Evidence of meeting #11 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aid.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Let's see if that's procedurally in order. I just want to find out if Mr. Bergeron's motion is now dilatory in the sense that it adjourns debate or whether we can continue the discussion.
4:45 p.m.
The Clerk
You can certainly continue discussion if people would like to speak.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'll just point out for those who might be concerned about doing something inconsistent with the trade committee that the only actual motion here, aside from the preambles, is that the committee call upon the government to ensure that any post-Brexit trade deal between Canada and the United Kingdom is consistent with the principles of the Good Friday Agreement.
Surely the trade committee would not be coming up with anything different from that. They might do something beyond that, but this is a basic principle on which I think we should have no difficulty not running afoul of the trade committee.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Okay, have we exhausted views? Does anybody else want to comment on this?
Mr. Oliphant, go ahead.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
As I said, I'm predisposed to do it. My dilemma is that there's an interpretive nature to something being consistent with something.
Mr. Harris, absolutely we can do this. I think we should have something that is consistent, but I don't know how you measure that: Something is consistent in the eyes of whom? I just want it on the record that it's a very difficult thing to determine whether something is consistent with an international agreement, because that would have to be adjudicated in some way.
That said, I'm fine to go with this and then move on, because I don't think it's a big issue.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Okay. Are there any other views?
In that case, let's move to a vote.
Madam Clerk, just before we go there, you've signalled that unless we have unanimous consent we need a recorded division. Is that correct?
Let me just ask, is there unanimous consent to adopt Mr. Harris's motion?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Sorry, Mr. Chair, why do we need unanimous consent?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
I will need the assistance of the clerk to answer that. I think there's a motion we passed previously that requires it.
Madam Clerk, go ahead.
4:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, thank you. It's per the terms of the motion adopted on September 23 in the House concerning voting in hybrid committees.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Do I have unanimous consent to adopt Mr. Harris's motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Congratulations, Mr. Harris.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
This concludes the public portion of our committee business. I ask your indulgence for what I hope will be not much more than maybe another 20 minutes or so of discussion. I won't prejudge. We have until 5:30.
The link is in your inbox. We will take a few minutes to reconnect in camera.
Thank you so much.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
