International Trade Committee on Sept. 27th, 2012

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I very much suggest that we vote on this. It's quite simple. We have agreement among all the parties to report this back to the House by October 4. This is just to put some parameters around that to make sure that we're able to do it. It's as simple as that. There's nothing new here. There's nothing nefarious. This is simply the motion we've already passed to meet those parameters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll go to Mr. Easter, very quickly.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Listen, we have agreement by the parties on a timeframe, and I expect that we'll meet that agreement. This motion is not necessary. It's absolutely not necessary.

Democracy here is being eroded stroke by stroke. This is the second time I've seen this particular motion. Once was a bad experience. I don't want the bad experience at this committee, when this committee has been relatively cooperative. I don't know where the push for this motion comes from. I don't expect that it came from you.

I want to see this trade agreement done too, but I do not want to see this trade agreement done by denying MPs, who represent the public, their right to proper discussion. This is setting a dangerous precedent, mark my words. It's wrong. I'll just say one last time that this is what you would expect to see in a totalitarian regime, not in an open democracy like Canada, and it's wrong.

I'd ask the parliamentary secretary to consider withdrawing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, we're ready to go.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Is it anything new, or is it reinforcing the same thing?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

This may help, Mr. Chairman.

The difference I see is that generally, when a government—this government or any government, I think, in fairness—wants to make sure that a bill passes by a certain day, they have the “deemed passage by 11:59” clause. As much as we may or may not support that, it's a legitimate tool. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

The problem here is the first paragraph. It is not necessary to achieve this goal, because this bill's coming out of committee next Thursday. It doesn't matter if we're talking at 11:59. You have that guarantee. What I object to, and what is unusual here, is the ability of the chair to limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party. That is not necessary to accomplish the government's goal of getting this bill out of committee on Thursday.

What I would suggest, if Mr. Keddy would consider it, is that we strike the first paragraph and keep the other two paragraphs. Then you get the bill out of committee, but you don't restrict us to a maximum of five minutes per clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Can I see if there's a consensus here? I'm going to ask the mover if he would consider amending that first paragraph, if that's the issue.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I want to hear his amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Do you have an amendment for that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes. I move that all the words after "2012" in the third line of the first paragraph be struck so that it reads, "that the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 on Thursday, October 4, 2012,".

Then it carries on with the second paragraph: "that if the clause-by-clause consideration has not been completed”, there would be no further debate, and the rest would read the same. It would just eliminate the part about limiting debate to five minutes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Yes, I accept that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It sounds like we've got a consensus.

All in favour of the amendment—what's that?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I want a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

You want a recorded vote on the amendment? Is it a friendly amendment?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's a vote on the amendment.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I think we're all in agreement on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Does everyone agree with the amendment? Then we can just go on. It's a friendly amendment, so we'll go right to the motion.

The amendment has been agreed to. Let's go to the motion and to record the motion. I'll ask the clerk to do that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Sorry; is it a recorded vote on the amendment or on the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

It's on the motion.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I want a recorded vote on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We all agree, 100%.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That'll be recorded that way?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes. Very good.

The amendment is unanimous. That's agreed. Let's go to the main motion, then, and we want to record it.

Go ahead.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

On a point of clarification, Chair, to allow the amended motion to live and the original motion to not live, we've already supported the amended motion. Is that right?