International Trade Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Oh, sorry. We haven't dealt with that issue. This is a proposed amendment.

First, is there agreement with the amendment, or should we go to discussion on the amendment? Is there agreement on the amendment proposed by Mr. LeBlanc?

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

No, not from us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No? Okay, then we'll have to go to debate on the amendment.

Ms. Guergis.

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

No. I would like to discuss the original motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, any discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the amendment. I think it's effective and makes the motion itself more specific and allows the government to take measure. I would hope we have four-corner agreement from all four parties around the committee table, because of course Mr. Menzies was very clear in the last federal election campaign that Canada should be following the successful example set by the U.S. and the European Community on this.

And this is a quote from Mr. Menzies in the last federal election campaign: “A Conservative government would stand up for Canadian workers and work proactively through international trade policies to ensure Canada competes on a level playing field.”

Certainly Mr. Menzies, I would assume, would be in support of the amendment as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cannan, on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to clarify. Maybe the mover of the amendment could comment. I know that in your correspondence that was sent out this morning it says, “Even though surging imports of clothing from China have devastated Canadian jobs and manufacturing, the previous Liberal government in Canada decided not to exercise this option”.

I'm wondering why you've decided to embark on this pass now when a short while ago they decided not to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment before we go to a vote? Then we will call the question on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now we will go to further discussion on the motion as amended.

Ms. Guergis.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Julian talked about Mr. Menzies' quote. Nowhere in his quote did it say that he would support safeguards. I don't think he should be speaking for Mr. Menzies. He's not here. So don't be putting words in his mouth. It doesn't say safeguards in that quote in any way, Mr. Julian. There are lots of ways you can achieve that without safeguards.

I do want to point out here that in the past the Liberal Party, of course, didn't support this measure, and I suspect that if they were on the government side today, they wouldn't. We see a game of politics being played here, and in my opinion, it's a little bit of shameful behaviour.

Again, I also see from this committee--which is not shocking, because this is the way it's been all along--that we completely ignore the normal procedure here. This may be a new committee, but there is a procedure that all committees are to be following with respect to research papers. Our researchers here, who are extremely talented, have not been able to do any of the work that we have been here for. It's their job to take a look at what the witnesses have to say and put together a report that all of us around the table look at line by line, fine-tune, and tweak. And that's what you give to the government with your recommendations in it. This procedure of putting a motion together that's only one-sided and that doesn't take into account the differences in opinion that we hear at the table is just irresponsible. Somebody has to hold you guys accountable for that. That's irresponsible.

Why would we not continue with the researchers the way we're supposed to and let them put forward a proper report that we can put forward? It doesn't prevent you from having everything in it that you want. It just shows that we've had other witnesses—which we have—who have not agreed with your position on that side of the table.

I also thought that perhaps some of the good work we could do at this table would be to talk about how the industries can adapt to the new trade environment, taking into account some of the recommendations they had, and give those to the government, and not simply say that there's only one option here. Because there are a lot, and we've heard those kinds of recommendations at this table, as well. I think that would be helpful. I think we're doing the entire industry a great injustice by not even acknowledging those other options, the other recommendations, and the other good work that's been done. I think that's very disappointing.

We, of course, know that since 2002 it's been $120 million. I will give credit to the previous government for that, for supporting the industry. But right now, I think you guys are really making a huge mistake. Perhaps it's not sexy, and it's not going to make the media headlines to see that you're completely flip-flopping on your position and being irresponsible. But it will be held against you at some point, and I can probably guarantee you on that one.

We will be voting against the motion because we believe in the good work of the researchers. We believe there is a process that's been followed for years here in government, and we would like to see a proper report done, because that is the way it should be done, and we respect process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Guergis.

Of course, that is a point that, as chair, I felt I should make, which I did. I think it clearly lowers the quality of the work done by committee when we don't go through the normal, accepted procedure of having reports produced by research and then brought back to the committee. That is a concern I have as chair, and I expressed that at the start of the meeting.

Thank you, Ms. Guergis for your comments.

Monsieur André.

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

I just want to comment quickly on this motion.

I don't think we need to do any research into the apparel and textile sector. Since 2002, 24,000 jobs have been lost. Half of the jobs in this sector in Quebec have disappeared.

I don't understand why the parliamentary secretary, Ms. Guergis, is so adamant about our studying this matter further. The apparel and textile industry is in crisis. We need to act quickly. I can't go along with the idea of doing more research. Again, I think that concrete action is warranted as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, we'll go to Ms. Guergis and then to Mr. Temelkovski--if you could finish your comments as quickly as possible--and then to Mr. Cannan.

Go ahead, Ms. Guergis.

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

I have not said that we needed further research. I said we needed the researchers to do the report the way that is standard procedure at all committees, not pass motions that are one-sided, giving only one part of the whole program and only one part of the witness testimony. I'm sure you must agree that we do the entire industry a great injustice by ignoring the other witnesses who've taken the time to be here to give us their evidence.

I'm not asking the researchers to do research. I'm asking them to put together a report based on the research we have been receiving here at the table. I don't think that's unreasonable. That is normal procedure. We're completely disrespecting not only their work but the other witnesses who've come before us, as though what they've had to say is of no importance or of any value whatsoever. And that's just not realistic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Guergis.

Mr. Temelkovski.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the parliamentary secretary is jumping to conclusions. I don't think here on this side we want to exclude the report. We are bringing attention to the motion, but we are definitely open and we encourage that we work on a report as we come back because we understand that we may not see a Thursday meeting this week. Therefore, the motion is appropriately timed as well, as a report should be forthcoming as we come back, when we will have more time to discuss and give the researchers time to do their work. And then we can discuss their report further and table it in the House after our return in January.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Temelkovski, of course the problem with this is that the report put together by the researchers may contradict the motion, and then our committee, once again, is certainly not presenting itself as a cohesive, thoughtful committee. That's why the normal procedure is for researchers to put together a report, which then is discussed at the committee, passed at the committee in some form, and then goes to the House.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Oftentimes, Mr. Chair, reports do not reflect the opinion of every member on the committee, and are dissenting reports. And we have mechanisms to deal with different views in making a report to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The issue, Mr. Temelkovski, is that the motion does not reflect, as Ms. Guergis has said, the witnesses we've heard. The motion came before we even heard from the witnesses. As chair, I'm not commenting on the motion really, I'm only commenting on the procedure, and I am concerned about that. I am concerned the committee could look weaker because of this procedure.

I will continue. Someone else had indicated they wish to speak. Mr. Cannan is next, and then Monsieur Cardin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also wanted to comment on the process versus politics. I think there's a real lack of productivity in this committee, and it's been very disheartening. This is my first term in office, and I'm really excited about this committee, and unfortunately, it's been very dysfunctional because of these kinds of ideas.

The witnesses we heard from today, and even the last two breakfast committee meetings we had, or subcommittee meetings, to me were some of the best meetings we had.They were depoliticized, and we heard straightforwardly where we need to go as a nation and as a country to help increase productivity as a government. I would recommend the mover of this motion to read those minutes. Unfortunately, he wasn't here for the breakfast meeting this morning, but the specifics were that people who live in protected industries are not as well off as those who work in a competitive nature.

As Mr. Lifson indicated, they have some real world solutions and really great practical solutions. I think government needs to focus on how we can accomplish those and what we can do to help industry move forward on innovation and creativity and increase customer service as well as offer a superior value. That's what I'd like to see this committee focus on rather than just politics.

I won't be supporting the motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

If the committee insists on going ahead with this motion, would the government like to put in a dissenting report? That's one way we can--

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

This isn't a report, though, that we're getting. How can I make a dissenting report to a non-report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It will be considered to be a report to Parliament.

You can consider that, and I'll go to Mr. Cardin for his comment.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Far be it for me to make assumptions, Mr. Chairman, but Mr. Julian tabled this motion several weeks ago and its consideration has been systematically deferred. Now, on the eve of a one or two-month break, we're saying that it is going to be deferred once again because we don't have a report from the researchers.

When the Liberal Party was in office, members were sufficiently informed. Therefore, I don't think we need to do the research over again. When the Conservative Party was sitting in opposition, members had ample opportunity to gauge the situation in the apparel and textile industry.

I think that Parliament needs to send out a fairly clear message at this point in time. This motion, however it may be crafted, sends a clear message to Parliament. I believe that message must be conveyed immediately.

While the House breaks for two months, some people will be not be on holidays. Nor will we be, for that matter. Drawing inspiration from this motion, they can work on finding possible solutions to this crisis situation.