-2.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
It's my understanding—and I have to admit that it's with a bit of surprise— that the first amendment, rather than having been tabled with a whole series of work on our agenda, was somehow withdrawn. I would ask for the unanimous consent of my colleagues, who are all present here. As we all will recall, before Christmas, we took Bill C-47 off our action list because we were advised that a series of amendments were coming from the government. We worked in the spirit of goodwill to see that through. Today, given the tariffs imposed by President Trump on our aluminum and steel industries, I did a brief media discussion after question period, which held me up by a couple of minutes from coming to this meeting. In many ways, I was standing up for the thousands of members of the United Steelworkers, and organizations like that, that are concerned about these tariffs.
In light of that, and with my friends in the NDP here, I would hope that they would see that it's our responsibility, following such rash action from our largest trading partner, to be part of the solution to push back. Considering that was why, we would have tabled CPC-1, which was out there as a suggestion from the stakeholders we heard from. Why it might have been withdrawn would be called sharp practice, in the legal profession, or certainly, you could say, unfairness.
I'm trying to be very respectful of people's time and presence here today, but I'd like unanimous consent from our group to say that we can now deal with that because we certainly had enough things we could have worked on while I was doing the media interviews.