International Trade Committee on May 3rd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I believe it's clear that what Mr. Paquette is suggesting is that in the first round of questioning it would be seven minutes for Liberal, then Bloc, then Conservative, then NDP. Correct? Should we go on to the rest, or should we just agree to that first?

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Subsequent to that, it would be the same order but with five-minute tours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is that agreed to?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The suggestion, to be clear, is that the order on each round of questioning be official opposition Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative, the government member, and then the NDP for each round. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I just suggest for the first part of that motion, that the witnesses be given ten minutes, that the witnesses be given up to ten minutes, and that there be discretion from the chair, and that the clerk, when notifying the witnesses, will state the maximum time. Furthermore, if there's more than one witness, I suggest that we certainly don't allow ten minutes each. It's just too much time, with a statement. We did that in the government operations committee last time and we found that it's amazing how they could say the same thing in less time if they were instructed ahead of time that that was the amount of time they would be given.

Is that agreed--some discretion by the chair on that, but up to ten minutes?

Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I agree. I just want to clarify: the second and third round, is that five or seven minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

They are five minutes, all subsequent rounds.

Is it agreed then that we have that discretion in terms of the amount of time the witnesses be given?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Can I suggest one more thing? This is something we did at the government operations and estimates committee. If any member of the committee from any party has an issue that is of special interest to them and they do extra background work on this because it is of special interest, that member should be given the first round of questioning and an extended round of questioning.

We only had two takers, I believe, in the whole year and a half at the government operations and estimates committee, but it provides an incentive for all members, when it's an issue that is particularly important to them, to be given—at the discretion of the chair—the first round of questioning and extra time. It really does encourage members to come better prepared and to be at the forefront when it's an issue that's particularly important to them. I suggest it wouldn't be used that often, but it's something that would help improve the effectiveness of the committee.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We welcome the proposal, but can I understand exactly what you are proposing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, for example, if you have a particular trade issue that's important to you, you come to me and say you'd sure like the committee to deal with this. You tell me this is an issue that is particularly important to you, and you're prepared to do extra work on this, so you would like agreement to have the first questioning and extra time if required. Then if that issue does come to the committee, I would proceed in that fashion. It really does give some extra incentive for people to prepare on issues that are of most interest to them.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much.

Can we just agree then to this motion as described in our conversation here? I think it's clear what it is.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much.

There are no more items on the agenda, unless there are some that you would like to bring.

Monsieur Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is now the beginning of May and we have been sitting for one month. I think we could easily agree this afternoon so that we can start our work on the recent softwood lumber agreement next week. We do not have to discuss this at length. In my opinion, it is important that the International Trade Committee look at the implications of the agreement and hear the minister, the negotiators, the ambassador, if he can come, and the stakeholders.

Furthermore, we know that a bill may be tabled over the next few weeks and I think this would give us an opportunity to make recommendations to the government before the bill is tabled or at least before it is passed and an agreement is signed with the Americans. We are talking about three months.

We would be in a position to hear witnesses on this issue as early as Monday or at the latest Wednesday, next week, in order to better understand the scope of the softwood lumber agreement, as well as its implications for the North American free trade agreement.

I am moving this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Menzies, and then Mr. Julian.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have concerns, and I respect the importance of this, not only in your region, Mr. Paquette, but in many regions across this country. I'm concerned that we will start studying an agreement when we probably don't have the ink dry on it yet, and I don't want to jeopardize it by bringing witnesses in here--jeopardize a potentially very important agreement by getting out ahead of the negotiators; I'm not sure all the dealing is done.

What I'm seeing out of this, and what I'm hearing from the lumber industry and from the provinces at this point, is that they're pretty happy with it. I certainly don't want to jeopardize a deal that we've been waiting a long time for by discussing it here. If it's a done deal, then what are we going to discuss?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

Mr. Julian, would you mind, just before I go to you, if I bring a little bit more into this? It's normal for a committee at the first meeting to hear from the departmental officials, and I think if, through the clerk and in correspondence with the officials, we focus them a little bit, that would be a very productive meeting.

Something else that could and probably should be done, since we're dealing with trade issues, is we should ask the researchers to put together material from business organizations, and in some cases maybe from individual businesses, because businesses really are the ones involved in trade. Have them put together some information on the issues that seem to be of most interest to them, and the positions on those issues, and suggestions they've given to government, whether it be, for example, the Federation of Independent Business, or whatever organization or business it is. Have the researchers provide a document for the committee to help direct us, before we start getting off into the individual issues, and there are a lot of those that we could deal with.

It's just a suggestion. I'll go now to the committee. Of course, you decide.

Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Cannan.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are other issues that we will be dealing with as a committee, but no issue is as important as the issue of softwood lumber. I know in my case in British Columbia, our premier has been asking for clarification around the softwood lumber agreement. So this is the number one issue in international trade. There's no doubt that we have to deal with it, and we should proceed as quickly as possible, because that's our parliamentary responsibility as members of Parliament and as members of the international trade committee.

I can understand that at a later time we'll be adding other issues, but Mr. Paquette is absolutely right, this is the number one issue and we have to deal with it immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Before I go to Mr. Cannan and Mr. Paquette and then Mr. Eyking, I would just like to know, if the committee does go to that meeting, whether that's something.... Because negotiations really are ongoing--the agreement in principle is what it's called, or it's been referred to as the framework agreement, and obviously all the details of the agreement haven't been completed yet--I'm wondering whether an in camera meeting is something the committee might agree to. Otherwise, I don't know what the people involved will be able to say.

Those are my thoughts on this. I'd like the committee to consider that and to comment on that.

Next we will go to Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Specifically to the issue of the softwood meeting, I agree; I don't think it would be prudent to have discussions outside of an in camera perspective. As we know, it's a framework, and discussions have clearly indicated that it's going to take several more months to get all the details finalized. I wouldn't want to jeopardize that.

But being a new member to the committee, I would like to take you up on your offer of hearing from the department staff and getting a briefing. My colleague Mr. Lemieux hasn't even received his briefing book yet, and I just received mine, so we haven't had a chance to get an overview. I appreciate the indulgence of the committee, and I apologize if it slows you down for a meeting or two, but I think it's probably prudent that we all come together and sing from the same song sheet in order to move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

In the past we've found that it's not only helpful for new members, but it's also helpful for members who have been around for some time.

Monsieur Paquette.