Evidence of meeting #4 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 markets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Yes, thank you.
I move that the Standing Committee on International Trade meet with a delegation from the European Union on Thursday, March 5, 2009, and that the clerk, in consultation with the chair, make the necessary arrangements for a working lunch with members of the Standing Committee on International Trade, members of the delegation, and essential staff, in accordance with the guidelines specified in the Financial Management and Policy Guide for Committees.
Conservative
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I think it's important that you include in that statement that every effort is being made to provide translation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Fine, thank you. So that's included at the request of Mr. Cannis.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
It's automatic, but I think for the benefit of all, it should be included.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
There you go. That's a friendly amendment, seconded by Mr. Cannis.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to move this study along. We studied this bill at length prior to 2008. It's been on the books for nearly a decade. There are a couple of small obstacles yet, but I think we are ready for clause-by-clause consideration.
I suggest that we begin on March 3. I think we can be ready by March 3. We're going to bring the industry minister in on Thursday. There are a few other questions on which he should be able to satisfy members, I believe, after Thursday. We really do have to deal with this important treaty and trade agreement, and then move on to a number of other ones.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have a motion from Mr. Keddy that the Standing Committee on International Trade complete its study of Bill C-2 on Thursday, February 26, 2009, and complete clause-by-clause on March 3, 2009. Do I have a seconder?
February 24th, 2009 / 10:55 a.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Keddy's motion. It's well placed. I personally don't have a problem supporting it on our side as well. I do agree with his comment in terms of the decade he emphasized, and he's correct. I appreciate the fact that he indicated the minister will be here. I believe he will be here. As such, I will be moving an amendment, a friendly amendment, that will say “and that the Minister appear before the completion of the study on Bill C-2”.
We set certain parameters. We would like the minister to be before us as it's completed. I take the member's word that the minister will be here by Thursday, but you never know what could happen, and we might have to go to one more sitting.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay. I think that is understood. Is that not the case, Mr. Keddy?
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm going to speak to this motion, but I'm hoping Mr. Keddy will signify he's willing to withdraw the motion. I understand he's doing his job. As parliamentary secretary his job is to move things along. I don't think anyone on this committee has been trying to delay this.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What we've been saying is that we need to hear from certain key sectors--the B.C. marine workers, for example, the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. Those names have been submitted to the clerk, and we're in the process of setting up those witnesses now. So where witnesses have appeared before us before and have said they do not intend to come back on EFTA, I'm fine with that. But we do have the responsibility to let those witnesses come forward. Mr. Keddy's motion would essentially eliminate those workers from coming.
If we have these people available next Tuesday, it is quite possible once we've completed those witnesses that we would move to having clause-by-clause consideration the following week. I don't think that is any untoward delay for consideration of clause-by-clause. But for this committee to say we don't want to hear from those witnesses I think would be completely inappropriate. I think it would be irresponsible. We've heard from witnesses the government brought forward who have nothing to do with shipbuilding. We heard today from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and they admitted they don't have any shipyards as members. We heard from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and it was very interesting, particularly the section around the “buy Canada” act. I found that extremely interesting. They admitted they don't know much about the shipbuilding industry.
The government is choosing to bring these representatives forward, and that's fine. I don't mind our due diligence including representations or witnesses who are speaking more to the theoretical implications of the agreement. But we have some very clear, practical implications to examine. The B.C. Ferry & Marine Workers' Union testified before. They've expressed a willingness to testify again. We need to allow that. This motion eliminates that possibility. Mr. McArthur, of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, has indicated he wants to appear by teleconference. That eliminates it.
So if Mr. Keddy is willing to simply withdraw the motion on the understanding that there isn't any untoward delay--
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, a point of order. I know you're very prompt with time, and I apologize to my good friend Peter Julian, but I don't want a repeat of what happened last time when we didn't do our business. So with all due respect, I will ask if we can summarize and move on, because I looked at the clock.
