Evidence of meeting #4 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
Thank you, I think it's a good point. If you would, give me a moment to consult with the clerk who gave us the advice in the first instance.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I'll just consult with the clerk for a moment.
Mr. Pallister and others, for clarity, then, the reason the original proposal—whether it was an amendment or a motion by Mr. Bains—was out of order in that case and could not be accepted as an amendment is because in addition he had suggested it as an amendment by deleting all the other words of the motion. That was why it was out of order, because it was so changing the original motion as to be out of order.
Mr. Julian is not changing the previous motion, as I take it. He is simply adding an additional point to it. So that is the reason why.
Okay, we have a speaker.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
If I may just comment, on a point of order, Mr. Chair, you're absolutely right in your ruling. Mr. Pallister would have been right if notice of motion had been provided by Mr. Bains on this and it had been distributed to committee; then it would have been his purview to move the motion. But as it is submitted as part of the committee function itself, it is very much in order for me to move it as an amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay, we have an amendment on the floor, and that is to add to the original motion: “That the Minister of International Trade be called to testify before the committee on how human rights concerns are being addressed in the current bilateral negotiations, with particular reference to the Canada-Colombia bilateral negotiations.” That is now added to the original motion.
Go ahead, Mr. Pallister.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I'd like that motion read again, just to be clear on the wording, if I could.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
All right.
Mr. Julian, I will read the motion and I'd ask you to follow and see if it is in fact how you proposed it.
The motion would now, as I understand it, read: “That the committee report to the House recommending to the Government of Canada that the current Canada-Colombia bilateral trade negotiations and eventual ratification”—
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
That's not what I asked. I was not concerned about the whole motion. It was just Peter's amendment.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
The amendment was all I was wanting to know, what the wording was.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay, I'm sorry; you said motion.
The motion would then be, as I take it, adding a third point to the original motion. So it would be:
That the Minister of International Trade be called to testify before the committee on how human rights concerns are being addressed in current bilateral trade negotiations, with particular reference to the Canada-Colombia bilateral negotiations.
Is that correct, Mr. Julian?
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you.
I'll just speak against that, because I'd already given assurance to the members, and we had discussed this, that we as a committee wanted to have the minister appear. I had already previously given assurances to the members of the committee that I'd endeavour to make sure that happened. So the minister could well be available, as we wish. I'm hopeful he will be available as early as next week.
So I see this motion as rather redundant, because we have already expressed our concerns and our priorities as a committee, and what this motion will do is specifically say that we're calling him on this specific issue, when I anticipate there will be a number of other issues that committee members would want to raise. Frankly, I just see it as redundant. The minister has already said that he's going to appear if we want him. He's available.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I have no further speakers to the motion.
Go ahead, Mr. Maloney.
Liberal
John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON
Mr. Chair, I think that Mr. Julian's original motion at this time may be somewhat mature. I think Mr. Bains' suggestion, which was adopted as point three of Mr. Julian's motion, would be more appropriate to consider. Perhaps in a subsequent meeting, after we've heard from the minister, we may want to consider Mr. Julian's motion again.
As a consequence, I would move to delete from the motion as amended the original motion by Mr. Peter Julian and retain the third point of Mr. Julian's motion, since we can't deal with Mr. Bains' motion at this time because notice has not been given.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you very much.
We're going to have to take a minute here to consult with the clerk on this about-turn. I'm going to let you speak, Mr. Julian, but I want to consult with the clerk first. Thank you.
Gentlemen, I think it might just save some time if we're all clear and on the same wavelength. Here's what would happen in this case.
First of all, we can't make a subamendment to the amendment that would delete something that's not part of the amendment. That is to say that a subamendment could only in this case relate to the amendment, which is the third point. It cannot relate to the first two because they're not part of the amendment. They're part of the original motion, which is where we were in the first place. For further clarity, if you want to achieve what I take it you're wishing to achieve this morning, we would have to revert back to the original. We could do it in two ways. Hypothetically, if you passed the motion as amended, adding the third one, then you have a motion that includes that third part. You could then move an amendment to that motion, once passed, to delete the first two. That is one way to accomplish it rather circuitously, if everybody follows that bouncing ball.
The other way you could do it would be to defeat the amendment, defeat the motion, and move a separate amendment. As Mr. Julian was about to raise or had in fact raised, the only question is whether or not that is in order because notice was not given of Mr. Bains' proposed motion. I think I would be prepared to rule that because it is on a very similar topic and directly related to the matter of discussion, it would in fact be in order. I think we have suitable references to make that point so that we could go back to another motion of Mr. Bains, presuming that Mr. Julian's motion was defeated.
Again, let me just offer, if I could, for clarity the options that are now before us. We have Mr. Maloney moving a subamendment that would delete the first two bullets of the original motion. That in fact would be out of order at this time because the amendment does not include those two points. For Mr. Maloney to proceed with his intent, we would have to do one of two things. That would be to pass the motion as amended by Mr. Julian, which would include Mr. Bains' point, and then having passed the amendment, we would resume debate on the original motion and then you would have to propose another amendment to amend the original motion to delete the first two. That seems rather circuitous, let me suggest, but it is an option. The other way to do it would simply be to defeat the amendment, defeat Mr. Julian's motion, and reintroduce another motion by Mr. Bains, as he originally had proposed.
I'm really just stating this for clarity and not offering an opinion. I'm just letting you people know where we are. Is there any question as to what we've done?
Clerk, am I correct in my interpretation of the rules?
Okay.
We have a speakers list; it is Mr. Pallister and Mr. Julian on a point of order. I think we have Mr. Pallister first on a point of order.
