Evidence of meeting #10 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
I have to tell you, Mr. Chair, that the word "consider"... In fact, I had understood that it had been removed. We are ready to vote.
5:15 p.m.
A voice
Our intentions are good.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have a speakers list and we'll carry on.
We have a friendly amendment that now reads “consider the decisions of the Canadian Trade Tribunal”.
Can I beg the indulgence of the committee for one moment? I don't have sufficient background to determine whether or not the Canadian International Trade Tribunal actually makes decisions. I don't think they make decisions; they have findings--
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Given the perception, it could be "recommendations". It recommends that duty be charged. The fact remains that the recommendation made to the government is a decision by the tribunal, which has studied the matter.
The expression "decision and/or recommendation" would also work, but it would be preferable to say "recommendations".
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Can I ask the mover of that amendment and the acceptance of it--what do you want to decide on?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Yes. Take “systematically” out and put “consider” in. That's fine.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
It says now, after forestry sectors, “consider the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal”.
5:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Great. We can resume debate.
We have a speakers list, Mr. Pallister. The next on the list is Mr. Julian, oddly enough.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, as a member of the committee I have the right to call the question, and as chair you have the responsibility to test this committee to see if we're ready to move to the question. So by calling the question I'm asking you to consult the members of the committee by a vote as to whether or not we're ready to finally vote on the motion.
And that's procedure, which isn't in your little 200-page Conservative dirty tricks book.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I believe there is some correctness in what Mr. Julian just said. However, at the same time, when you're just about to vote on a question, even at the request of that member, I believe that when another individual of the committee suggests that he or she may have an amendment, which Mr. Pallister did, that would take precedence over it.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Point of order, Mr. Chair. I called the question prior to the amendment.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I've just asked the clerk for clarification on the order of proceedings here. I am told, as it is my understanding, that in committee you cannot call the question while there is still a speakers list. We still have four people on the speakers list. I'll ask the clerk for clarification.
5:20 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jacques Lahaie
As the Chair has just explained, as long as there are members who wish to discuss the question on the orders of the day, there is no time limit on speaking. He has to follow the list.
The previous question is not allowed in committee.
