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
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
No, then we need a little amendment just to say it's the study, if we're in agreement. I thought that's what we were....
Navdeep, you make a motion. Peter will give me hell if I make another one.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
That's something that comes when the study is produced.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Just so that we're clear, we're going to have two reports to the House. We're going to report that we're having our study....
As though nobody will know? It seems redundant.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Chair, the first thing is, we are just making a statement that we are doing that study, and once that study is done, then we are presenting an official report from you. That's what I think.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
No, it's not quite. The motion says report this motion as a report to the House, and we'll take House time debating this motion. That's what's intended.
Conservative
November 22nd, 2007 / 4:05 p.m.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, this is standard format. It allows you to inform members of the House of Commons that we are conducting these hearings. It's very simple; it's very straightforward: you bring it to the House and you inform members of the House of Commons that we're conducting these hearings.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Peter, they're going to know when you talk to the media this weekend.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I call for the question. Let's move on to the report that we have to look at today.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I just want to consult with the clerk on this.
We have a speakers list.
Gentlemen, I just want to clarify here what the implication of this is, the difference between saying in the last line “and that the committee report this to the House”.... If we just say that, then what will happen is that I as chair will stand up in the House and report that we're going to do this study.
What that also allows is that any member of the House then can stand up and say, “We want three hours of debate in the House on this motion.”
Is that your intent? Is that what you want to do?
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
The reason for that, Mr. Chair, is that there is a concern that this deal might possibly be signed while we're debating this issue here in committee. This allows us to go on record—and allows you to present it in the House—that the committee is examining this trade agreement and we are consulting the stakeholders and taking into consideration what they have to say, and that we don't want any deal signed until the final report is submitted.
This allows us a safety net in case a deal is signed. That is the intention behind it: to call to the House, if a deal is signed, saying: look, we put it on record that we are debating this issue in committee and that we want to present a report. So we put the government on notice and we let the minister know that any deal that is struck while we're trying to study it would be a compromise of the process—in committee at least. That's the intent.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
So the intent is simply to report it to the House, not to have three hours of debate in the House on this motion.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
That's not the intent, but that is always an option.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
It's no longer your option, then; it could be any member of the House. If you want that to happen, it's going to happen as soon as you do this. It's out of your hands at that point.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
It is, but I think there are fair-minded, level-headed parliamentarians on this committee who understand it.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I'll just propose adding “this study” in the bottom line, to read “this study to the House”, because we get to debate this thing here at committee. If we debate it in the House before or in the process of hearing witnesses, we're by necessity going to be speaking only about the process; otherwise, we'd be prejudging what the testimony is that we've invited people to come to give. We debate it anyway when it comes forward.
If we could get a negotiation done, which has rarely happened in the last decade and a half, then we could debate it here and we can debate it in the House as part of the normal process.
So rather than creating a circumstance where, I fully suspect, some of our colleagues would want to pre-empt our discussions—and that's how I would view it—and enter into a debate in the House before we are done our process as a committee of hearing witnesses.... I think that is duplicitous, at the very best, in terms of what it is we're trying to do as a committee, which is to honestly and openly hear the concerns and some of the positive and hopeful comments of Canadian people around this deal.
My understanding originally was that this is a study we were going to report to the House. That's why I would, for greater clarity, say the word “study” after “this” on the last line, so that we “report this study to the House.”
