International Trade Committee on June 4th, 2008

[Leigh Cruess]

I might add a quick anecdote.

I was in Colombia in February, outside of Bogata, at a social event at which there were a number of members of Canadian companies, Canadian embassy staff, as well as a large number of Colombians, some whom are advisors to either members of the government or to ministers. I was told by the chairman of the Canada-Colombia chamber of commerce, as well as by one other individual who was close to the president, that in the area of environmental law and in the area of corporate social responsibility standards, when they looked at rewriting their laws and regulations regarding those areas they looked to the Canadian laws and standards. They considered them to be best in class, and also considered them to be more politically saleable in a country like Colombia than picking them from the American comparable laws and regulations.

So I think we have in fact led by example, and we have in fact, created a standard in Colombia. The question is, how much more can we do?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Cruess, and thank you, Mr. Keddy.

With that, we're going to have to wrap it up and get to our other business. I'm going to thank our witnesses. It was particularly good today, with the firsthand experience you have had. We very much appreciate the time you've taken. I'm sorry we were rushed again today. It's a long way to come for such a short period of time, but I very much appreciate it.

If you have anything else you'd like to add, you can submit it in writing to the committee. We're in the process of writing the report—as I speak, in fact.

I want to thank you again for your appearance today. With that, I will ask you to call it a day. Thank you.

I'm going to turn the attention of the committee to committee business. Take one minute to bid our witnesses farewell, and then please return to your seats.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Keddy, before we broke earlier we were in the midst of discussion on your motion, so the motion is returned to the floor.

I'm just thinking that we have time pressing here, and we could debate back and forth, but there seems to be a sense that the committee does not want to be rushed and that there is an interest in pursuing Colombia.

My sense is that Mr. Keddy would like to have EFTA dealt with before the end of the session. I think the only way we'll be able to do that, without knowing when the session is going to be over, is to get it done in a couple of days.

We know there are witnesses who would like to appear. We've heard about the CLC and we've heard about shipbuilding concerns from other colleagues. I think it's quite possible to get this done. We could have witnesses on Monday and Wednesday and even do clause-by-clause on Wednesday, if there were a consensus of the committee.

Other than that, we can debate forever and come to the same banging of heads. I'm not into banging of heads, so rather than pursue your motion, I would like to get a comment from a representative of each of the parties to see whether they would be prepared to say let's try to get this done and then be able to carry on with Colombia.

I think there is a general sense that we may be able to conclude Colombia as well, at least to get our report out—or even tabled, if the House goes as late as June 20. But I think we're going to require some goodwill all around to do both.

With that opening comment, Mr. Keddy, in the interests of time I would rather just ask each one of the party representatives to give me their view on whether or not they think we can get both of these things done, one of them done, or what their preference is before the end of the month. I'm presuming we're going to have about four more meetings before we adjourn.

Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Our party's view is very consistent with what you've said, in that we feel that we've put a lot of effort into this study on Colombia. We've travelled to Colombia and we've met with a long list of witnesses, and we think it's important that we complete this study first and, subsequently, look at the EFTA implementation act that has been brought before the committee. The only caveat there is that we have additional witnesses we'd like to bring forward, so that needs to managed in the time as well.

So the sequence of events should be consistent with what you said: Colombia first, and then complete the report on it, and then EFTA.

That seems to be our position. I hope that's correct.

Colleagues, does that make sense?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

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

Okay.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am hearing some things... If Mr. Keddy says that he wants to deal with this matter quickly next week, it is probably because he thinks that we will not be here in two weeks, starting the week of June 16. So, if the committee is not sitting in the week of June 16, we run the risk of not finishing our Colombia task either. If Mr. Keddy knows that the House is going to be prorogued any day now, it is almost certain that we will not be able to finish working on Colombia or on the free trade agreement that we want to start looking at.

So we have a problem because there a number of things we do not know. We might have a time problem. I even have difficulty imagining that we can produce a draft report before the end of the session unless our research analyst has worked 24 hours a day since we got back from Colombia. There really is a lot of material to deal with.

So I am wondering about the government's motives. If we finish neither the study on Colombia nor the one on the FTA, we are certainly going to continue the Colombian one when we return. Or perhaps we are going to stay long enough to finish the report. So we could quickly find out if other witnesses are needed next week.

Personally, I have some very specific questions. If we continue our work next week, people from the department are probably going to appear. Some of them can give us information on specific aspects of the FTA and its implementation, can they not? That is why I am a little ambivalent on the work schedule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sure the timetable is not up to Mr. Keddy, and probably not up to the government, for that matter. So I think you can get away from the hypothetical. I would just be happy to know what you think, not what you speculate someone else thinks. But I think we get your drift.

Mr. Julian.

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

I agree with Mr. Bains. Witnesses are scheduled for next week, representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, for sure. They are coming here specifically to talk about Colombia. So let us continue our study on that.

As to the bill, there is no requirement at all to pass it in two weeks. People from the department prepare the entire process, as they do any time a bill is tabled before a committee or before the House. They do that so that the bill can come into effect when it is passed, if it is passed.

Doing that in the next four meetings is not a problem. We have time to complete the study, whether it be during the summer or in September. So I propose that we continue studying Colombia and hear witnesses next week. I think that other witnesses are scheduled for next week. So we can either hear them, or begin to look at the study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay.

Mr. Keddy, if you think you can add something here, go ahead.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I certainly hope I can. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are a couple of issues here, obviously. I think I've been fairly clear in explaining my reasons why, and I'm a little disappointed that this is somehow going to become a debatable point. For the government, we certainly would like to get EFTA off the books. We'd like to do that by Wednesday of next week. We're prepared to have extra meetings if there are some members who have not had an opportunity to come to committee or want to be on the record for political reasons, or whatever.

This process went on for some time, long before I got to this committee. I think our study of the EFTA agreement is basically completed, except for the clause-by-clause; but if there are more witnesses, then we would be accommodating and agree to hear them.

There's not the same rush with the study of the Colombia agreement. I can't say that we can put it off until September, but certainly I agree with Monsieur Cardin that the priority of the government is to have the EFTA agreement get through committee, and to be able to put our regulatory regime in place. That's a very legitimate concern and not one that I'm suddenly pulling out of thin air. And, quite frankly, the hearings are over; we've heard all we can hear about EFTA, but we will hear more if you have more people you want to bring to committee. But on the Colombia study, we just don't have that same urgency.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Do you want to take a vote now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, I'm just trying to get through the practicalities here. In terms of the study on EFTA, we're not talking about amending the trade agreement; the trade agreement is done. We're either talking about implementing it or not implementing it. The committee has dealt with EFTA; we've gone through it. We've made a recommendation to the House, and now it's really a matter of its implementation and of going through the implementation bill. Other than people being obstructionist, I don't know why it would take a long time to deal with it. I think as a courtesy we can hear again from industries that may feel more affected than others, but I don't think that would lead to our amending the actual trade agreement.

So I guess I'm just at a bit of a loss here. I think we could go back and forth. We know what the government wants to do. I think we've had a reasonable concession from the Liberal Party that we ought to continue with the study on Colombia and get it done, and maybe take a couple of days before the end of the session to hear from these witnesses and deal with the EFTA agreement, hear a couple of witnesses, do clause-by-clause, and send it back to the House.

Are you in agreement with that, Mr. Bains?

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

Again, Chair, I would just clarify two things. One is the fact that I didn't give a specific timeline per se. I just wanted to indicate the sequence of events—Colombia first and then EFTA. The timeline, obviously, is up for debate and we're open for that debate and discussion. So I don't want to say that it will take two or three days. Whatever time is required, and if there are more meetings required, then obviously we'll need to work in accordance with that.

The other comment I'd like to make quickly is that I think Mr. Keddy said that the study on Colombia is not a concern or a priority in light of the EFTA agreement. Is it the implication that the free trade agreement with Colombia will not be signed this summer? Is that the assurance you gave?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

No, no--

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

Okay, I wasn't sure; and that's part our concern and why we want to complete the report on Colombia, because based on historical practice, there has been occasion on which this government—again, this is an observation about the softwood lumber agreement—has signed a particular agreement of this nature during the summer. And especially with Colombia, we want to make sure that we are on record with the report if a free trade agreement is signed, so that we can say that we put forth recommendations in advance of that free trade agreement. So that's our concern with the report on Colombia.

So I don't have any particular timeline—two days, three days, four days—but I do want to say that we give priority to completing the report on Colombia in light of that concern, and then the study on EFTA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Miller.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cardin, you talked about delays and what have you. I can tell you that we won't get anything done if we don't get on and do it. So this stalling....

To get back to Peter's comments about no obligation, this committee has an obligation to do its job and to do due diligence.

Navdeep, there's an old saying about sticking around this job just to see what the hell's going to happen next. I can't believe it. Most of you opposition members, a certain number of you, have been fabricating stuff against why a Colombia free trade agreement should be signed or agreed to, and then all of a sudden you want to put it first.

I don't have a problem getting the job done on it, but here you have an EFTA deal that's basically done, where there are no major issues. We had witnesses. I don't have a problem with having more, but we had a timeline when we dealt with them. Do we go back a year and a half or two years on the committee and say we want to bring some more witnesses on whatever the issue of the day was? I think everybody had their list and went from there.

It's frustrating. No wonder people have this idea that government never gets a dang thing done with these kinds of games being played.

[An hon. member]

Tell me about it. My motion got filibustered in foreign affairs.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Well, this is not foreign affairs. This is international trade, and we have an agreement that has gone through second reading. It was passed in the House. If there are no amendments, and I don't hear anybody saying they're going to make an amendment—

[An hon. member]

Oh, yes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I don't hear anybody making an amendment that has an outside chance--a snowball's chance in hell--of getting through. I don't hear any amendments. And we really do need to get this through the House.

[An hon. member]

Your way or the highway.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Well, it's not quite our way or the highway. I've explained why we need to do this. I've explained about the regulatory regime. I've said that if you have Liberal members who want to come to committee to sit in to make political points, bring them. We'll have the extra meetings.

We don't have a lot of leeway here. We do intend to try to get EFTA through the House, because EFTA is ready to get through the House. We have to get the regulatory regime in place or it will not be able to come into legislative force on January 1, 2009.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

[Inaudible--Editor]...for the vote or the next time around we should discuss it if it's going to go longer than this. We have so many other commitments right now.