Evidence of meeting #10 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal John Maloney
Members of the committee, we're back to the main motion.
I ask that the banter and the chatter that's going on across the way be toned down out of respect for the comments being made by individuals recognized by the chair. I think it's getting a little bit out of order.
Let's get on with this, as the time is creeping. Let's continue.
Mr. Julian.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
I want to speak to the suggestion made by my colleague, because I believe that's still up for debate. He made a friendly amendment to make a change with respect to the word “recommendations”. He suggested that we use the word “decisions”, in light of the fact this is a reflection of the discussion we had before, where we asked what recommendations Monsieur Cardin was referring to. Monsieur Guy also indicated there were specific cases around anti-dumping measures on bicycles or the furniture industry. So that is still up for debate.
I want to make an additional friendly amendment to that. As opposed to using the words “systematically implement”, I suggest we use the words “systematically consider”. That speaks to the concerns raised by the government with respect to flexibility and Mr. Pallister's comment that one size does not fit all and that there are some unique circumstance in each decision made. I think this will allow the government to have that latitude. In the spirit of cooperation, I think we've debated this extensively, and I think we need some sort of resolution or conclusion to this debate.
The friendly amendment I'm proposing is that we delete the word “implement” and substitute the word “consider”. The previous recommendation, or friendly amendment, made by Monsieur Dhaliwal was to take out the word “recommendations” and replace it with the word “decisions”.
One is presently under debate. I'm making a friendly amendment to that, in the spirit of cooperation, in light of the time.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Monsieur Cardin, as the mover of the motion, are you prepared to accept a friendly amendment to change the word “implement” to “consider”?
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Like my colleague, I would like to clarify. First, the name of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal should perhaps be changed, because in my opinion politicians can't interfere in a decision by any other judicial or civil tribunal, and ordinarily the decisions can be enforced. I would therefore ask for my colleague to clarify.
How does he understand this? What happens when the tribunal makes a decision about something, in accordance with measures that the government itself has adopted, for determining whether there is dumping going on, for example? It is the government that has established the measures for identifying it, and the tribunal makes a decision or recommendation using the tools available to it. What does he think about implementing the decisions or recommendations? How much latitude can the government have in respect of the decisions of a tribunal that has relied on things that the government has adopted?
I would like Mr. Bains to clarify this for me a bit.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you.
I just thought we might go for a little clarification. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I think you're misinterpreting the role of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. I don't think they make decisions. They have findings, they have....
Go ahead, Mr. Bains.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
I obviously didn't want to counter the point made by my colleague, but the reason I think he said that was because earlier on, when this debate started, Chair, we asked for specific recommendations, and we weren't getting clarity on that. I think that's what prompted the suggested change. So if there's a technical term that's more appropriate, I think we're willing to go with that. The intent is still the same. We want clarification on what “recommendation” is. If that refers to the fact that the trade tribunal makes recommendations as opposed to decisions, that's fine. That's all we want clarification on. That's point one.
The second point I've made with respect to the word “consider” is simply to come to terms with this motion so we can get all parties to agree on it. That was my intent. I've said from the outset that I understand the intent and the spirit of this motion. I understand the urgency with respect to Monsieur Cardin's concerns. So I'm not here to try in any way, shape, or form to compromise his position. I'm just trying to come to some sort of consensus on this particular motion so we can proceed with other issues.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
First of all, I'm not clear on whether Mr. Cardin has accepted the friendly amendment. If he has not, which I take from his comments he has not, then I would ask if it is in the form of an amendment that Mr. Bains is now proposing, and if so, I would like to speak to the amendment.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Could I ask Monsieur Cardin, and I think you could limit it to one word, whether you are accepting the friendly amendment?
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Well, if it's accepted, that's good, because it does change the wording in a way that allows Monsieur Cardin to make the emphasis he is wanting to make in urging the government to consider the decisions of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal without fundamentally changing the nature of the relationship between the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and the government, which in this case is the Minister of Finance.
The wording as it was prior to this time--“implement”--would have had our committee instructing the Government of Canada to fundamentally change that relationship from one in which the minister of the crown had the option to act, or not, on the recommendations or to follow some other course of action, to one in which he would have been requested by us to implement all recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, which we could not support. I'm pleased that Monsieur Cardin has accepted that friendly amendment, because I think it's constructive.
Rather than ask a question, I guess I should propose an amendment then, which is to eliminate the word “systematically”, because I'm not sure what the purpose of the word “systematically” is. How does one systematically consider something? I'm not sure. So I would just propose that we delete the word “systematically”. In my copy, it's in the fourth line.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Again, it's proposing that the friendly amendment.... Mr. Julian, are you going to accept that?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Mr. Julian isn't the mover, so it doesn't matter if he accepts it.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
