International Trade Committee on June 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Just read that motion.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

My first motion reads as follows:

That the Committee on International Trade hold a supplementary session to hear witnesses on the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Framework Agreement.

Of course, this meeting would take place before summer recess. We are expecting to sit until the 20th or the 21st of June. This leaves us at least three days in which we could either extend our meeting or change our work agenda.

Here is the text of my second motion:

That the Committee on International Trade prepare a report including recommendations to the government regarding the Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Framework Agreement based on the testimony it has heard and table this report in the House.

There has already been two meetings--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll just take the one motion at a time.

Mr. Paquette, if you have a few short comments on the first motion—you've made some already—we'll have a discussion on it and a vote.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

How many requests to appear has the clerk received?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Richard Dupuis]

About eight.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

We have received eight additional requests to appear. There is even a day for which there is nothing on the agenda. We might then have that meeting on June 16.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The one that is open now is the 19th, just for your information.

Mr. Julian.

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

I'd like to offer a small amendment, Mr. Chair, that we change “hold a supplementary session” to “hold supplementary sessions”. I'll speak to that.

I agree with the principle of Mr. Paquette's proposal. Obviously we're learning a great deal about the softwood agreement from what we've had so far from witnesses. Though we're looking at eight, I believe there are a number of mayors who have indicated they would like to speak to this issue as well.

I found it was a difficult format to have the nine industry representatives around this table. I don't think we had the time to really question them fully, and there would have been a lot more information forthcoming had we had a smaller number here.

I would like to suggest that we're looking at probably a couple of sessions. One is probably already available, I believe, over the next two weeks. We'd have to do an evening session too, but I'm certainly willing to work in an evening session, because this is a very important issue.

I think Mr. Paquette's motion is an excellent one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there any other discussion on the amendment, or should we go directly to a vote?

Is this on the amendment, Mr. Menzies?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

It's on the amendment and the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No, it's the amendment we're on right now.

Mr. Julian has proposed an amendment, just changing “supplementary session” to “supplementary sessions”, plural.

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

What if we don't agree with the motion to begin with?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll be debating the motion after we have a vote on the amendment.

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, we've had a brief discussion, we Liberal colleagues at the table. We support both of Mr. Paquette's motions. We're very comfortable with Mr. Julian's amendment, on the understanding that it's one more session.

I'm conscious of the clock and I'd like to dispose of these motions now. We'll be supporting them. I just want to make sure we don't redo the whole schedule your subcommittee has worked on. If he does believe we need a supplementary session, as in one more—perhaps it could be an evening session or something.... We don't want to redo the whole schedule of the committee. We just recognize that it's a very valid point. We'll support the amendment, and I would suggest we try to be brief and move to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Let's have a quick vote on the amendment, to make it “sessions” rather than “session”.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The motion we're dealing with now is then for “supplementary sessions”; however, the proposal said not to modify the agenda. There's only one spot open, I believe, right now, till the forecast end—assuming we're done by June 23.

We're back to the motion as amended.

Mr. Menzies, and then Mr. Cannan, I believe.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of softwood lumber, but we just had presentations from a number of individuals on all the issues at the WTO that affect all of this country and an awful lot more dollar value in this country.... We haven't even addressed that; we've just touched the surface of the issues that we have at WTO. Those are very, very critical discussions going on, and very time-sensitive discussions. We have our ministers leaving in three weeks to go to the WTO negotiations.

I would far sooner see that spare day put to discussing WTO issues and how we can help our ministers get a deal to help our constituents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Menzies.

I believe it's Mr. Cannan next, and then Ms. Guergis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I concur with my colleague, in the sense that we've heard from over a dozen different industry representatives already. There isn't a consensus: we know there are still some issues to be worked on; negotiations are ongoing; and industry representatives are being consulted—our minister is working with industry and different associations. I just think it's so repetitive to have a whole parade of people coming here and telling us their concerns. We know there are concerns, and they're being addressed.

I don't think it's an effective use of our time. I agree there are other issues. This is a serious matter, but hearing it at this table isn't going to make this agreement be signed any quicker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

Mr. Eyking, and then Ms. Guergis.

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

The two negotiation issues are totally different. Softwood lumber is totally different from WTO; softwood lumber is a bilateral negotiation that we're having. We're right at the final stages. It's so critical, and there are so many witnesses who have grave concerns. It's different from the WTO altogether, where we don't have this big push-back from many of the people. There's concern, but there's not a big push-back on what's happening in Geneva. So there is quite a bit of difference, and I think there's more at stake with the softwood lumber right now.

I would like to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

One more speaker.

Ms. Guergis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. The question has been called.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It doesn't mean....

This individual has asked to speak on it and she'll be allowed to speak.

Go ahead, Ms. Guergis.

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

Maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Julian, and your comments to Mr. Clark, which I'm bringing up because they were specific to WTO. He was actually agreeing with me that WTO is important and that we should be talking about it. So maybe you should do your research before you decide to try to slam someone across this table, because you made a fool of yourself.

I would like to say that it is very irresponsible for this committee not to take WTO negotiations, and a good conversation about them, seriously. We will have ample time in the House; the minister and the Prime Minister have been very clear that we will be debating the softwood lumber deal in the House. So we will have more time then, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say there, but I really just do want to share my disappointment with this committee and the fact that we're not giving ample time to WTO negotiations. And I'd like to point out that contrary to what some of my colleagues have said around this table, the majority of the industry do support the softwood lumber deal.