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.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
We have a motion. There were very clear interventions. I do not understand the resistance to reporting to members of Parliament. It has not been explained by any Conservative member as to why they are resisting this.
Secondly, this is traditionally a motion that takes place once a study has been completed. For example, we have a study on Tuesday that we are supposed to be examining today. Once we've completed this report we will then have a motion to report this study to the House. That's what takes place after the study is complete, after members of Parliament have signed off.
I'm not even sure if Mr. Pallister's amendment is in order. It essentially says that the study will be reported to the House before this committee has adopted the study. In the years I've been in this House, I've certainly not ever seen a motion that sends a study to the House prior to the study being considered by members of Parliament. So I'm not even sure procedurally that it's in order. We'll certainly be consulting with our house leader and whip on this, but very clearly it's unprecedented as far as I can see.
We have a motion. We had an amendment that was proposed by the Conservatives and accepted by the majority of the committee. Let's just get this motion done, and let's go on to the study itself. Let's vote down this amendment because it's so problematic, procedurally unclear, and because it may well be counter to committee procedures. Let's just vote it down, get the motion, and move forward with the study itself.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Let me ask you specifically what your intention is by including that line in your motion that the committee report this to the House. What is your intention with regard to this? What is it you're referring to: this motion to the House--
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
So if we pass this motion, you want to report that to the House.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, normally it would be you or one of the vice-chairs that would simply indicate to all members of Parliament that we are conducting a study. You would bring the motion forward; it takes about 30 seconds.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Why would you do that? I've never done that with any committee. We already put it on the website after Tuesday's meeting. It's already been reported in that regard. The clerk put on the website that we are doing this study, because the study was approved at the last meeting.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
All this does, Mr. Julian, if you would allow me to finish, is allow you to bring this motion—not the study, but this motion—to the House for debate for three hours. That's what I think the government is trying to avoid. We want to deal with this in this committee, rather than in the House. That's the difference, and if anyone is being misled here, that's the point. So I'm asking you, if that's your intent, to be clear about it and be honest about it, and don't try to mislead the House by suggesting that you're not, or that the committee—
4:20 p.m.
NDP
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
To say that a member of this committee is “misleading” other members of the committee is very inappropriate language. I'm sorry.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I think Mr. Bains explained the intention very succinctly, and so did I. We have both explained.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I'm asking what your intention is. Is it your intention to have this motion discussed in the House?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The motion would be brought forward to the House of Commons. All members of Parliament would be informed. As Mr. Bains also indicated—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
That's quite clear. Would you answer my question so we can carry on here?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
If you allow me to speak, Mr. Chair, I'm very sorry, I think we have—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I don't think you're sorry at all. You're playing games here. I want to get to the point.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would hope, Mr. Chair, that as the new chair you would take members' concerns seriously, and I would hope you would avoid inappropriate language, because I find your choice of words very unfortunate indeed.
As Mr. Bains said, and as I have said, if the government's intention is to proceed forthwith with negotiating the agreement, as Mr. Emerson has indicated, then yes, it gives the opposition a chance to debate the motion in the House, if the government is pushing ahead. That's what we've said all along. But it fulfills the most important function, because as you know, concurrence motions also are subject to an order of precedence. It's not clear at all that any member will move the concurrence motion—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
So what we essentially have is the opportunity here to let all members of Parliament know that this committee is undertaking the study, and hopefully that would also indicate to the government that it shouldn't be fast-tracking negotiations if there are concerns in a number of manufacturing sectors about potential losses of jobs.
