International Trade Committee on Feb. 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay, so we notice that the Liberals proposed an amendment to--

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

It's not so much an amendment as it is a correction to make sure the French and English--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur Cardin, are you in agreement with that?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I'm not sure how we interpret the meaning of the English and French versions. I would need some clarification, and I would like us to go back to this point. I believe that “considérer” or “tenir compte” are the same in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It harmonizes with what it says in French. It's not exactly the same in English.

Madame Folco, you wanted to comment.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'm going to adopt a grammatical attitude.

If we look at the French,

it says: “[...] de tenir compte des recommandations du Tribunal [...] en particulier celles concernant la prise [...]” “Harmoniser” should also refer to “tenir compte des recommandations du Tribunal canadien”.

That's correct, Mr. Cardin, I believe. In other words, the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal should be considered regarding safeguards, but also regarding bringing Canada's trade laws into line.

Is that your intent?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I thought that was yours.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

No. That's what we would like to change in English. We have to be sure that that's what you also understand in French. The French isn't entirely clear with regard to that.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

What I understood in French was that the government should adopt trade measures to support these sectors. It should consider the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, especially those regarding safeguards and those designed to bring Canada's trade laws into line with those of the United States and the European Union with respect to antidumping measures.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

This is simply a question of language, not at all a question of content. I propose that we go back to Mr. Cardin's suggestion. We could say: “especially those regarding safeguards and those designed to bring Canada's trade laws,” etc.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

There was the word “regarding”.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

So that would be the exact translation of Mr. Maloney's suggestion: “[...] bring Canada's trade laws [...]” I'm merely proposing a French translation of Mr. Maloney's recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think that's much clearer.

I did want to say, though, that at the last meeting we had a friendly amendment that did in fact omit the words in English “especially those regarding safeguards”. That was taken out. So if that makes your life a little easier, we could also take out “the measures of safeguard” in the previous one.

We're discussing two things here at once. We had already dealt with the one last week, but it wasn't taken out of this draft. So then simply following up on Mr. Maloney's suggestion, it would now read from the third line: “to consider recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to consider bringing Canada's trade laws into line with those in the United States and the European Union”.

I think in any event, if that's all it is, we can do that in the final motion. It's just to harmonize it with the French version. There's not a question of a change in attitude here; it's just a translation. Is that correct?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I entirely agree with Ms. Folco's suggestion referring to those designed to bring Canada's trade laws into line. That's what we agree on.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Bringing the laws into line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay, so then we have an amendment.

I think we've gotten through the point then, and we have a friendly amendment. There's really no dramatic change in the wording in English; it's just to make clearer the intention as it was expressed in French.

Do you have more, Mr. Maloney?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a second point.

I have concerns about the last part of the motion: “and report the adoption of this motion to the House at the earliest opportunity”. As was pointed out in the last meeting, there are three other similar motions before other committees. If we report this back, there are three hours of debate for us times three hours of debate for the other three committees too. I think that's a little bit abusive of Parliament, and I would like to see that deleted. Certainly this whole topic is of concern, and we could probably have hearings on each of these points ourselves before we would perhaps make a formal, detailed recommendation to Parliament, at which time it would be prudent if we did that type of study on all those areas of concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

As is our practice, I will first ask the mover of the amendment, Mr. Cardin, if he would accept that as a friendly amendment, to delete the words following “sector”: “and report the adoption of this motion...at the earliest opportunity”.

Are you prepared to consider that a friendly amendment and delete it?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would nevertheless like to speak to the argument and the rationale, because Mr. Maloney, with all due respect—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Cardin, you can answer yes or no. If you answer yes, the debate is over. If you answer no and you won't accept it as a friendly amendment, then we'll have to ask Mr. Maloney to move it, and then we can have debate and hear your reasons. I'm simply asking if you're prepared to accept it as a friendly amendment. Yes or no?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Fine. Then I would ask Mr. Maloney if he would care to move it as a motion so Mr. Cardin--

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I move that we delete the last portion of the motion, starting in the second last line, as follows: “and report the adoption of this motion to the House at the earliest opportunity.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Then we have an amendment proposed by Mr. Maloney, and we'll begin debate.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, with all due respect for Mr. Maloney, he informed us earlier that other motions of this kind had been introduced in other committees.

I would like to point out that the aspects we are discussing are the responsibility of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We are talking about the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, about safeguards, about bringing Canada's trade laws into line with those of the United States regarding antidumping rules. That falls under international trade.

The introduction states, and I quote: “[...] recommend that the government introduce as soon as possible an improved aid package for the forestry and manufacturing sectors [...]” That introduction may be repeated in a number of motions introduced in other committees, but the remainder, the substance that follows this statement concerns us directly. We can't ask the other committees, which will be studying other aspects that concern them, to do the work for which we are responsible.

So I believe that all the aspects here should be considered by all parliamentarians not sitting on the Standing Committee on International Trade. Once again, with all due respect for Mr. Maloney and cognizant of his great wisdom, I ask him to reconsider his amendment.