That's wonderful, so you can eat up three hours of House time debating this, on a concurrence motion in the House, which has been the pattern over and over and over again.
Actually, I would like to get some clarification from the clerk. As I look at the minutes from the other four committees that have the identical, almost identical, motion before them, it seems to me that one committee has actually voted it down, but there are two committees that have agreed to amended versions of the motion and one that has delayed it. So we have two committees that have already done it.
Could you clarify for me, then, in each of these cases, if we were to vote yes as well, conceivably, could concurrence motions be moved in the House on each of these, so that they could eat up a potential of nine hours of House time in total to deal with pretty much the same issue? Is that correct? Yes.
So nine hours of House time could be eaten up by us, potentially saving all of 19 minutes now in committee, if we address Mr. Savage's suggestion there.
Again, I'd point out that it is very, very clear what this is all about, and it's not about the content of the motion itself. If it were, it would have been moved as one motion in one committee. It's clear that this is simply political. It's simply about obstruction. It's simply about eating up more House time—as we've said, nine hours if we pass this, and potentially 12 hours if the other committee decides to pass the same thing.
I would read here, from the minutes from the international trade meeting, the motion that was amended. It looks as though it reads:
That the Committee recommend that the government introduce as soon as possible an improved aid package for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, including trade measures to support these sectors, to consider the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, to bring Canada's trade laws into line with the United States and the European Union with respect to anti-dumping measures consistent with WTO guidelines, to carry out open and thorough studies on the impact of all ongoing trade negotiations on the manufacturing sector, and report the adoption of this motion to the House at the earliest opportunity.
The motion was amended by replacing the words “to bring” with the words “consider bringing” in the English version only.
And then there was some deletion here. The motion was amended by deleting all the words after the word “sectors”.
So that was one. I don't need to read the whole motion as amended; I'll save the time there. But it's on a similar topic.
Then there's the motion that we had before the natural resources committee, which says:
Given the seriousness of the crisis rocking the forestry sector, that the committee recommend that the government introduce as soon as possible an improved aid package for the forestry sector to diversify forestry economies, which is to be administered by Quebec, the other provinces and the territories, and that a recommendation be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity following the study of the forestry industry.
I won't read the one the finance committee has voted down at this point, but I will read the one that has been delayed now in the industry committee, which is:
That the Committee recommend to the government, in view of the serious crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, that it implement without delay an improved assistance plan for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, including $500 million to restore Technology Partnerships Canada; $1.5 billion in reimbursable contributions to allow companies to purchase new equipment; a $1 billion diversification fund—