Evidence of meeting #3 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay. Now we have a new amendment, so we'll have a new speakers list for the amendment.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
No. If you have a friendly amendment, you just add it in there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Wait a minute. We voted on the amendment. So you're having a new amendment.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Yes, just adding the word “study” for greater clarity. Exactly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay, we have a new amendment that is exactly the same as the one we just had. It says “the committee report this study to the House.”
Is there a debate on that point?
Mr. Cannan, did you want to add something?
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
No. If that was a friendly amendment, we would just....
Conservative
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
I would like you to clarify something for me, Mr. Chairman. Will this motion be subject to a report to the House, so that it knows a study will be conducted? If someone requests that the matter be debated, any debate will focus on the relevance of carrying out study, which in essence will not change anything. I'm confident that after three hours of debate, the House will agree to the proposal. We will then proceed with our study, call witnesses and then draw up our report.
As I understand it, the motion as drafted call for the House to be informed initially that a study of the agreement is to be conducted, and that subsequently, the completed report will be tabled to the House. I simply want to know if my understanding of the sequence of events is correct. If it is, then I thank you. Otherwise, I'd like to know.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Maybe I could ask the clerk to try to define it. There's a simple difference of one word here, and that is adding “study”; that is the current amendment. For clarity for everyone here, Monsieur Cardin has asked the question, and I'll ask the clerk to explain the difference.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Can I have a point of clarification from the other member?
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
We know what he's going to say, but we want a point of clarification from Mr. Julian.
The Clerk
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
As I understand it, the motion as worded would be tabled to the House, as you said.
Mr. Pallister's amendment—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—would mean that a report would be tabled to the House only upon completion of the study.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
You're not wrong, and yes it is my intention that we, as a committee, decide what's appropriate for us to study. We don't go back to the House and debate the appropriateness of what it is that we agree to study. I think that's an ill-advised course of action. We are to be the master of our own destiny, not going back to the House and asking whether it's appropriate that we have hearings on Korea. This is our committee. It would be dangerous practice for us to go back to the House of Commons and ask members to debate, for any length of time, what we should do here. We have a hard enough time determining our own priorities without asking 300 other people to do them for us.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, this is problematic procedurally, for two reasons. One, I don't understand why the Conservatives are reluctant to let the House of Commons members of Parliament know that we're conducting this study. They haven't made that case very clearly.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Mr. Julian, that's simply being provocative. I think that clouds rather than clears the matter.
