International Trade Committee on March 9th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay. Thank you.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I've had some casual conversations with some of you. Mr. Cannis and I have had a meeting, and I've met with the parliamentary secretary and some of our other colleagues with regard to where we proceed from here.

We do have a motion that's been proposed. That could be dealt with today or on Thursday. My inclination would be that, as soon as we can, we should get to a discussion of future business and where we're going to go.

We kind of ended up at a point where we had concluded much of what we had begun, other than bills that were expected to come before the committee. Obviously, the next thing of consequence that is up is Colombia. I presume that at some point it will come back to the committee. I think we probably will be getting a bill on Panama at some point, too. We've looked at that. Jordan will be coming back to the committee.

I don't expect that these will be particularly controversial, other than the fact that there are some ongoing concerns with Colombia. Hopefully, Mr. Cannis' lunch will resolve all of that, and we can get through the Colombia bill rather quickly when that happens.

In any event, it's going to be a while before we get Colombia back on this table. In the meantime, I'm open to suggestions. Those I have received so far seem to be in new directions. As for where the government might be considering going in the future, I think we had expressed an interest previously about the EU and proceeding further with consideration of that. I think India is also on the drawing board. Brazil seems to have slowed down a bit with regard to their interest in pursuing MERCOSUR, but in any event, that's not off the table for discussion by this committee.

Those are some of the suggestions. I'd like people to give more thought to general directions on where we'd like to go so that we can perhaps do at least an 11- or 10-week plan on Thursday. With regard to Thursday, I think that shouldn't take the whole meeting, and we could probably get under way with the discussion of the first agenda item. It may coincidently work with Mr. Julian's motion.

Mr. Julian has offered a motion to do with Canada-U.S. matters. One of the thoughts we had talked about is a broader study by this committee, for the next two months anyway, and virtually an ongoing study, of Canada-U.S. relations, because this has been so critical and so pivotal to trade relations in Canada. It has also been suggested that we take advantage of our Washington opportunities--that is, by way of our travel vouchers--to visit as a committee at least once a year.

I think we were all in agreement that we had a very successful visit the last time around. With the help of the embassy, it was rather well structured, and I think we got a lot out of that meeting, but at the same time, I think it almost invited many more questions than we were able to get to.

But I think the primary interest is really in establishing and continuing to maintain the personal relationships between us, as elected representatives, and elected representatives in Congress in the United States. For that reason, those are the thoughts I've been having. I have had discussions with some of you on this. That would cause us to have this as an ongoing study when we're not debating or considering bills before the committee, and then, in the course of the next weeks, we might decide which future target we may want to pursue, whether it's the EU, or Brazil again, or India.

With those opening comments, I believe it's up to your judgment.

I should just say, Mr. Julian, that if you're anxious to get started on your motion, I'm happy to deal with it today, but I believe that for the discussion, it may be that we just want to perhaps introduce it or bring it in on Thursday rather than have an extended discussion today. I'm not sure that we're ready to make a decision on it today. I'll leave it to your judgment as to whether you want to bring it up today.

Before we get to that, are people generally in agreement with where I'm going?

Can I get your comments, John?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sorry, there's a speakers' list.

Mr. Silva, and then Mr. Cannis.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

It was good to have this analysis of what was done in the last session. In relation to the report that came out on improving trade and investment ties with Brazil, there was a series of recommendations made to the government. I was wondering if you, in your capacity as chair, could write and ask the minister for an update on those recommendations so that we can get something back from the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Sure. I'd be happy to.

Thank you for that.

Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As I have in the past, and since you mentioned Europe, I'm going to throw in my two cents again. We have to look at Europe as we are embarking on a Canada-EU agreement. That partnership is continuously evolving. Therefore, I think it's incumbent upon us to ensure that we continuously stay on top of it. I've said before and I'll continue to say that we want, deserve, and should have our share of the pie. We can only attain that if we continue to keep up with a traditional market, a stable market, a growing market, and a market that is related to the founding of this nation as well in many ways, if I can throw that in, Mr. Chairman. It's a market, to some degree, to which we have not given the attention that I believe economically it deserves in Canada. Rumour has it that there will be a trade mission to Europe. I think it would be appropriate for committee members—maybe not all of us—to join it or to do something on our own. If we take the time to blink, I think we might miss out.

The last area, which I touched upon last time--and we did embark on it to some degree in the latter stages of a Liberal government--was the gulf region. We know they're going through some difficult times now, but Economics 101 has taught us that we have the ups and downs on the graph. I don't think it's a market we should neglect. We've all heard and read the news, but at some point in time these countries in the gulf region are going to turn around as well. Knowing that there are several Canadian entities there that have done very well, it's important that we as representatives be there to show them that we're there to support them and do what we can.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Brison.

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

I have just a couple of points.

I agree broadly in terms of Europe and India, but I think we ought to be doing more as a committee in terms of China. There have been some important developments over the last year or so, particularly on the energy front. In December, China signed an agreement with the Obama administration to deepen their cooperation on carbon capture and storage. In Canada, in Saskatchewan in fact, we have the best technology in the world and the most advanced research on carbon capture and storage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It's Alberta technology in Saskatchewan.

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

The Saskatchewan people are doing more with it, I'd have to tell you.

If you look at China and the energy front, they have a rapacious need for resources and energy, but they also have become a leader in solar and wind. Soon, with this agreement between them and the U.S., they will displace the leadership position that we currently have on carbon capture and storage.

One of the things I'd like to do if we go to the U.S. is to organize and focus on bringing a group of congressmen and senators to Weyburn--and there are other examples in Canada--and play a very constructive role in raising the awareness of what we have in Canada in this area. I think we have a window of opportunity to make a big difference on that file. It's important, because the advantage we have right now is that 40% of the stored carbon in the world is sequestered in Weyburn. The U.S., as a government, has just put $3 billion into CCS research, matched by $7 billion from the private sector. China is throwing in a lot of money. I think we're going to lose our head start very quickly. That's a very targeted and focused area where I think the trade committee could make a difference, legislator to legislator.

In terms of Mr. Julian's motion, I don't think it is mutually exclusive from a broader focus on the ongoing Canada-U.S. basis. Regarding the “buy American” agreement, I think all of us as committee members have questions to ask, and it would be constructive for us to have a study on “buy American”. If Mr. Julian is presenting that motion, we can have that discussion at the time. I don't think there's any inconsistency with the committee studying “buy American” and at the same time doing more on Canada-U.S. relations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Exactly. That's a good idea.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

It is my pleasure to join you and the Standing Committee on International Trade. I have previously sat on the Standing Committees on Finance and on Public Accounts.

First, as to Mr. Julian's motion, I have no objection to debating it as soon as he is ready, whether today or Thursday.

Then, I have a question. From what I hear and understand, the Standing Committee on International Trade does not operate with a steering committee. Is my understanding correct? There is no steering committee, and future business is arranged by all committee members, is that not so?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, we're very democratic here.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I am not suggesting that other committees with a steering committee are not democratic. But I am in favour of what you are suggesting.

Without specifying exactly what the future work of the committee entails today, I feel first that it is important that Mr. Julian moves his motion .

Second, in terms of your suggestion to include doing more on all trade with the United States, I feel that it is really important to have a good understanding of the situation. I would not necessarily be against that.

As to the other suggestions, we can come back to them later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I wasn't asking for definitive judgments on those matters today. I just really want to put it in people's heads and get a consensus of whether we're going in the right direction.

I will say, before we move on, that should we proceed with a general Canada-U.S. trade discussion, it may make Mr. Julian's motion redundant or unnecessary. That just this moment occurred to me.

We'll carry on.

Mr. Keddy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back, to you, of course, Mr. Chairman, and to all my colleagues as well.

I have a couple of points on what Mr. Cannis has said, starting off, and on what Mr. Brison has said.

Before I get into that, maybe I'll deal with the “buy American” part of it. Perhaps we should look at it as a committee. We all have our four points that we can use for travel to the U.S. now. I think instead of doing that on an ad hoc basis, as a committee we should sit down and work out a policy among the parties whereby we say twice a year we're going to go to the U.S. We'll set that up so it works with their congressmen and their senators, and it works with their Congress, instead of just suddenly putting a motion forward. That would then leave us two more points for those emergency situations when we're all of sudden in a bilateral discussion that's not going well or the Americans have decided to put an embargo of some sort in place. I think it's something we should be doing routinely instead of on an ad hoc basis, and I'd be willing to engage in that conversation. I think it would make a lot of sense. They're our closest neighbours, our largest trading partners. It's a very important border. It's something that we should have been doing, probably, years ago, but it's something that we should talk about. So “buy American” would be the first thing.

The other issue is that we will have free trade agreements coming back to the House. The government business has to take precedence once it comes to committee, so that changes our schedule up as well. But at the end of the day, if we get Colombia back on the order sheet, we'll have Jordan on the order sheet, and we'll possibly have a couple of others there as well. During the process of continued negotiations for a comprehensive agreement with the European nations, it would make a lot of sense, as Mr. Cannis has said, to engage in very thorough bilateral discussions with the European Union, which would include boards of trade here in Canada, and those would also possibly involve visiting the EU.

It's not that the rest of them, India, China, Russia, Brazil, are not important--we know they are--but we have only so much time and so many members. So I think if we can narrow our focus down a little bit, we'll all benefit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Before we continue, I just want to make a comment on Monsieur Laforest's comment with regard to a steering committee. We have been pretty informal about this because we weren't always able to include all the various points of view in a steering committee. With three on a committee and four parties, some were left out of those views, and sometimes it didn't work properly, or there wasn't the right balance. Again, we're starting a new year. I've always found it helpful to get it all out on the table and let people decide broadly whether or not... Those matters are usually discussed by subcommittees. It tends to take half the meeting every once in a while. Then we kind of understand how we got to where we are, and we do get a pretty good consensus.

I just wanted to put that back out there, and I thank you for raising it, Monsieur Laforest. If anybody has any other interest in that and wants to pursue having a subcommittee to meet outside, we're always open to that view. For the time being, I'd just as soon we did the first round anyway at the table to get a consensus.

We have Mr. Cannan, Mr. Holder, and Mr. Julian.

Mr. Cannan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and congratulations. Welcome back, everyone.

Without duplicating the previous comments, I just wanted to make a comment. I've been on the committee for I guess four years. We did study the Gulf Cooperation Council, the GCC, and we did visit Riyadh, Yemen--Yemen is outside of it--Abu Dhabi, and Dubai, so there was some work done about three and a half years ago by the committee. The report was presented, so some of that can be brought back if we want to go there.

I think Canada-U.S. is a good starting or jumping-off point. Mr. Brison and Mr. Trost are both in the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary association. Something we try to do is to bring some of the senators and congressmen to Alberta, to Fort McMurray, and I think it would be a good idea to come to Saskatchewan too. So that's something we could work on in conjunction with the Canada-U.S. committee.

There is another aspect of Asia. I was in Taiwan in January, and they're working with China on an economic cooperation framework agreement, so there are some strong ties between the two of those countries. They're expanding trade with the U.S., and Australia is really aggressive with their trade agreement, so we need to expand there. I think that's where we should focus after Canada-U.S. The Canada-EU agreement would be historic in the sense that this committee could work together towards that and pull it off. The Canada-U.S. NAFTA agreement has proven to be a success for Canadians for a number of years. I think we're going in the right direction.

I have just one question, Mr. Chair. Do you have any idea regarding the Colombia free trade agreement and what the timeline for it would be from its introduction in the House to the time it would come to the committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have a pretty good idea of that from the last time we tried. I can't imagine it would be any different this time. It will probably take a while. There may be other opinions around the table, but I assume it will be reintroduced. I think they may wish to repeat themselves, but if they don't, then we can get it done very quickly.

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

I think we've had pretty well every witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I can't prejudge what the opposition parties may want to do on Colombia. If they want to take longer to discuss it, I guess that's their prerogative.

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

In the spirit of cooperation and oneness and the betterment of our economy, we all want to work together, so the sooner the better.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Holder.