International Trade Committee on June 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good afternoon, everyone. It's good to be here. Pursuant to Standing Order....

Yes.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Before you begin, I would like to propose a slight change to the agenda of today's meeting. I'm conscious that we have a number of witnesses before us, many of whom have travelled a great distance. What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, need not take more than a few minutes.

When we adjourned the last meeting, you were dealing with an amendment proposed by Ms. Guergis with respect to Mr. Paquette's motion on softwood lumber. We've been trying to have that motion voted upon for some time.

Mr. Chairman, I propose we go back and deal very quickly with the amendment and the motion of Mr. Paquette, and also vote very quickly on Mr. Julian's motion with respect to South Korea and the production of some documents. Since we're in the mood to change the agenda--and, as I say, Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this need not take more than a few minutes because we don't intend to speak to any of this--we would simply like to vote on these motions.

As a slight change to the order of the witnesses today, I hope the committee would agree that representatives of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, particularly Mr. Moreno, who has travelled from El Salvador, should be allowed to testify first.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have the witnesses at the table already, Mr. LeBlanc.

Ms. Guergis.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Thank you.

I wanted to point out that there were four motions; two of them were mine. I noticed you wanted to talk about yours and Mr. Julian's, but you didn't acknowledge any of the other motions we have over here. Maybe we can decide which motions we are going to talk about at this moment: is it going to be all four or one? I don't think mine should be excluded from that process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I think there is a will among all members of the committee to deal with these motions as quickly as possible, because we do have two groups of witnesses waiting.

Mr. LeBlanc, we have other amendments Ms. Guergis talked about at the last meeting. We will deal with those as well, if we're going to deal with the motions now.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chairman, we'd be quite amenable to that. I don't disagree that the parliamentary secretary has also put motions. She said, “talk to the motions”. I'm proposing we don't talk to them; I'm proposing we vote on all of them very quickly and then move immediately to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I don't think we're going to eliminate debate on motions, Mr. LeBlanc. We can try to deal with them as efficiently as we can, and I'm sure everybody will do that.

Yes.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Chair, the opposition has suggested not to have any debate over any of the motions they've put forward on a regular basis. I suggest that's very undemocratic. I really don't have very much to say. I'd just like the opportunity to say what I do have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So we have to get the motion back on the table.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, you're saying we're proceeding as Mr. LeBlanc has outlined?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'm saying if you want to bring the motion back, go ahead, and we'll deal with that motion.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Chair, all motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, we'll start by bringing the motion back to the table, and then if there are amendments, which Ms. Guergis has indicated there are, we'll deal with the amendments and then we'll deal with the motion, either amended or not amended. And I hope we can deal with this quickly.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian, if you'd like to bring the motion before the committee.

Oh, it's Mr. Paquette. My apologies.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the motion has already been tabled. The parliamentary secretary had proposed an amendment and we had discussed it. However, we needed 30 more seconds to vote. We're now ready to do that.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I'm happy to speak to those amendments if there's an opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is the motion back on the...?

Mr. Paquette, have you brought the motion to the committee?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

It's the same motion that we debated at our last meeting. The parliamentary secretary proposed an amendment. We feel that it has been sufficiently debated and that it's now time to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

So you've brought the motion forward.

Ms. Guergis, you have amendments you'd like to propose. Just go ahead and do that and speak to the amendments. As you know, that's the process.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Out of respect for the witnesses, which is something that we on this side of the committee table have expressed many times, we would prefer to actually hear your testimony first, before getting into these, so that we don't waste your time and so that we actually have the most amount of time to hear what you have to say. That being said, we'll proceed.

The government members on this side of the House figured out some time ago that the opposition parties were not going to agree to the amendments or to any motions we've put forward at this table. We know from past experience that they really aren't prepared to even allow me to speak, so I am pleased to have this opportunity today.

We know we will lose, because that's just how it has been when it comes to voting on our amendments and such. They continually band together and just completely vote against anything that anyone on this side of the House has to propose.

We are trying to do the responsible thing here and provide balance. We had four amendments in total. That's what I had and what I wanted to present. I did get one introduced and one voted on, but in the interest, again, of time, I'll just quickly go through them.

The first one, of course, was just to add, “based on some of the testimony heard...”.

The second one was to amend the last paragraph of the motion:

That this motion be tabled in the House as the Committee's report within the next 24 hours.

I wanted to replace that with:

That this motion be tabled in the House as the Committee's interim report until such a time as a balanced report can be prepared.

Now, adding “interim report” actually would even have allowed the opposition members, at some point, to table a report that says pretty much whatever they want in it, because they can vote to decide whatever the content is, regardless of what we say on this side of the House. So I don't know why they would be opposed to this being an interim report and them having another opportunity to talk about it.

In the interest of time, I'm just going to add my other two amendments right away so we can vote on them all at once.

The next amendment was to amend the motion to include:

These recommendations do not necessarily reflect all the testimony heard by the Committee.

In fact, we had 10 witnesses here on Monday who gave us some excellent testimony, and it was not delivered before the Bloc motion was introduced, so I think it's very appropriate that we acknowledge that the 10 witnesses who were here were not included in the Bloc motion.

The last one was to amend the last paragraph:

That this motion be tabled in the House as the Committee's report within the next 24 hours.

And to say:

and the government be asked to provide a written response to this interim report within 120 days.

I would also think that this is a very reasonable request. I think anyone who's asking for the government to respond would want to put in a timeframe as to when you would want the government to respond to what you have to say.

I'm almost finished going through this.

Now, as I said, I believe that balance really has been our approach here and that the Bloc motion really has no opinion of any of the government members in it. It's very clear that much testimony has been cherry-picked to forward the political agenda of the opposition members. It is very unusual for an opposition member to draft a report on behalf of the entire committee. Hansard from the past few meetings is very clear. Anyone can see from reading the Hansard that there has been a complete lack of respect for witness testimony around this table. I refer back to the 10 witnesses who were not included in the Bloc motion. So my colleagues and I were extremely frustrated and disappointed about this.

I would just like to say, in closing, that I have read the Bloc motion, as all members have, and truth be told, point three, actually, starts to amaze me. It says:

Ensure that the anti-circumvention clause is worded so it preserves the provinces' ability to amend and enhance their forestry policy without the risk of American reprisals.

Well, one of the main points of this agreement in principle and the softwood lumber deal is to end all litigation. That's one of the main parts of the softwood lumber deal. You fail to recognize this.

I'd like to say, too, that of course the Canadian government has and will continue to negotiate in the best interests of our softwood lumber industry. That is what we're trying to do, and much of what is in the Bloc motion is what we have been very ambitious in trying to achieve.

Now, all the testimony in a proper report produced, as usual, by the researchers is what the normal procedure is around the committee table. It is, of course, what this side of the committee table would like to see happen. We respect the testimony of all our witnesses, and unlike the opposition parties, we are taking this process in a very responsible and reasonable manner, and we would like to see them do the exact same thing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Ms. Guergis.

You're right that it is a normal process. In fact, I've never seen it done any way before...where a report is put together by the researchers and then presented to the committee for some discussion. It's very unusual. I do respect that we're in a minority Parliament, and certainly we will respect that process.

Mr. Cannan, did you want to say something on the amendments?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't at the last meeting, but I did read the minutes, so I just want to be on record as verifying that I've been brought up to speed in that respect.

You just answered my question in regard to being a new member to government. I've been in local and regional government for nine years. I have never seen a committee member prepare a report; the staff was supposed to.... So I wanted to clarify that it is, from your perspective, an anomaly in that way.

I'm speaking in favour of the amendments. I think they're very reasonable, and we're trying to be as accommodating as possible. I fully support the reporting out in a process that's professional and, as quickly as possible, making sure that all the information is clearly communicated. When I say “all”, I mean hearing from all the witnesses, not just some. Our final report needs to reflect all the information that has been heard at this table.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

Now, just to make it clear, Ms. Guergis, in order to speed this process up and for the sake of time, has recommended that we have one vote on all of her amendments.

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. We will do that then.

Does anybody else want to speak on Ms. Guergis' amendments? No? Then let's go to the question.

(Amendments negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now we'll go back to the motion, unamended.

Is there any more discussion on the motion? No?

Then we will go to the vote on the main motion, Mr. Paquette's motion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])