Evidence of meeting #15 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
I want to express my support for Mr. LeBlanc's initiative. In fact, we have done this in the past; we spent a day and a half in Washington. In any case, we will have to do that, because even if there is an agreement, in the final analysis, the U.S. bias against us is still there: we have seen it in previous versions of the agreement tabled by the Americans. We can discuss that again.
The fact is we have not finished debating Mr. Julian's motion. Like Mr. Julian, I believe that…
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We have actually finished with the previous motion: I have ruled that it's out of order. From the information I was given, I believe that the correct decision is that this motion would require 48 hours notice. I have made that decision. If you can give me some information informally and I see that I was wrong....
I've read the agreement, Mr. Julian. I admit I don't understand it perfectly, but I don't believe that connection is close enough and direct enough. We're done with that; let's move on.
Now, if we're going to travel--
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Yes, because in my opinion, the July 1st agreement is related to the April 27th agreement, and the decision to not appoint judges, in the case of the extraordinary challenges process, is also related to the April 27th agreement. By that very fact, this matter is closely related to the discussions we have been having since April 27th.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Monsieur Paquette, you're not allowed debate, I understand from the clerk. If you're challenging a chair's ruling you have to go straight to the motion that the chair's ruling be sustained. If you want to go the formal route, that is the way to go, Mr. Paquette. I will hear no debate on this; we'll get straight to this.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
All those in favour that this motion made by Monsieur Paquette that the chair's ruling be sustained....
I've been informed by the clerk that this is the appropriate language if you are challenging a decision of the chair. You would be putting it in the affirmative that you uphold the decision of the chair. If you vote in favour of this, that means that you're not in favour of challenging the decision of the chair.
The question is that the chair's ruling be sustained.
Let's see a show of hands on the question that the chair's ruling be sustained. Those opposed?
Okay. The chair's decision has been successfully challenged.
Mr. Paquette, you can move forward with the motion of non-confidence in the chair at this time.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
No, no, no--just on the motion. We've overturned your decision on the alllowability of the motion.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We'll follow the procedure here. There is a motion that has been given notice on non-confidence in the chair, and I'm somewhat uncomfortable.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, that is not Mr. Paquette's motion. It's very clear: it's overruling your decision on the admissibility of motion number two. That was Mr. Paquette's motion. We then moved to consideration of motion number two.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
What the clerk has said is that the motion is not out of order now because my decision has not successfully been sustained, to use the proper language. Therefore, Mr. Julian can move ahead with motion number two.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
And I so move motion number two. I think we've had some debate, discussion, so I would move and hope that we could proceed--
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
If we're going to discuss the motion, I think we need to look at some amendments. Once again, following what seems to become a pattern here in this, there are a lot of wrong assumptions, absolutely false assumptions in this that I could not support. Where it says, in the second line, “Government of Canada have delayed legal proceedings”, I would suggest that the government has alleviated legal proceedings by actually reaching an agreement.
The part about “would otherwise bring to swift conclusion”--I don't know where on earth you would have come up with that. How many years have we been waiting for this swift conclusion that has not come? So that part would need to be stricken from it.
The assumption of the $40 million a month is a bit of an assumption.
I'm more offended by the false statements in the first three lines. So I would like to suggest that the word “delayed” be removed from that, and that it be “the Government of Canada have alleviated legal proceedings”, and eliminate “bring to swift conclusion”, because it's a false assumption to assume that was ever going to be a swift conclusion. Some lawyers have spent their entire careers at it: I don't call that a swift conclusion.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Menzies, just so we have this clear, could you explain the exact amendments again and where they come? I just want to have that.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I'm just working through it in my mind. I was assuming it was going to be ruled out of order, so I don't have it all....
I would like to remove the word “delayed” and change it to “alleviated” legal proceedings at the countervailing duty. So we would just eliminate “would otherwise bring to swift conclusion”, take that out of there--however it makes sense.
4:30 p.m.
A voice
That's it? One word?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
It's a wrong assumption to say it would bring a swift conclusion.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The amendment so far is removing “delayed” in the second line and replacing it with “alleviated”, and removing.... We haven't quite got the wording here, but basically removing “that would otherwise bring to swift conclusion”, and having the rest of the sentence fit together in a way that makes sense.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
There are a lot of other things that don't make sense in here. The extraordinary challenge has been suspended, but it would be immediately re-initiated. So to have this in here doesn't make sense.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
So how would you word that? I'm trying to figure out how you'd put that together with those words removed.