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.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you. I think we have to move now to the discussion of the subamendment then. It's a little different.
Is that wording acceptable to you, Mr. Pallister?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
No, not really. No, I'd like to deal with the original motion. I'd like to deal with them one at a time, Mr. Chairman, that's the only reason I'm saying this. I think it's simpler. We can just deal with mine. It's going to get voted down, it looks like, and then we can deal with the other. It'd be easier, I think, wouldn't it? I don't know. It's up to you.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I just thought it'd be easier to deal with them one at a time. It's just a suggestion.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
All right, then, it will be have to be dealt with. Unfortunately, it's a little late to do that, because we have a subamendment moved, so we have to deal with it as a subamendment. We'll vote on the subamendment.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Then we'll go to your motion, if you want to do it that way. It seems a little backwards. If we make it a friendly amendment, then we can just amend your amendment to include the wording that Mr. Cannan suggested. That would be:
That the Standing Committee on International Trade conduct extensive hearings on the implications of the Canada-Korea bilateral agreement currently being negotiated, and that the committee report this study to the House.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We can always move another one.
We have a new one on the floor, and I don't have any names on the speakers list.
Is there any debate on the subamendment?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have a vote on the amendment. The motion would now read:
That the Standing Committee on International Trade conduct extensive hearings on the implications of the Canada-Korea bilateral agreement currently being negotiated, and that the committee report this study to the House.
(Amendment negatived)
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We return to debate on the original motion, then.
Mr. Pallister.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Well, I'll try again to accommodate what I think were Peter's main points. He said he wants us to inform the House. I agreed with that and agreed to allow the amendment that says “report to the House” in.
What concerns me about the whole motion as it's worded, colleagues, is that it presupposes that we should as a committee focus on the concerns, but mentions nothing about the potential or the opportunities that might come from such an agreement, something I think we'd all be hopeful would also be there.
If we're going to presuppose, I think that's a bit dangerous, in the sense that the results of our inquiries.... If we're seen to prejudge that this is more a problem than a benefit at the outset, with this motion, then our hearings will also be seen to be conducted in the spirit of prejudging in that way.
For that reason, I'd rather see us as a committee not try to make conclusions in this motion, but rather remain somewhat neutral in what we're pursuing. After all, we're doing these hearings to try to pursue input from Canadian sectors that we're going to listen to. Some of them have concerns for sure: we've heard those concerns. Others also see that there are some opportunities, and I wouldn't want to see our motion just say ”concerns” and nothing else.
So I'll propose an amendment that I hope addresses effectively the suggestions Peter made earlier, but at the same time does not prejudge: that we're starting these hearings for the next three weeks from the negative perspective; that we are beginning them assuming at the outset that this is a bad deal. We should be open to hearing what people have to say.
With that in mind, I would propose an amendment. It would delete the words after “testimony” in the third line. I'll just read it as I hope colleagues might agree to have it:
That the Standing Committee on International Trade conduct extensive hearings on the implications of the Canada-Korea bilateral agreement currently being negotiated, specifically hearing testimony
Then we'd delete that next piece and go down to the next line and say:
from a wide range of sectors and regions.
In essence, it would delete the words after “testimony”; it would delete “on concerns about Canadian job losses”, which presupposes the input we'd be listening to, and instead would say “specifically hearing testimony from a wide range of sectors”.
Then, rather than try to list specific sectors, which, again, we should not do.... Each of us has submitted lists of people we want to hear from, certainly, but I don't presume to try to limit the witnesses to these categories; you may have other suggestions.
So I would propose taking out everything after the word “sectors” and then going down to—it could say “diverse regions”; I'm fine with that—“diverse regions of Canada; and that the committee report this to the House”.
Is that okay?
This would serve Peter's suggestion about informing the House. At the same time, it would address the concerns we want to see addressed, but it would not prejudge what the input would be that we would receive; nor would it narrow the nature of the sectors we should be listening to. We should be listening to as many sectors as we can possibly do in the six meetings we've allocated, I think.
There would be a suggestion.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have another amendment. I would ask the clerk to read the amendment, as you understand it.
November 22nd, 2007 / 3:50 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Chad Mariage
If I understand Mr. Pallister correctly, the motion would read as follows:
That the Standing Committee on International Trade conduct extensive hearings on the implications of the Canada-Korea bilateral agreement currently being negotiated, specifically hearing testimony on a wide range of manufacturing sectors
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Okay, “from a wide range of sectors”.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
You said you had kept “diverse regions”.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes,“and diverse regions of Canada, and that the committee investigate alternative”--
3:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Okay: “and that the committee report to the House”.
You're moving that part as well?
