International Trade Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We will be happy to begin the third meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

The committee business today is a notice of motion circulated to the committee by Mr. Julian. We will then proceed in camera, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), for consideration of the draft report on the study of Canada's trade relations with key foreign markets.

As I recall, we had determined at the last meeting that we were going to try to get this resolved within 15 minutes, so let's see if we can do that. With the committee's concurrence, I'd like to start by asking Mr. Julian to move the motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cannan will be particularly happy to hear me be very succinct.

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

That is always the case.

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

This stems from Minister Emerson indicating that he is proceeding with negotiations around a Canada-Korea bilateral agreement. As you know, Mr. Chair, as a committee we are looking to examine further that agreement.

There have been concerns raised outside the House by organizations in the community about possible job loss, so essentially what this motion does is indicate that we'll be hearing testimony about those concerns as well as hearing from those who support the proposed agreement, looking at alternatives around the agreement, and letting the House of Commons know that we are undertaking these hearings.

It is fairly straightforward, and hopefully we can quickly move on to the committee report. I move that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Is there any debate on the matter?

Go ahead, Mr. Pallister.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I support the intention of the motion, although I question its necessity. Nonetheless, I'll propose an amendment in good faith, which is that we delete everything after the word “negotiated” at the start of the third line.

That would allow the expression that we previously agreed to here in committee, which was that we wanted to hear witnesses on the issue of the Korean negotiations--as a committee we've already agreed to that, of course--and it would also allow Mr. Julian's motion to pass as amended. I will propose that as a conciliatory way to get this out of the way, so that we can get on with dealing with the agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Before we proceed any further, I'll indicate that we have an amendment, and that Mr. Julian's motion would now read:

That the Standing Committee on International Trade conduct extensive hearings on the implications of the Canada-Korea bilateral agreement currently being negotiated.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Miller is first.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'm obviously going to support the amendment. The reason, as Mr. Pallister said, is that although I know where you're headed with the motion and its intent and I don't have a big problem with it--although I do question its necessity as well--to name everything in there is almost being presumptuous that there's a problem in there. We don't have to have those particular ones in the motion, whether others have been missed or whatever, and in no way does not having them in the motion keep us from studying those at committee here. We can still call witnesses, but to have it actually in the motion is unnecessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, what that amendment would do is take out the function of informing members from all four corners of the House that the committee is undertaking this study, and that's a very important component. Reporting to the House allows all members to know that this committee is undertaking that study. It's important, as you well know, Mr. Chair. The amendment takes out what is one of the most essential aspects of what the motion actually indicates.

We have members who--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That would be “that the committee report this to the House”.

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

Yes. Essentially it has been normal practice through the trade committee as well to let members of the House know what work we're undertaking. We have had members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc, and the NDP raise concerns; this allows those members to know officially, through the chair of the committee, that we're undertaking this study.

Perhaps one of my colleagues could amend the amendment, but I don't think we need to take a lot of time here. We're getting to the point of quibbling over words while the motion, as it stands, is fairly clear. It is clear, and it allows for the manufacturing sectors that have already raised concerns outside the House about potential problems and potential job losses to come before committee and express those concerns, and it allows this committee to evaluate those concerns and evaluate the alternatives they are proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have a speakers list.

Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I first of all want to echo the comments made by Mr. Julian. I think this motion makes no presumption. I think manufacturing is in crisis. I think there are tremendous job losses. It's a well-written motion and I fully support it in its entirety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're on the amendment right now.

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

Yes, I'm just speaking to the reason why I feel the amendment is a bit short. I understand that there was a point raised by Mr. Pallister on the intention and necessity of this motion, but now that we are dealing with this motion and the intention seems to be well intended, I think it's very important that we have the continuation of the motion in its entirety, specifically talking about manufacturing and Canadian job losses, in the way it's worded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Maloney.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Yes, I think the motion in its entirety should be dealt with. Certainly we've heard concerns expressed both inside and outside the House on this specific trade agreement, especially from the sectors that have been listed. I think it's important that there is the clause saying “that the committee investigate alternative ways to build and strengthen Canada's trade relationship with Korea”. It reinforces the fact that we're not saying never any trade with Korea. I think we want to trade with Korea, but job losses have been directly targeted in the sectors mentioned. I think it's important that we give this a fair hearing.

Certainly in my constituency I've heard from many people. They would like to have some answers, and I don't think we've had those answers forthcoming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My comments are along the same lines as my colleagues who spoke before me. Overall, we are satisfied with the motion.

We must never lose sight of the fact that we represent the public and different groups, whether it be from the standpoint of the economy or of workers. Numerous jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector. Indeed, conditions in the manufacturing sectors vary from region to region in Canada. While concerns are different as well, the manufacturing sector continues to be the focus.

As members, we have a duty to gather as much information as possible. To date, we have received some information, but MPs need to know what the issues are. We need to find the tools to conduct in-depth studies and to investigate alternative ways of conducting trade with Korea that will not jeopardize the various manufacturing sectors in Canada and Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Cannan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just hearing what Mr. Julian alluded to, I wonder if I could add either a friendly amendment or a subamendment to just say that the committee report this study to the House, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Just so I'm clear, you would be suggesting, then, that you'd have an amendment to the amendment, to suggest that it would now read:

That the Standing Committee on International Trade conduct extensive hearings on the implication of the Canada-Korea bilateral agreement currently being negotiated, and that the committee report this to the House.

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

Report the study to the House, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Report the study to the House, yes.