Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Madam Clerk has indicated that she needs some time to look at what the implications are from her perspective on this motion.
Can I suggest that we hold down Mr. Dhaliwal's motion for our next meeting? We'll make sure that we all fully understand the implications, because there certainly seem some positives there. We'll hold it down until our next meeting and go ahead and deal with all of the other routine motions as amended.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Chair, I understand that other committees have passed this motion. Mr. Dhaliwal has already said that himself. I don't see why we need to wait if other committees have already taken this motion and put it in as part of the routine motions. We should do the same.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I was just going to echo Randy's comment. I've also heard that other committees have adopted this. I know that in the last session, committees adopted this, including the procedure and House affairs committee, I believe.
It's not a motion that's come from nowhere. It's something that other committees have been doing. I think it would make sense to adopt the motion in order to align with the practice of other committees in that regard.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
The information I'm receiving from our clerk is that it's inadmissible. That's the reason for us to hold it down to our next meeting and deal with it at that time. If it's inadmissible, we won't be dealing with it, but if it's admissible and the committee wants to deal with it, we could deal with it at that particular time.
Would that be acceptable to everyone?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Yes.
My understanding is that it will come back and be deemed moved then, as long as it's admissible at the next meeting.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
That's the way I understand it too. It is moved unless it's inadmissible. I agree.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Madam Chair, we could say that we agree to it, without having to—
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I think the question is whether everybody fully understand the implications of it. That's what we'll have some time for, from our perspective.
If we hold it over until the next meeting, the clerk will do her proper due diligence on it, and then we can have a fuller discussion and vote on it accordingly.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Wait a second.
Chair, that's not what I understand Mr. Blaikie to be saying. I interpret it as if she comes back and says it's inadmissible, then we'll deal with it, but if it is deemed admissible, then it's already been dealt with.
Am I hearing that right?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Just to be clear, I think at the time that it's an admissible motion, we'll have a chance to discuss the implications of it and vote on it at that point. That would be my thought process. It's subject to what the committee is thinking.
I see the clerk attempting to get in here.
4:10 p.m.
The Clerk
The chair is responsible for deciding if a motion is admissible or not. If we could have a little bit of time, I could explain to her why my advice to her is that the motion is inadmissible, and maybe we can manage it in a way that it will be admissible.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
The problem with that is you're deciding behind closed doors whether it's admissible or not when other committees have already said that it is admissible. Precedence has already been set in the other committees on whether it's admissible or not, the way I understand it. There should not be any question here.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We happen to have a very senior clerk, and very often—as you know, because you've worked with her for some time—often things can get past.
We could do it that way, but we would still have to have a discussion as to what the implications are, because I think the committee would want to comment on whether this is an appropriate motion or not.
Mr. Dhaliwal, were you trying to raise your hand?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Yes, Madam Chair.
This is my motion, and I would like to withdraw it. I have the right to withdraw it at any time. Let's deal with the routine motions. I will withdraw my motion.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Madam Clerk, does Mr. Dhaliwal need the permission of the committee to withdraw his motion?
4:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, you need unanimous consent to withdraw a motion.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We don't have unanimous consent. Can we go back and try to find ways of dealing with this?
If we hold it to our next meeting—go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
It is acceptable to me that we wait until the next meeting. At that point, it seems to me that one of two things would happen in a scenario that I find acceptable. The first thing is you would come back and say it's out of order, in which case we could then discuss the chair's ruling and perhaps decide to overturn that ruling, if need be, and if it's the will of the committee. Second, all I'm concerned to know is that if it is admissible, then it will come back as a moved motion, and we will have the discussion and then make the decision as a committee.