International Trade Committee on March 9th, 2010

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly miss the love when Dick Harris isn't around, as does Mr. Julian.

My sense, and why I like the direction of this dialogue, is that it looks like there are three areas that we're focusing on. I think being proactive makes a ton of sense to me.

In the first instance, we all know that we have the free trade agreements coming back to committee ultimately, at some point. There'll be three of those. That will keep us relatively busy up to the summer period.

Second, I really appreciate the spirit of the U.S.-Canada... It's been said, with the United States being our major trading partner, as they always will be, that if we don't have that as a focus in the broadest context...

I mean, when we went down to Washington, we dealt with those four issues. We were very clear as to the areas we wanted to deal with. We were specific. I thought it was effective. I like that notion of the home-and-home series in the sense of going down to Washington and bringing the appropriate folks up here. From a proactive standpoint, that just makes a ton of sense to me. I don't think we can lose sight of the importance of maintaining our finger on what's going on in the States. There are always issues, and issues fluctuate at various levels.

So for us to have a really aggressive, proactive approach to the United States just makes a world of sense. Frankly, that would incorporate the motion by Mr. Julian, because I think that's one part of the broader context.

Actually, Peter, you helped me to think a bit more about that. It seemed to me that there were a number of issues we dealt with in this committee this last go. It isn't just one thing; it's many things. I hope we would want to look at it, as a group, in a broader context, not just one thing. By isolating, I think we lose the broader value of that dialogue.

The third point is that since the EU is a priority of this government, having that as a focus--John, you've made that point--it seems to me that we have to go, from a review standpoint, in a direction, at this stage, with this government, where it's looking to go. So I think EU makes a ton of sense.

Did I tell you how much I love Greece, John? Just an observation.

[An hon. member]

Greece is the word.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

That's a fairly fulsome agenda, sir, if we look at it on that basis. So I'm keen to have a very proactive approach to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, that's interesting, and I'll be interested to hear Mr. Julian follow up. If we do decide that there is a consensus on proceeding with matters U.S., in the short term at least, and perhaps a visit to Washington in the next couple of months...

I like the idea of reciprocation, having people back. It may be that the west is a good place to be, to perhaps do a Weyburn, even Fort McMurray, run at the same time. It takes a bit of logistics, but it could be of interest to our neighbours.

If there is an interest in pursuing this, we could start Thursday. We would need to get some witnesses in. That's generally a good way to get things started, to have people come in and express their points of view rather than us just sitting around the table talking about it. We could start off with government procurement. If we want to do that on Thursday, we could start right in on the Canada-U.S. trade study.

Mr. Julian, being first in line here, has a topic that we might just lead with.

I'll put that to you, Mr. Julian.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I like almost everything I've heard coming from the other three corners of this table. I certainly agree with Mr. Brison that my motion doesn't preclude a broader study on Canada-U.S., as you're proposing, Mr. Chair.

The reason I'd like to move the motion forward today is that on Thursday I'll be doing critic-related work in Vancouver on the Paralympics. Next week I'll be doing trade-related work in South America. So I won't actually be at the next three meetings of the committee.

I'm hoping to raise it today, not for a long, drawn-out discussion, but if there's a consensus and everyone agrees to moving forward with the idea that this is part of a broader study on Canada-U.S., then--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

My sense is that there's already consensus. We have agreed that we want to do this. If you want to have a motion just to have a motion, I don't have any problem with that, but I don't think it's necessary. I think we've all agreed that we're going to go down this track.

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

Well, that's great. I will move it, but I just want to make a few other comments regarding future work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Carry on.

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

It is true that we have to prioritize what the House refers to us, and I think a number of parties around this table have flagged that Canada-Jordan would be a more effective use of parliamentary time if the objective of the government is to get a bill here to committee. Canada-Jordan would not require the same degree of debate in the House that other trade bills may. So assuming that, we could be discussing Canada-Jordan fairly shortly too.

Mr. Cannis mentioned Europe. He's very right on that: it is going to have to be on the radar screen. As for whether that's in the spring or the fall session, I guess it will be up to how quickly or slowly the negotiations progress.

Finally, I want to reiterate Mr. Brison's comment around China. I think it is certainly an important trade market that we have not discussed as a committee, certainly not in a long, long time and certainly not in any depth. So if it's something he is proposing as part of a longer-term study of a new and emerging market this year, I certainly would agree and I would support that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay. That's the end of my list of speakers for now. Mr. Julian did include his comments before moving his motion, so I'll quickly go to somebody else--no, I'm not going to do that.

Peter, I don't imagine there is going to be any debate, so if you want to move the motion, why don't we just get it done? At least we'll have accomplished something today.

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

Okay, I'll move it. I think everyone around the table agrees in one way or another.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, that's fine. Maybe I could just suggest, to save time and continue in this spirit of cooperation, that you add “in the context of a broader Canada-U.S. trade discussion”.

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

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I would like to propose a constructive amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay. Let's let him move the motion first, and then you can propose an amendment.

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

I've moved it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay. The motion has been moved as circulated. Everybody has it in front of them. Is there any debate?

Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I'd like to propose a constructive amendment that the committee invite the Minister of International Trade to meet with the committee on this subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That is accepted as a friendly and constructive amendment. We don't have to debate that amendment acceptance. That forms part of the motion. We are now discussing a motion that reads:

That the Committee hold hearings regarding the Canada-United States Agreement on Government Procurement, signed by the Canadian Government with the Obama Administration, and which came into force on February 16, 2010, and its impact on Canadian communities, businesses, and employment, and that the Committee invite the Minister of Trade to appear in this regard.

Does that sound pretty good?

Debate continues. I don't have anybody on the list of speakers. Are there any comments?

[An hon. member]

We all agree.

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

The only comment I would have is that it's always up to the minister's schedule. It's very difficult--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, that doesn't preclude us from inviting him, so that's fine.

I would like to add that we perhaps could have a preamble that says “in the context of further Canada-U.S. trade discussions”, and then go with your motion and Mr. Brison's amendment. Is that okay?

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your having come back with that exact point, because I think there are broader issues, and this is one point among several. So unless we want to have a separate meeting just to talk about all the various things we want to talk about, I think a broader preamble would make me more comfortable with that motion. I'll take it in good faith that it would be set up accordingly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, okay. I think we're on the same wavelength here.

Mr. Brison.