Evidence of meeting #46 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 going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I want a clarification on the motion. Did we dispose of the 12 extra meetings?
Liberal
Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
Mr. Chair, would this set a precedent, and would it have any weight in slowing down the process to ratification?
Liberal
Peter Fonseca Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
It would not. This would not at all slow down that process.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
No, in my amendment, should it be accepted, they would put in written submissions without interfering with our doing clause-by-clause consideration by December 6.
The few who have applied to appear before the committee have lots of time to write their submissions. We would not be entertaining any more appearances. The amendment would just allow written submissions for the few who have applied to Rémi.
November 22nd, 2016 / 11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Well, then, what's the point? What impact would those written submissions have, if clause-by-clause study will be done before we get them?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I want to make sure, because in here it says it can be up to December 15. If we're doing clause-by-clause consideration by December 6, that changes it quite a bit.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Well, you're setting the clause-by-clause date.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
We all agreed to that, but here you're taking submissions up to December 15.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, the second part of the motion asks for more meetings. Presumably if we had more meetings, it would push that date further ahead. There are many people who have applied to the committee to be heard.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I understand that, but I don't think it's the agreement of the committee to push those dates.
For clarification, I think we have to vote on her motion. If you have a new motion...are you trying to change the whole motion?
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I'm not trying to introduce a whole new motion, because you need 48 hours to do that. I'm trying to address what Tracey is asking for in having more input from different people.
All I'm saying is that we're not taking written submissions, but in order to have a compromise to her proposal to have 12 more meetings—which I don't agree with, because it would slow things down far more than need be—we take a written submission from those who have applied to appear as of today, and not anybody new. To be entertained, they would have to have them in before we start clause-by-clause study on the 6th.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
You have to read the amendment into her motion. We have a motion on the floor now, so the amendment has to be read into it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I think that's what we have to do. We have to see how it fits in there. Everybody has to understand how it fits into her main motion.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Well, okay. My amendment, then, would be that rather than entertaining 12 more meetings and blowing past the timeline that's established, we allow written submissions from these few applicants who have applied as of today—no longer, and nobody else—and tie them into what will be the final report.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
That's more clarification for me. Did everybody get clarification on the amendment?
