International Trade Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. Let's have a bit more discussion on this and then, Peter and Guy, if you want to go ahead with this then we will need the information. We need to know meeting dates. We need to know witnesses, or at least suggested witnesses, and all of that kind of thing. So let's have a little more discussion before you let the committee know what you want to do with this.

Could we have Mr. Eyking and then Mr. Maloney?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're not exactly happy with the deal, as has been made well known in the House over the last few days, but that being said there was a considerable amount of time spent on this, and I have to commend all my colleagues for the time they spent on this over the summer. We had a lot of witnesses.

There is a time, though, when we have to move on. There are many issues on trade that we have to be following as a committee, and we also have to recognize the amount of moneys that are available for travel. Ms. Guergis, regarding travelling, we might have to look at travelling to Asia. We might have to look at many things as a committee, especially when we're dealing with bilaterals.

Anyway, at the end of the day my point is this. We have to move on. We have many other important things to deal with concerning trade, and we have to watch how we're spending our money when we're dealing with travel.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I supported the motion last summer. Unfortunately, the dynamics have changed. We have had the vote in the House. I would agree with the sentiments of the two previous speakers that I think it's time to move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the way the committee is going on this, gentlemen. Ms. Guergis has a comment. Then you can decide whether you want to go ahead with this or not.

Go ahead.

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

Thanks very much.

Further to Mr. Eyking's comments, I believe the committee did agree that we would, perhaps, set one of our meetings aside every week to talk about the North American strategy and competitiveness, which would include some bilateral conversations, as well. If we could agree that one meeting a week is focused on that—I believe the researchers may have worked up a work plan for us—we can talk about that at one point. But I'm sure that we might want to talk about a couple of free trade agreements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This is getting into future business other than the motion that's before us. Could we bring that up a little later?

Yes, Mr. André.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Chairman, my motion in essence called for us to consider future business, not necessarily to go ahead with Mr. Julian's motion. I think the committee should examine the softwood lumber bill. Therefore, I agree with my colleagues. We should settle this matter today to avoid having to sit on Thursday merely to deal with future business. That's where I was going with my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Sorry, I didn't catch that for sure. I'm not sure whether it was the translation or whether I wasn't listening carefully enough. Did you say you would prefer to deal with future business on Thursday?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

No, no, today. That was my proposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Today? I don't know whether people are prepared today. Okay, we'll certainly go there.

Mr. Julian, you suggested that we go ahead with the travel that was agreed to earlier. Do you want to comment on that?

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

Mr. Chair, this committee has adopted a motion. That is what was adopted by the committee. The direction we've given to you as chair, and to the clerk, is to arrange those hearings.

We have a bill that will be coming forward, presumably, if it passes second reading, and it will involve hearings in any event. So we're not talking about past business, we're talking about current business. We need to know what the impact is in the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay region, in northern Quebec, which is Pierre Paquette's motion. We need to know what the impact is in northwestern Ontario, which was Mr. Boshcoff's motion. We need to know what the impact is in British Columbia.

It's very pertinent, it's very relevant, and I think the residents of those areas have already expressed real interest in these hearings. If this committee adopts a motion that cancels those hearings, I think folks in those regions would like to hear about it. We have a motion—it was adopted—that directs the chair and the clerk to structure those hearings. We also have work that would be coming forward that meshes very well with the hearings.

So I would suggest that we just continue, given that we have the motion and given that we have adopted this attempt to go to those three regions, and we proceed to mesh the hearings on the second reading of Bill C-24, at the committee stage--assuming it passes second reading--with hearings in the region. Rather than having folks, the few wealthy, come to Ottawa to express their points of view, we go to the regions. That's what we should be doing as parliamentarians to hear firsthand what the impact of Bill C-24 will be in those regions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, you're a very creative MP, but there a couple of things.

First of all, if we're going to discuss how to handle the meetings on the legislation, that's one thing. But taking a motion from the past and all of a sudden making that motion apply to our committee meetings on the implementation legislation for the trade deal is a different thing. You can't do that.

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

I disagree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You would have to have another motion come to committee. What has to happen is that there has to be a motion from the committee to take any proposal for travel to the liaison committee for approval. That means that the House leaders have to approve. It doesn't sound like that's going to happen.

If you want me to, and if the committee wants me to, I will take it to the liaison committee. The House leaders can have that discussion, and we'll—

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

Mr. Chair, that is what happens in committees. When we direct you--as we have--that is implicit. I understand the change in clerk, but normally we would already have a budget and you would have already done the follow-up. I understand that may have been delayed because of the change in clerk, but the direction was very clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You need to have a liaison committee meeting, and we haven't had one yet. I've been told that the next meeting of the liaison committee will be on September 28 or 29.

[The Clerk]

What you have is a motion requesting or ordering the chair to present a budget proposal to the liaison committee. That's the first point. It is not to make the arrangements, as you pointed out, Mr. Julian, which is a fair comment; it's really to seek permission to travel.

The second step, if the liaison committee approves, is for the House leaders to give permission to travel. A prerequisite for any motion to travel is dates. If you don't have dates, it's difficult to determine when you'll travel.

If you want to travel on the softwood lumber legislation, Bill C-24, it is in front of the House at the moment. As you pointed out, if it comes to committee.... I know there's an amendment and a subamendment in the House at the moment, so it is difficult to do a budget and a proposal for travel, because there are no dates.

I don't want to prejudge the liaison committee, but from my experience I would be surprised that they would approve a budget based on hypothetical travel, because you don't have the dates. It's a bit of a conundrum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, where shall we go from here?

This committee certainly has every right to reverse the motion before us. I've had a call to put to a vote whether we carry forward on this.

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would argue that we are talking about two completely different discussions here. The motion that was put forward and carried at the previous meeting was discussing the potential softwood lumber agreement.

If we decided to travel now it would be to have discussions on Bill C-24. We would need a completely different motion from this committee...two totally different discussions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's what I'm arguing too. Mr. Julian is making the point that the committee agreed to take this travel to the liaison committee. Of course, we haven't had a meeting of the liaison committee since that time. But to me it doesn't seem to make any sense to do that.

Mr. Julian.

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

The solution is very simple. We can have an all-party agreement to complete the debate on second reading by a certain date. We'll then have dates to propose to the liaison committee. That's not a difficult thing to do.

If the liaison committee is meeting on Thursday afternoon, I believe we could have an agreement in place by Thursday morning, the next date of the international trade committee. So the issue of dates is easily resolved, and we could resolve it by Thursday morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I would defer back to my honourable colleague Mr. Eyking, who made a great deal of sense when he talked about the importance of all the other trade issues that we have to discuss, that are very important to this committee and very important to Canadians. We have a piece of legislation in place at a certain level; we need to talk about this binational panel that we've never formulated before. This is a panel that we don't have a template to put together, so we need to have a discussion around here. We need to bring in advisers to tell us how to put this panel together, who should sit on it, who will choose this panel. We have some very important discussions right here at this table, rather than travelling across this country to talk about a deal that's already done and bringing into one day a week where the future of this country goes on other trade issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Let's bring this to conclusion. We can't do it with a motion to follow through on something the committee already agreed to, so is somebody willing to bring a motion to the table that we cancel the initial motion, because it doesn't seem particularly relevant any more, and that we get on to dealing with the other business of the committee, something to that effect, that we don't go ahead with the travel agreed to by the committee before?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I so move.