Evidence of meeting #3 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was efta.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
The Ministry of Industry.
Did you have anything further, Mr. Keddy?
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
No. I think it's pretty straightforward. You can go back over the debate on this issue, Mr. Chair. We can continue to draw it out. I understand that there will be, at the end of the day, some ongoing concerns from some individual members, but sooner or later we're going to have to vote on this.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We will continue debate on the motion that the standing committee hear both from the Minister of Industry and now the Minister of Agriculture.
The next speaker is Mr. Cannan.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Chair, I agree that the motion is in order, because as a committee, as you said, we can invite whomever we want.
My question would be more to the clerk. The way the motion is worded now is that we invite the ministers, and as the chair said, if they do not attend, how long do we extend the offer? My concern is the timing of getting this agreement through. As has been alluded to, we've debated it, and I respect the fact that there are new committee members who would like to hear from as many new witnesses so they can make as informed a decision as possible. Maybe a possible friendly amendment would be to invite them to the next committee meeting on February 24.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I'm going to ask Mr. Brison to respond to that before we continue our list, as you have directly referred to his motion and asked for a friendly amendment. The next speaker will be Mr. Julian, but I'll ask Mr. Brison to respond to Mr. Cannan.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Just to that point, if this legislation is a priority to the government, the government can ensure that the Ministers of Industry and Agriculture appear before this committee. But let's be clear: this committee has a responsibility to consider the implications of trade agreements across sectors.
This is simply an effort by us as committee members to evaluate this new legislation. This is new legislation. This died when the House was dissolved.
There are members of Parliament who were not here before. There are members who were not part of this committee before. We have a fiduciary responsibility to exercise our role and perform due diligence. This is not a dilatory motion. This is to do our job as parliamentarians.
When we deal with farmers in supply-managed industries, I want to be able to say we did ask those questions. When we deal with shipbuilders or people involved in that, I want us to be able to say we did that. There's only one chance to do this. It's not dilatory in any way, shape, or form.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Over the last meetings the question has been asked.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm a little disturbed by the tone of debate from the Conservative side. With the legislation in place, we have had exactly one outside witness on EFTA legislation. You'll recall in the last Parliament we didn't call witnesses forward on the legislation. That's part of the reason it died. We have had one witness--Karl Risser--on the legislation.
Mr. Brison is absolutely right. For us to do our responsibility to the Canadian public, calling more than one outside witness is a minimum.
I'm concerned about the tone of the debate, that after calling one witness the Conservatives seem to want to ram this through. It's disturbing to me when the implications for jobs in Canada are pretty significant.
Regarding Mr. Brison's motion, I don't see why anyone would object to it. It just means we're doing our job as a committee. But if that's going to be the tone every time we try to bring witnesses forward, I'm concerned about the tone and the Conservatives wanting to ram this thing through and saying “damn the torpedoes”.
Mr. Chair, I'm addressing my comments through you to the parliamentary secretary. In the House, the Minister of International Trade stated that we should talk to the people who raise concerns about EFTA. He said, “They may have changed their minds”.
Our responsibility as a committee is to have those witnesses back and to see if they've changed their minds. That is something that the minister seemed to imply--that people have changed their minds about this agreement.
As a committee we need to do our due diligence and perform our fiduciary responsibility to the Canadian public, and that means having witnesses. That means the Conservatives, this minority Parliament, are going to have to understand that we're going to have to work through a witness list and do our job.
This motion is a good sense motion, and that's why I've seconded it. I think Mr. Brison is putting this forward, doing his due diligence as a member of this committee. To suggest that this committee has done its job on examining the legislation--I'm sorry, that has not happened. We've had one outside witness to date, in two Parliaments.
With respect, on the legislation itself, we have to do our job. That means interviewing witnesses and seeing what the implications of this agreement are.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To save time, I'm just going to say that I concur with what I heard from my colleague, Scott Brison. Also, I often don't agree with the NDP, but I must say right now that Mr. Julian's comments could have quoted me verbatim. I certainly agree completely.
I believe the motion is in order, but there's only one thing about asking to have another minister present. I don't think it's wise, and I also don't think there's enough time, to have both ministers here at the same time. I would ask us to rethink when we want to have the two different ministers. I think we should have the ministers separately as opposed to simultaneously.
On the other hand, I want to make a point. It's still my understanding that shipbuilding falls within that department. At least, it did when I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry. Is that still the case? Would the parliamentary secretary know?
If so, then it would only make sense to invite the minister responsible for shipbuilding, contrary to what I believe my good friend, the parliamentary secretary, stated. I think it's important that we have him here. As Mr. Julian clearly pointed out, there are questions, and one witness does not suffice.
I think that's our responsibility as a committee. We could not face the stakeholders in the future. Whether they live in my riding of Scarborough or not, that's not the point; they would call me anyway if they're coming from Nova Scotia or somewhere. I have an obligation to respond. I could not, in good conscience, say to them that I didn't hear any witnesses, that I didn't do my work.
That's my position, Mr. Chairman.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to clarify Mr. Julian's comments on the aspect that we've only had one witness on the legislation.
To the analysts, that's correct, but maybe you could clarify the difference between the report that we brought the witnesses in on and the legislation. My understanding is that it's the same and that they'd basically be discussing the same information; it's just transferred into a legislative bill now. I just ask for clarification from the analysts, please.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Well, I think if he's making debate points, yes, the committee did hear several witnesses. We heard months of testimony from witnesses on the text of the legislation. Technically, we did not debate or bring witnesses to discuss this specific legislation, because we didn't have legislation at the time the committee did a complete committee report on EFTA.
Today, we heard from Mr. Risser, who appeared twice before on the same subject, but the subject was a committee report on EFTA, not the legislation on EFTA.
So technically, Mr. Julian is quite correct. The subject remains the same, but it was not a discussion of the legislation per se. It was a discussion of the text of the legislation that we debated at length and had witnesses and submitted a report to Parliament on.
I hope that clarifies your point.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Yes, to a degree, but maybe the analysts could clarify, then, what the difference is between the text and the legislation.
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Michael Holden Committee Researcher
The legislation is simply the bill to implement the terms and conditions of the text of the agreement.
11 a.m.
Committee Researcher
One is the agreement and one is the legislation. We didn't know at the time what was in the legislation, so that--
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
The legislation is an implementation bill to implement what we've already discussed, but again, it's a technical point, and Mr. Julian has made the point.
Mr. Keddy.