Oh, oh!
Evidence of meeting #40 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #40 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the time, of course, when their voices could be heard. I'm certainly looking forward to any input they have on these important amendments.
My second amendment refers to the definition of “sustainable investment”:
“sustainable investment” means investment that seeks to maximize social good as well as financial return, specifically in the areas of the environment, social justice, and corporate governance, in accordance with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.
It's the very famous “triple bottom line”: financial return, social good, protection of the environment.
I hope my Conservative colleagues, as well as my Liberal colleagues, will support this. If not, perhaps they could offer a few points as to why they may not.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay, well, don't count on it.
We have heard Mr. Julian's amendment, NDP-2.
Is there any further discussion or debate?
Seeing none, I will call the vote on NDP-2.
(Amendment negatived)
Is there any further amendment to clause 2?
Shall clause 2 carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
On division?
Okay. Thank you.
(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 7--Purpose)
We have a number of amendments proposed for clause 7. I also note that there's a little conflict between a couple of them.
I'm going to let you proceed, Mr. Julian, but I would just say at this point, to perhaps save some time, that your amendments may be in conflict--i.e., if NDP-3 were adopted, NDP-4 could not be proceeded with.
In any event, I think it may be moot; it would presume that NDP-3 would be carried, so perhaps let's deal with it first. We may not have to deal with the eventuality that it's in conflict with NDP-4.
NDP
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
If NDP-3 passes, I'll go into a detailed explanation. If it doesn't pass, the point is moot.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would ask you for an explanation, Mr. Chair, just because we do have the time now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
You may have the time.
But all right; to save time, I'll ask our legislative clerk to give a more full response.
Mike MacPherson Procedural Clerk
Basically, the rule is that when you're amending legislation, you can only do one line once. NDP-3 amends line 36 on page 2, and NDP-4 also amends line 36 on page 2.
So you're attempting to amend twice the same line of the bill.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Certainly, Mr. Chair. I'm....
Oh, okay. It took me a moment to find it here, and I see the point you're making.
I don't think it's in conflict. It does require a little bit of finessing, but hopefully the committee will be willing to do that.
What NDP-3 does is simply put the accent on “sustainable” investment opportunities. That is a small amendment....
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Well, in the order I have them, NDP-3 is about trade and taxation transparency.
Are we all on the same songbook here?
Liberal
