International Trade Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Pallister.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I have a question on procedure.

It is my understanding that we don't go back. If there's an amendment, that takes precedence over the speakers list on the motion itself. In other words, I would like to propose an amendment, so can I not do that? Why do I have to wait until we go back to the speakers list for the main motion, when in fact I wish to propose an amendment to the main motion? Don't amendments take precedence over debating the main motion?

[The Clerk]

Yes. You have to be recognized by the chair to put that forward.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Oh, that's the trick.

[A voice]

And we have names in front of yours.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes, but that's for the main motion, and I have an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Pallister, you have the floor.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you. I would propose that we delete the words “especially those regarding safeguards” after the word “tribunal”.

The reason should be self-evident. We have in the previous sentence instructed the House of Commons to “consider the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal”. If we have instructed in that manner, why would we then go on to say “especially” something? What sense does that make? That is like saying: “No animals allowed in my restaurant, especially dogs.” What sense is there in that?

Let's simply clarify the wording here. It makes no sense to give instruction like that and then say “especially” something after that.

So I am moving that amendment, and I would like to speak to it at length, Mr. Chair.

[An hon. member]

Take a vote.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I firmly believe this is a commonsense amendment that I am proposing and I hope there's enough common sense on my colleagues' part that we could just clean up the language a bit here.

It is like a farmer I ran into one time in my business. Mr. Temelkovski can relate to this. He did a will and said, “I'm leaving the farm to my daughter on condition that she leave the guy she's married to.” You can't impose things like.

This is saying that we should consider the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal; then we're saying “especially” some of them. This just doesn't make any sense.

If you guys are going to go with me on that, I'll stop talking, and let's get with it. But I am sure my colleagues would want to expand on this at length.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have an amendment before us. Is there any continued debate on Mr. Pallister's amendment to delete the words “especially those regarding safeguards”?

If there is no further debate, then I am going to call for the motion.

Mr. Cardin?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay, we are back to the amendment of Mr. Pallister, which would delete the words “especially those regarding safeguards”.

(Amendment agreed to)

We are resuming debate on the original motion. We have on the speakers list Mr. Dhaliwal, Mr. Maloney, and Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I am fine with Brian Pallister's motion to systematically delete, and I think I have done it. So I would be willing to—

[An hon. member]

We're past that now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We are back on the original motion.

Is there no further debate?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Maloney.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think there is an obvious consensus that members of the opposition will support some type of rendition of this motion. Also, the government are opposed to it. But the reality is that this is a recommendation to the government; it is not binding the government. The opposition is trying to send a message to the government that they are very concerned about the issues in this motion. I would suggest that, because there is no binding effect, the government.... We are recommending that they consider.

Why don't we just get on with it and get over the semantics? We're going to sit here all night and at the next meeting debating little words here and there, but eventually there will be a motion that will come forward and that will be acceptable to the opposition but has no binding effect. Why don't we just get over it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Let's hold on a minute.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

No. And by the way, it's different. We've seen them now.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Leave it to the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

As Mr. Maloney did when he had the opportunity to chair, I would like to ask everyone to kindly not talk at the same time. We have to consider the interpreters who have to translate it all. When there are discussions like this where absolutely nothing can be understood, we can't even get things translated and we may be missing something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

I guess that was a point of order.

Mr. Cannan.