Evidence of meeting #30 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 negotiations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
The Clerk
It would be as follows: “That the committee report to the House on the Canada CA4 FTA negotiations while:”
Then, after the “while”, there would be the four bullets that are there.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Is it understood what the amendment is?
Any more debate on the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to)
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Now we'll go to the motion as amended. Any more discussion on the motion as amended?
Mr. Epp.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was afraid you were going to miss me.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
No.
I would like to appeal to the collective wisdom of this committee. We need to remember that our mandate is to do what is good for our country and for the people in our country. I'm glad we have now moved away from actually suspending the negotiations, because I think that would be extreme interference with the process that is under way on the authority of the government--both the previous and the present one.
I'd like to talk about the first bullet. There's full and immediate disclosure of all draft text. I'm going to try to persuade everyone, even Mr. Julian, to vote against this motion. I know that with his involvement in the past in union negotiations--as with mine--those negotiations are never conducted in public while they are taking place. And that's at the union's behest.
I was the chairman of our branch for a number of years. Later on, I became the president of the staff association at NAIT, where I worked. We had negotiators whose job it was to bring forward what we called our initial position. Those initial positions were always beyond what we expected to get. If you simply went forward with what you expected to get, then during the negotiation process that would be whittled away and you'd end up with a whole lot less. So in a negotiating process, you say this is where we want to end up; we anticipate the other side is going to come here, so in order for us to end up here, our initial position is going to be on the other side in an equal amount. If we were looking for, say, a salary increase of 3%, we would ask for 6% or 8%, knowing that they were going to come in with 0%. They always did.
We started negotiating, and we moved toward a position that was acceptable to our members and the people we represent. To disclose those opening positions while the negotiations are taking place is very detrimental to the process. You end up with a whole bunch of emotional reaction to positions that are unreasonable in the public's mind.
I would like to urge this committee to forget about this whole motion because of its lack of wisdom in terms of the process. Indeed, we have to have public debate and stakeholder consultations, because these are the people who are involved. But that takes place a little later in the process. I think it would be a great disservice to our negotiators, who work on behalf of our country, to expose them to having to make all their initial drafts public.
On that count, I would appeal to all members of this committee to reject this motion outright, because of its lack of practicality and lack of being able to accomplish what our negotiators are to do for us.
On the surface, it looks wonderful. I'm in favour of this. I'm in favour of openness and accountability. I always have been. I've been a member of Parliament for 13 years, and I became an MP because I wanted more openness and accountability. This is not, however, how to achieve it. What you do is you open up the accountability, not on the process but on the finished product.
I would like to persuade Mr. Julian to either withdraw his motion or to vote against it so that it's defeated. And certainly, to the other members of the committee, I would appeal very strongly on the basis of what I have just said.
Thank you.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Epp.
Along the same line, as chair, I question the first bullet, where it says “That the Committee report to the House, recommending that the government:”, and the section toward the end, “and that a binding parliamentary vote be required...”. I really question whether that's in order.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Oh, that's a separate motion. Okay.
So we're not dealing with that motion at all right now. Okay, fine. We won't go there yet then.
Is there any more discussion on the first motion?
Noon
Liberal
John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON
I have a question, perhaps to Mr. Julian.
Is his concern that he wishes to correct the errors of NAFTA and other bilateral agreements, that labour rights be included as a specific part of an agreement? Is this what he's trying to get at? If so, rather than at this stage having full disclosure of the draft text, can we provide a recommendation to this committee that in fact labour rights would be included as a part of this agreement?
Is that what you're driving at, Peter? This follows the earlier presentation this morning from our first panel.
Noon
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, and it also stems from the presentation we heard in June. In both cases the witnesses were very clear that we needed to know what was being negotiated.
Noon
Liberal
John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON
Why don't we direct a motion directly on that point as opposed to pussyfooting? Legitimate concerns have been expressed, so let's target your specific issue and vote on that and the recommendation to government.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
The motion contains three specific points. I don't have any objection to the second and third. As for the first, it seems to me that many people have reservations, mainly when it comes to negotiations.
However, at a minimum, some facts must be part of the public debate. People must know the sacrifices the negotiators are prepared to make on matters that concern individuals or businesses. The point is not to specify the percentage that will be applied to one element or another or to reveal the exact bargaining strategies. However, people, entrepreneurs, businesses and industrial concerns must know whether the government wants to sacrifice their specific area for the benefit of another. There has to be a debate. Priorities must be set.
So let's work together to find the specific terms that will determine what should be disclosed to business people, for example. I'm going to wait for someone to suggest to me the specific words concerning the idea of immediately disclosing the government's orientations, at least the orientations that provide us with some context in the negotiations and that people are entitled to know.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, you've heard the proposal. We have to deal with this. We're over time now. We could just go to the question.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We'll do that then.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Julian, I guess we will have to leave the next one for the next meeting. I hope we can deal with it in short order at the meeting, because we're over time here now.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I know there are a couple of amendments that will be brought forward by my Liberal colleagues and my Bloc colleagues, so if there's consensus that they come over to the Thursday meeting, I think that would be appropriate.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, then we will deal with that at the Thursday meeting.
The meeting is adjourned.