International Trade Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

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

Mr. Chair, there are specific sectors that raise concerns. We're flagging those sectors from which we want to hear concerns. We want to evaluate the concerns; we want to look at the alternatives that are being proposed, as Mr. Maloney said so eloquently a few minutes ago.

The fact that there are some sectors in there I think indicates to them that we want to hear their opinions and to hear the concerns they're expressing. It's nothing more than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think we get your points, but it didn't seem to me those were precluded by the amended motion.

Mr. Cannan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be supporting the motion, the reason being I just want to help Mr. Dhaliwal. In fact, we do want to hear from all sectors or as wide a range as possible, not just those that, according to the motion, will be assuming they're going to be affected by this agreement. So if we could hear from as many of the industry sectors as possible, we'd have a more informed opinion as we move forward.

I would support the motion. I recommend that Mr. Dhaliwal does as well, just to help to clarify the reason the amendment is there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Miller.

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

Thank you.

I would also support Mr. Maloney's amendment.

Peter, I'm going to ask the clerk a question, and you may like to hear the answer, though I don't know what it's going to be.

In your opinion, Clerk, do you think this in any way keeps us from bringing before us any witnesses in relation to any sector in here? That seems to be Mr. Julian's concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The clerk isn't a witness, Larry. He's not required to answer.

I don't have any more names on the list, and we have another amendment before us.

Monsieur Cardin, did you want to speak to the amendment?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

To my way of thinking, if the proposed amendment had in fact been the original motion, perhaps we would all have supported it. However, it does away with important components which represent the raison d'être of the motion, namely concerns.

This motion confirms that the government may not have been attuned to these concerns and has failed to listen. It makes a clear reference to Canadians' concerns about job losses in a wide range of economic sectors. It contains the word “including”.

I realize full well that certain sectors of industry would be delighted to have free trade agreements for their own production. Moreover, I have no doubt that the Conservatives will be extending an invitation to these individuals, since the agreement with Korea will prove beneficial to them.

We are not excluding anyone, but we are emphasizing the very essence of the motion, namely the concerns that Canadians have about job losses in the different sectors that have been identified most often. In no way does this mean that other sectors are excluded.

For that reason, I am completely satisfied with the motion as originally worded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I take it then that you're not going to support the amendment.

Is there any further debate on the amendment?

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

On the subamendments?

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, in the last motion we only allocated 15 minutes to debate this, and we've been over half an hour at it. Do we have to change that motion, or do we just continue on? I just want to clarify this for my own information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Unless there is anybody who wants to move closure here.... We can discuss that, but I don't think we're going to do that at committee.

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

I just think we should wrap it up and get on with the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, we are just about to vote.

Would the clerk again read the proposed amended motion?

[The Clerk]

The motion would read:

That the Standing Committee on International Trade conduct extensive hearings on the implications of the Canada-Korea bilateral agreement currently being negotiated, specifically hearing testimony from a wide variety of sectors and diverse regions of Canada, and that the committee investigate alternative ways to build and strengthen Canada's trade relationship with Korea, and that the committee report this to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay, there is the amendment. I call the question on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The question is on the main motion as amended.

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

I have one question for clarification, and if it needs an amendment, good; if it doesn't, good.

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

Come on.

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

No, this is just for clarification I am asking.

Wow! This is unbelievable.

The last line says “report this to the House”. Report what to the House? Is it the report that we produce? Is that what we're reporting to the House, or what? I don't understand that part.

Peter, do you?

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

It simply indicates that the chair will be reporting to the House that we are conducting these hearings.

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

So it doesn't mean the report itself. It just means the motion that we agree to.

Okay, thank you.

[An hon. member]

Is that your intent?

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

I thought it was the report.

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

We should report the study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's why we kept putting “study” in, and you kept saying no.