Evidence of meeting #15 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
We do support the amendments, but we do have some other amendments. Would it be appropriate now...?
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Could we just have a point of clarification?
Why would you suggest August 21, Mr. LeBlanc?
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
I would suggest August 21 because we believe, Mr. Chairman, that this matter is urgent. I regret that the minister is not available until the end of July. I was hoping he would be available much sooner.
We could meet for the first time with the minister and, as a courtesy, allow him to be our first witness. That would certainly be appropriate on the morning of July 31. I think that based on those discussions and on the availability of witnesses, the clerk could prepare interesting witnesses, and I think we could have two useful and enlightening days. We would have to respect the fact that many of the people we're hoping will come will need some lead time. For example, I saw in correspondence from Monsieur Chevrette of Quebec that he's unavailable until the second week of August.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Taking a look at the wording that Mr. Julian has put in place here, I find that it's really predetermining the outcome of the witness testimony, and I don't really find the language to be acceptable, starting with “the profound changes” in the first line. I would recommend that should be changed and altered in some way, because many of us here believe that the deal has in fact been enhanced. So I think the suggestion that there have been profound changes needs to be addressed.
Looking at the very last line, it says--and this goes to my point even further about predetermining the outcome of the witness testimony--“to better understand their objections”. I suggest to Mr. Julian that we've heard a lot of testimony at this committee, and in my view, the majority of it is actually very much in support of the deal. So I think we should be changing the wording to say “their objections and support to the agreement”, and I'd like to see a period after the word “agreement”, and leave it at that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We have an amendment on the table here. We'll have discussion on the amendment, unless, Mr. Julian, you would accept those changes, removing the word “profound”, and adding in the last line after “objections”, “and support”, and ending that sentence after “agreement”, and removing “and explore alternatives”. Would you agree to that as a friendly amendment?
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm sure it's intended as a friendly amendment, but if there is disagreement about a couple of words, I think that's a subject of debate. It's not something that should be changed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, let's have that debate, then. The amendment is on the floor.
Mr. Eyking, I believe, was the first one.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I cannot see how the government could not see that there have been profound changes. The agreement in the last month has not been enhanced. We were looking at a five-year opt-out from stakeholders, and now we're down to under two years--to 23 months. These are profound changes, and they are changes that would really be detrimental to the position of Canadian producers. They are profound changes, and I agree with Mr. Julian that the wording should stay as is.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
I would like to add my voice to those of previous speakers. First of all, the agreement signed on July 1st contains a clause providing for the agreement to be terminated after two or three years, subject to interpretation. However, that clause was not part of the framework agreement reached on April 27th, and all the associations are refusing to go along with it.
Second, in the motion we have before us, reference is made to the associations that have spoken out against the July 1st agreement, particularly in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec. For all intents and purposes, that means that the provincial associations affected by this agreement are unanimous. That being the case, we want to know why they are opposed to the July 1st agreement, when in fact several of these same associations, including the Conseil de l'industrie forestière du Québec, were prepared to go along with the April 27th agreement, albeit reluctantly.
It is quite extraordinary that associations which supported the April 27th framework agreement have now withdrawn their support in the wake of the July 1st signing of this agreement. What that means is that there have been some fairly significantly changes made.
I think we should hear from them, in order to know exactly what they think happened.
In my opinion, motion 3 should remain as is, because that is what prompted us to hold a meeting today and to decide to hold at least two other meetings during the summer period. If the only purpose had been to assess the positive and negative aspects of the agreement, such as we have already done, it might not really have been necessary to meet during the summer. We are meeting now because we are faced with a particular situation, and it's important to emphasize that in the motion.
So, like my colleagues, I would ask that we stay with the original version.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
As chair, I certainly don't want to get involved in the debate, but I am somewhat concerned that from your comments, Mr. Paquette, you're prejudging what the witnesses will say, and I certainly think we ought to hear them, unless you're saying that you think what witnesses have already said to date will just be repeated in the future. Anyway, I'll leave that to the members of the committee.
Mr. Menzies.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also have to strongly oppose the prejudice that is built into this motion. No agreement that I've ever been involved in would have had a respectable outcome if one had gone into it taking an intransigent position and saying, “This has failed; now let's talk.” That isn't the way you operate.
To say there are profound changes.... This agreement has been improved. In any international agreement--for those of us who actually believe in international agreements as a fundamental future for this country, and I realize that some people around this table don't believe in trade--these changes are for the better.
The U.S. or Canada could have opted out of this with only 12 months, prior to these improvements. Now we have a three-year basis, plus a year in which the party can say they want to opt out. So that's four times better than what we had. This agreement continues to improve things for the industry.
There are comments coming out around this table about how everybody's opposed to this. I just met with the natural resources minister from Alberta on the weekend. His industry is supportive of this. So we're hearing a lot of things that aren't exactly factual.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I think Mr. Menzies is out of order. He's not discussing the motion. He's--
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I think our friend here is out of order because we're discussing
the softwood lumber agreement that has been reached, and not Mr. Julian's motion.
Mr. Julian states in his motion that profound changes have been made to the agreement. We have heard some arguments, but Mr. Menzies' refer more to the agreement, when that is not necessarily the point of the motion we have before us. Indeed, this motion is intended to allow all members present to ascertain why the various forestry associations have reacted the way they have to this agreement.
I think we should vote on the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. André, clearly what Mr. Menzies was saying speaks directly to the motion, which is what we're discussing right now.
Mr. Menzies, continue.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would argue very strongly that the comments I was making were with regard to this motion. This motion prejudges the outcome of the discussions around this table. If we agreed with this motion, we would be saying that there have been profound differences and that there have been no supportive comments made by any witness. That is absolutely false. How can anyone around this table approve a motion that is not factual? We have heard objections, and I'll agree to that, but we've also heard support.
I agree with the suggested amendments to this, and I would vote in favour of those.