Sure. I think that's good.
Evidence of meeting #141 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was canola.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #141 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was canola.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Then we have two rounds of questioning with each minister.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
[Inaudible—Editor] I could put that request in.
Mr. Masse, do you have some comments?
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Yes. If the amendment is to drop the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I won't be supporting that, so I'd like to make sure we have two separate votes on that. I think it's a little bit naive to have a complete review of this without the Minister of Foreign Affairs as part of it. I want to be clear on that and to have those two separate votes. I'll support the motion with the deletion, but again, on the same point, I think the international affairs minister should be part of this. It makes a lot of sense.
I want to clarify that when we go to a vote, there will be two votes: one on the amendment to the main motion and then the main motion itself.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
2:35 p.m.
Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Would it be possible to reread the amendment in French? You may also reread it in English so that I may hear the interpreters' version. I want to be sure I understand the amendment clearly. I think it's important. I believe I heard nuances I had not caught the first time you read it.
Afterwards, I'd like to make a comment.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
No. I think here's what we can do, if you don't mind, Mr. Dhaliwal. If you could speak slowly and read your amendment, the translator will translate it. Is that fine?
Good. We're good to go.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
The motion is as follows:
That the Committee invite the following witnesses to appear concerning the recent revocation by the Chinese government of Richardson International’s canola export registration to the Chinese market:
a. the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food;
b. the Minister of International Trade Diversification; and
c. the officials of both ministries;
and that the officials appear on Thursday, March 21, 2019; and that both the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of International Trade Diversification appear during the week starting on Monday, April 1, 2019.
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I'll leave it to you, Mr. Chair, but that seems like a new motion.
Wouldn't it be, if it's an amendment to a motion, deleting item “c.”, inserting a new date, and then adding “officials”? It's more procedure to me. That's what I think the intent is, but I'll leave it to you.
I just want to make sure that two votes take place here. I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, but that we agree we should have.... I have no objection—
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Well, it's up to the committee. I'm just trying to get through the day here.
We could vote on the first motion, if that's what you want, I guess, and then we'll vote on the new motion.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
The vote will be on the amendment as amended. If it doesn't pass, then we'll go to the—
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
That is my point of order, though, because really we're talking about a whole new motion here. If we just vote on the amendment, it's been altered significantly and it doesn't include the Minister of International Trade Diversification, which was in the original motion.
My question is a procedural one, because three-quarters of the main motion is now changed to a new motion.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Well, that's debatable, because the main motion is the same. It's not the Minister of International Trade Diversification; it's the Minister of Foreign Affairs who's not in there.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I'm okay with the amendment as proposed, but I do agree that we need to have a second motion, then, that talks about the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because I do believe we should have her here. As I said, there is a political issue here that she will have to oversee. There are questions we have for her, as far as her game plan with China is concerned, with regard to ag exports into China, which she will have to have oversight on.
Another issue is that we don't have an ambassador sitting in China, as we speak, so she is the person in charge. We need to know what she's doing in relation to the fact that we don't have an ambassador there and in terms of how we're actually handling not only the technical side of things but also the political side of things. That's why I want to see foreign affairs included.
The other people I think we should consider are the actual industry people like the Canola Council, the Canola Growers, and maybe JRI, since they are in the centre of all of this, just to get their overview on how they're finding the Chinese reaction in comparison to that of other markets, for example. They might give us some oversight to explain to everybody on this committee just how politically charged this action from China has been. That's why I would maybe consider that too.
I'll throw that back at you guys to see what you think.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Chair, I believe what was presented by Mr. Dhaliwal is actually an amendment. He read out what was staying and then inserted his own wording. It just has to be presented as deleting “c.” and replacing it with what he said, and then it will become an amendment.
2:40 p.m.
NDP
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
He just read out the existing motion. By reading it out, he has implied that he doesn't want to change it. All he changed was “c.”; the amendment was to paragraph “c.”
2:40 p.m.
Conservative