International Trade Committee on May 3rd, 2006

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

First, we are not talking about eliminating other issues. We could agree right away on having a meeting next week with department officials, perhaps even with the minister, and the negotiators. Proposals were submitted to the industry and they were asked if they approved those proposals or not. We ourselves were not involved in this. We learned what was happening through the newspapers. I think, given what the Prime Minister said, that we have a right to be informed on the progress of this agreement.

Obviously we cannot, and would not want to, intervene in the negotiations. However, this agreement will have an impact on the Canadian and Quebec softwood industries, as well as on NAFTA. I would not object to having a first meeting next week, in camera. We could then agree as a committee on the type of work we would undertake. Again, I would not object to that.

On the other hand, this does not mean that we are eliminating other issues. The subcommittee could meet and craft a proposal on the main committee's future business. That way, there would at least be one meeting next week that would be devoted to this necessary topic.

We were told that a bill would have to be tabled in Parliament. Personally, I learned this from a reporter. Perhaps the minister could tell us whether this is true or whether it is simply a rumour coming from the media?

I would agree to having a first meeting in camera, and then deciding as a committee how we will approach the issue without creating any problems for our negotiators. It seems to me that at the very least, we need to have the information that was provided last Thursday to the provinces and to the industry.

Meanwhile, I would hope that the subcommittee would meet on the issue of future business and propose a work plan. That may involve the World Trade Organization. There are, among other things, negotiations on services.

Are we going to wait for two weeks before we begin our work? We have before us a subject that we cannot avoid. Let's meet next week in camera with the minister, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So, Monsieur Paquette, you are suggesting that we have an in camera meeting on softwood lumber and not on the future agenda of the committee?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Our first order of business would be the softwood lumber framework agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Eyking, go ahead, please.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Just to follow Mr. Paquette, I don't have a problem with the first meeting being used for having staff here and giving everybody a briefing, but then we have to go right into the softwood lumber issue.

I don't like to see a precedent set here of not discussing things in this committee until after the ink is dry on every agreement. There are going to be bilaterals. There's Korea. There are NAFTA and the WTO.

As a committee, we have to be going along with the negotiators, understanding where they're going, and that's part of our role. So I don't think we should wait until the ink is dry on any agreement before we get involved. That's what our job is. We're not here to jeopardize any agreement; we're here to understand it. And they have to understand our feelings as members of Parliament.

So I'm on the same wavelength as Mr. Julian and Mr. Paquette. We can have one meeting with staff, and they can brief us on everything, and then let's get right at it and get the softwood lumber deal out there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So it sounds like the Monday meeting with departmental officials would be in order, and then what you want to do is get into softwood lumber after that in Wednesday's meeting.

Does anybody else have any comment on this?

Am I to consider that this is the proposal before the committee now? Is there any other discussion on this first before I put it to a vote?

Mr. Menzies, go ahead, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I would like to know, then, what the intention would be for witnesses. Are we going to ask the industry that's involved? Are we going to ask someone from the United States trade department? Who are we looking at to brief us on the deal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We certainly have to know that before we can invite them, so, Mr. Eyking, could we have your thoughts and suggestions on that?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

My suggestion right off the bat is for the minister and maybe some of the chief negotiators on the file to come in and talk about it. That would be my suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Does anybody else have a comment?

Mr. Menzies, go ahead, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Sorry to keep interrupting here, but I guess the only way I would accept that is if it's absolutely in camera. If we're going to ask the minister and trade negotiators to discuss this deal, we don't want this deal in the media before the Americans have seen it. I have concerns with that.

It is a sensitive issue. We need to be aware of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

Mr. Paquette, Mr. LeBlanc, and then Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I will make a very concrete proposal. I understand that we need to give people notice, but I think it would be appropriate to meet next week, either on Monday or Wednesday, in camera, with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade who have worked on the framework agreement. Of course, we would be more than happy if the minister were available.

I am proposing that we request the information that was provided to many people other than members of the Parliament, including those who accepted the agreement and those who did so half-heartedly. After the in camera meeting, we should have a discussion on how to approach the issue. In my opinion, we should invite stakeholders. How we proceed remains to be determined.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Merci, Monsieur Paquette.

Monsieur LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Paquette's motion. Furthermore, I know that, as Mr. Menzies said earlier, nobody would consider jeopardizing the Canadian industry's interests by disclosing details of the negotiations.

I was a bit surprised when a journalist from La Presse said to me earlier this afternoon that he had been told by the Prime Minister's office that legislation was coming in the next week or two to implement this agreement; it would be, of course, confidence; and were we as Liberals going to support this legislation.

We can discuss that some other time, but the whole idea that a journalist is told that legislation is coming, and so on, would tell us that it's urgent that we get our heads around this issue so we can understand better what the industry and provinces are....

We've all spoken to people in the industry and to the provincial governments, but I think Mr. Paquette is right. Next week, if it's not possible on Monday, then at the latest on Wednesday, if the clerk is able to arrange it, let's have an in camera discussion with officials from the department--and the minister, in a perfect scenario--about what the framework agreement means and why they believe it's a good agreement. Then we can decide as a committee what public hearings we want to have from that point on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So you're suggesting we do that on Wednesday.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I would prefer Monday, but as Monsieur Paquette said, that's five days from now. If we can't do it on Monday, in order to not lose a week, and we can only have them a week from now on softwood lumber, let's have the general departmental briefing that Monsieur Lemieux alluded to , which we as critics had some weeks ago, sort of the overall context of Canada's.... Let's get that out of the way on Monday, so that by Wednesday at the latest we can begin to look at softwood lumber.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. So we would have the departmental officials do a general briefing on Monday and ask the minister if he can come on Wednesday.

Are you suggesting that we have an in camera meeting or a public meeting, Mr. LeBlanc?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I don't want to deviate from Monsieur Paquette's motion, which I would support. But as I understand it, if we have a meeting on Monday with departmental officials on the general trade context--as I said, opposition critics were given that briefing and it was very instructive--then by Wednesday, a week from today, we would have the in camera discussion with the minister, or senior officials if the minister is not available, on the details of the framework agreement in camera. Then we'd be in a position to decide what public steps could follow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux and then Mr. Julian, on this, and if we can move it to a question as soon as possible that would be great.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I just want to echo what you said and what Mr. Cannan said. Being a new MP and a new member to the committee, I would appreciate starting with a departmental briefing. I'd like to know where they're coming from and what other issues might be on the table. I'd prefer to start it that way, rather than just launch right into one particular subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

Mr. Julian.

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

Following up on Mr. Paquette's points, I think we're saying that we'd like to have the minister here for an in camera meeting on either Monday or Wednesday, and the departmental briefing would take place on the other day, rather than saying that we're going to set aside Monday or Wednesday if the minister is available, which might put it off until the following week.

This is pressing public policy. It's something that has huge ramifications in my region of the country, and I know other members are affected as well.

I think that's what we're saying. I don't believe I'm misquoting Mr. Paquette. On either Monday or Wednesday we would have the in camera briefing and a discussion on how we're going to deal with this as a committee. The other day could be for the departmental briefing, which would include some of the other issues, such as the agreement of South Korea that was mentioned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. Could we agree to this? We'll ask the minister to come on Monday or Wednesday. If we can't have the minister on Monday, then we can go ahead with a general departmental briefing on Monday. The first meeting with the minister will be an in camera meeting, and following that we will meet as a committee to decide where to take it from there. Fair enough?

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

On a point of clarification, this may be a question to the clerk on the protocol for demanding or asking the minister to attend. At this point, are we demanding that he has to attend or are we simply making a request?

My point is that it's very short notice. I'm concerned that his schedule is probably quite full. He may be in Washington working on a deal, and I don't want to interfere with that.