Mr. Speaker, with the two motions on the floor I will deal first with the matter that was brought forward by the hon. member from the Bloc Party.
I would suggest this amendment is one that really reflects a continuing misunderstanding of how the dispute resolution procedures of the agreement are intended to operate.
The amendment is quite unnecessary because then the federal government would be tied to a procedure to which none of the other parties under the agreement are tied. There are 13 parties and the other 12 would not be tied to the procedure.
Further, Motion No. 1 is nothing but an attempt to restrict the scope of action that the government may legitimately expect to have to ensure that it is able to protect the national interest in the negotiated balance of benefits in the agreement on internal trade.
The proposed amendment by the hon. member for the Bloc is a cumbersome procedure. It is unnecessary and it is time consuming. It is unnecessary because the government in any retaliatory procedure under the act, the retaliatory measures first of all by the government must be fully consistent with the agreement on internal trade. Second, they are matters that are entirely within the government's constitutional jurisdiction.
Again I emphasize that the procedure being suggested is one that only the federal government would be required to follow. None of the other parties would have to follow it.
The amendment in effect would be an attempt to unilaterally amend the agreement that all parties have agreed to already. This cannot be done. The amendment is a disguised effort to delay or to impede the ability of the government to act in the national interest in areas that are clearly within its own jurisdiction. For these reasons I suggest that this amendment does not warrant the support of the House.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member from the Reform Party involves a much broader question. It that involves the question of approval of government appointments. This was dealt with in committee and has already been rejected.
The committee was not the place where this matter should have been dealt with. The motion should be dealt with in another committee if the Reform Party is intent on pursuing such a matter.
This amendment proposes a complex method of making appointments. It is obvious the Reform Party has one intention, to tie up the House continuously in matters like this so business cannot go ahead. That is all on which the Reform Party is intent. The amendment is an attempt to grandstand, it is not an attempt to try to see that the business of the House proceeds in an orderly manner.
I would suggest this is a matter that it is not appropriate to deal with at this time and it should be rejected.