Evidence of meeting #3 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.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
No. Mr. Dhaliwal presented a motion that we circulated. It was fairly lengthy. This was an amendment.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
The amendment is in order for this...because technically, Mr. Dhaliwal's motion is inadmissible. In the discussion and debate that we had, it was clear that the committee would prefer to adopt the motion. We held it back, because our very experienced clerk indicated that it was not admissible in its current form. When I indicated that I would like to find a way to make it admissible, these were the suggestions that the clerk, in consultation with the committee and me, decided we would put forward.
I'll just throw it out there that if the committee feels that this issue of the timing of the debate on the motion or whatever may cause them some difficulty, then we can leave out that part of it and simply vote on the part that says the chair “may schedule all or portions of a meeting” in camera for the reasons that we listed above, which is Mr. Dhaliwal's motion.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
I'm curious as to why we didn't see at least a hint of this before the meeting so at least we could have understood it better.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Everyone received a copy of Mr. Dhaliwal's motion again, as well as the suggested amendments to it, so we wouldn't have to spend a lengthy amount of time dealing with this issue. The clerk sent it out.
I'm sensing that you're not happy with the idea of limiting the debate, so I'm going to suggest that we not vote on that section, and that Mr. Sheehan move only the issue that included amending Mr. Dhaliwal's motion to add “That the Chair may schedule all or portions of a meeting to be in camera for the reasons listed above.”
3 p.m.
Liberal
3 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Sorry, Madam Chair, but I've also been trying to use the electronic means of getting on the speakers list.
3 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
That's fine too. I'm happy to indicate in whatever way works best for the chair, but please do put me on the speakers list.
3 p.m.
Liberal
3 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Right on.
I just wanted to say that I'm sure it was sent, but I've been having a little bit of trouble with the distribution list. I didn't see a recirculated copy of the original motion, and I haven't seen the wording of the amendment. I don't know if it's possible for the clerk to send that around now, at least to me. Maybe it's just as convenient to send it to the whole committee, for those of us who have our email open, and then we can just see quickly in writing what we're being asked to vote on. I think that would be helpful.
I'm going by memory, because I don't have it in front of me, but I'd say the original motion does provide for disclosing what substantive motions were voted on in camera and the results of the votes. As long as I'm right about that, I have a higher level of comfort with allowing for meetings to start in camera, and if the chair really wants to have a session in camera at the beginning of the meeting, I do think we could probably deal with that quickly just by having a quick motion at the beginning of the meeting.
I'm not interested in dying on the hill of whether you can start a meeting in camera or not. I'm just kind of digesting these things on the fly, which is too bad.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I'm going to make another suggestion. I'm going to ask the committee if we can hold Mr. Dhaliwal's motion to our next meeting. I don't like asking committee members to vote on anything that they're not feeling particularly comfortable with, especially on this. I'll ask the clerk to circulate Mr. Dhaliwal's motion to the committee again, plus the suggested amendments, and we'll deal with them at our next meeting. I would ask that everybody take a few minutes before the next meeting to make sure they fully understand the implications, and then we'll move forward.
Is that all right with everybody?
It is three o'clock and it's been a technically challenging meeting today for everyone.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
There's one other thing. We've been informed that the whips have agreed to next week's calendar. Tuesday, November 3, Minister Ng and her officials will be appearing before the committee to discuss the main estimates.
Madam Clerk, is that a 3:30 time slot?
3 p.m.
The Clerk
It is, Madam Chair, for two hours.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
All right, so the minister will be here at that particular time.
If everything is okay, we'll move to adjourn until next—
3 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
On a point of order, Madam Chair, since we're moving what we were just discussing, the notice of motion that we just tabled here today, I just want to make sure that won't cut into our meeting with the minister and the officials, because our time is so limited. The minister will be with us for only an hour, and then we'll have the officials. I just want to make sure that doesn't cut into our time.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Yes, that's why I will make sure that the clerk sends it out right away, and then I will ask that it be resent an hour before the meeting again to make sure everybody has seen it and is comfortable with it, and we should be able to dispose of it in the last—
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
—10 minutes or so of the meeting, I would hope.
Go ahead on a point of order.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Madam Chair, in the same line, instead of doing it at the start of the meeting, why don't we wait and do it at the end of the meeting and add 10 minutes onto the meeting to deal with this issue, so we get all the time?
