Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2021

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

If we could possibly not have a steering committee meeting in a break week, to the point that was made earlier, the clerk made an excellent point. We already have a list of officials, ambassadors and ministers and we could have two very effective meetings. There's a lot of the lay of the land that we don't know. We could get all of that lay of the land, plus or minus, done in the two meetings next week. We could have an additional meeting, outside of those Tuesday and Thursday meetings, if that's when you want to have the subcommittee, or this week, whichever.

If we could have our two, as you suggested, substantive meetings on the Tuesday and Thursday, at 3:30 until 5:30, with Natural Resources officials, GAC officials, Industry Canada officials, or whomever is available, that might be a more productive use of time.

Again, building on what Mark said, we literally have four break weeks before April 15. If one of those break weeks needs to be taken up with the writing of the report or whatever, that limits us to three. It means one week for officials. That only leaves us two for other witnesses.

I really am concerned about how much we can pack into each one of those meetings, so we don't miss any of the critical information that we obviously are so compelled to prioritize and be able to address.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

There are some options here.

I think we're all in agreement with having government officials and the ambassador on Tuesday. That's pretty straightforward. That should go forward. The subcommittee can meet this week, or Wednesday, or Monday next week. We can still be in a position to have witnesses in place for Thursday. I strongly encourage to do everything you can to have your subcommittee this week, and find a slot to have that and make that happen.

You pretty well have consent from all parties to have government officials and the ambassador here on Tuesday. Let's aim for that.

If we're looking at Line 5, if that's what has to be done by April 15, we could actually start submitting witnesses for that for Thursday. The subcommittee can still do its planning. The clerks can have a list of witnesses to contact, and start slotting in witnesses in those time slots. If you said Tuesday and Thursday are our time slots, the clerks know that and they can start coordinating witnesses for those Tuesday and Thursday time slots.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

The only issue is that there may not be enough time this week to schedule a steering committee meeting. From the committees that I've been on, the steering committee has been very helpful, because a lot of stuff gets decided at the steering committee level. It doesn't take away time from the main committee where you have witnesses and you get into the subject matter. A lot of stuff is decided in the steering committee.

Can I work with the clerk over the next few days to figure out how this is going to materialize? I need to know what the scheduling is.

I appreciate the fact that we only have four weeks and there are time limitations. If we're going to do this schematically, we can always start taking witnesses. I think we should have some guidance going forward as to what we are going to do. Initially, next week, we can try to populate the two committees, if possible.

Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

There are two things I would like to do here.

One would be to move the appropriate motion to give the clerk and the analysts the ability to do the work that the clerk proposed to populate draft witness lists and to reach out to the officials that we all unanimously voted in favour of calling.

I would offer this, Mr. Chair, if, as you have said, there is time. I would leave that to the whips to confirm. I would try to schedule something for Tuesday, a substantive meeting. Let's give it a go. The ambassador obviously is a busy person, but I am sure we can get specialists from Global Affairs and one of the other ones. Departmental officials should be available to us with a week's notice. There's no excuse for us not to have a meeting. If we wanted to take the back half of that meeting, or the last 30 minutes, to go into a subcommittee, I would be open to that as well to go forward.

We have enough direction given, if we empower the clerk and the analysts to populate those meetings, both of them, to be substantive meetings where we hear from witnesses.

That would be my proposal to you from our side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Okay.

Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I was just going to intervene to say that I appreciated your suggestion, Mr. Chair, and I think we are getting up and going. The dates are what they are in the motion. I think we were all familiar with the parliamentary calendar when the motion was drafted, presented and voted on. We're all familiar with the fact that it does take some time to get a committee up and going, particularly in light of the fact the House resources are already stretched pretty thin with upwards of—what's the number now—26 or 28 committees. I can't quite recall but it's substantial.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

There are 26.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I appreciate everyone's desire, and I share it, to get going on this substantive work. I think we have at least one substantive meeting next week, which, as far as I'm concerned, ain't bad, and if we take one of those meetings in order to have a serious discussion about how we structure the study.... I do think there are some real questions about how we get that structured and whether we want to do it thematically and, if so, what that looks like and therefore how many witnesses we might be presenting per topic, if we're going to divvy it up by topic, which is something that I'd like to see us do.

It may not be what we ultimately decide to do as a committee, but it's certainly something that I'd like to propose. I was prepared to propose that this evening when we had some additional time, but I think we've spent more time this evening talking about meetings to plan the work than we did actually planning the work. For me, I came ready to talk about how we might structure this work and get some of that work done tonight. I think a lot of the time for that has already passed, so I'm resigned to the idea that we take one of the slots we have for next week as a planning meeting.

I just want to offer that up and to let you know, Mr. Chair, that if you're interested in putting your proposal to a vote, namely, that we have a meeting with officials next week, but also that we take a meeting in order to structure the study and get a better sense of how we're going to do this going forward, that would have my full support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank MP Blaikie for reinforcing what I brought forward about 10 minutes ago.

I think the clerk is very competent in terms of setting up times. If it's the will of the committee to allocate one of the slots next week to deal with committee business and to organize, we'll do so, as well as the setting up based on the availability of the witnesses that have been put forth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Mr. Strahl, did you want to speak again?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Yes. I think the whole purpose of the committee being scheduled when it is was so that there are not these conflicts that we find ourselves faced with during sitting weeks. I don't know if the Canada-China committee is meeting, but none of the other committees, unless they are scheduling into break weeks now, are eating up the resources that are normally so scarce. I think we shouldn't be worried about resources for break weeks. That's why this was set up the way it was, with the proposal we all agreed to.

Look, I understand it if we're going to go down this road, but I think that is not something that should prevent us from working substantively and asking, with one week's notice, for people to present on the Canada-U.S. relationship. This isn't a surprise, particularly, and I think we can definitely fill up two meetings and take some time at the end of one of those meetings to talk about the things that Mr. Blaikie wanted to talk about tonight. I think we should strive to hear from witnesses at both the Tuesday and Thursday meetings next week. Quite frankly, that's why we've done it during the break week. It's so that is always a possibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Mr. Blaikie, did you want to say anything to that? Did you want to put forward a motion?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I was just going to seek some clarification. I do think that some members at various points over the last half hour or so have indicated that they were moving a motion of some kind. I'm just wondering what's on the floor at the moment. If there's anything on the floor, we can dispense with that one way or the other and keep going until we land on something that a majority of us can agree on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

My intention of making those comments was not to prevent the committee from having adequate time but was about making the committee more operational and more efficient. That's why I thought of all the steering committees that we have, or the ones I've been on, which have been more organized and have conducted their studies in a manner that is more efficient for everyone. That was the purpose of my comments.

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, to try to move things forward, let me move that the subcommittee meet next Tuesday during the allotted meeting time of the committee to plan for the future meetings of the committee, and that on Thursday the clerk be authorized to invite witnesses from the list that the House of Commons determined should be invited by the committee, with priority going to the Canadian ambassador to the United States and the officials from Global Affairs, but if she cannot get those witnesses, that she find other witnesses from the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Okay.

Is there any other debate?

Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, do you want a recorded vote, or do you want to see if there is consent first?

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Do we have consent?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Yes, I'm fine with it. It's a good motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

No, I would seek to amend Mr. Housefather's motion to have the subcommittee meet for one hour on Tuesday and that the second hour have witnesses as he's described for the Thursday meeting so that we have substantive witnesses at both meetings next week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Raj Saini]

Would anybody like to speak to that?

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Either way, let's just get on with it. For God's sake, people. If we can do an hour of substance and an hour of procedure, that's great, but I think that first up needs to be the ambassador and senior officials. Whether that's on Tuesday or Thursday, I don't think much matters.

I do think that having the subcommittee organize subsequent witnesses is actually a useful thing, because otherwise you have this endless debate among 12 people. You just can't do it. So whether it's Mr. Strahl's amendment or Mr. Housefather's main motion, both are supportable, in my opinion.