Evidence of meeting #56 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was classification.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Raymond Bonin Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
I'll repeat what I said. I'm not talking about when it was said or the notice of motion.
You must already have a list of subjects you want to study. I think we should put that on the list and later on, as a committee, we decide when we're going to do it.
When I was chair of committee, we had 40 things on the list, and then the committee decided what's first. You don't need a motion for that.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, I had raised this some time back as one of the items we would look at studying. The decision at the time was that we would first bring in Public Works and trade representatives, and then we would bring in other representatives on this issue. So this is in fact a continuation of a topic for which we have already had witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Yes, it is.
Does anybody want to debate this motion, or would you like to vote on it?
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
I'd like to vote on the amendment.
I don't mind the topic at all, I just don't want us to spend ten meetings on it. I think we should probably limit it to two--at maximum, two. If we can do it in one, good, but maximum, two.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
The motion is that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates immediately continue its study on trade agreements and federal government procurement, to better understand the limitations and possibilities for leveraging federal procurement to create made-in-Canada jobs, with a view to making recommendations to the House of Commons; and that the appropriate officials from the Canadian business community, Canadian Labour Congress, as well as trade and procurement experts from think tanks like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives be invited to share their thoughts and recommendations.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I agree with Ray on this. I think it's an entirely legitimate topic to be raising here—fine—but as Ray said, a number of committee members have suggested different subjects to the subcommittee on priorities and planning. Just because Peggy brings in a motion—on a legitimate topic—and has a vote, trumping what other members have been pushing for—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
We've already had one meeting on this. Perhaps we can have another meeting.
Yes, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Just for clarification, Madam Chair, what exactly is meant by the word “immediately”? I think we need clarification on that, or else a different phraseology there.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, I'm fine with taking out the word “immediately”. We've already had one meeting on this subject, and I'd like to continue on with it. If the House rises tomorrow, we're not going to have a meeting on it immediately. I'm fine taking that word out. I just don't want it to mean next January, either.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Okay.
It's a friendly amendment. Everybody's in accord with removing the word “immediately”?
Liberal
Raymond Bonin Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Madam Chair, can we agree to have a consensus that it be put on the list of issues to study?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Or we can vote on the motion. It's the same thing.
All those in favour of the motion...?
Liberal