International Trade Committee on Nov. 1st, 2010

[H.E. Trajko Veljanoski]

I would like to personally express gratitude on my behalf and on behalf of my delegation. Believe me, it was my sincere pleasure to answer all your questions, and it will be my personal pleasure if this meeting provides a much bigger number of investments of major companies from Canada. I would like to sincerely thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay, we're back at it.

I'm sorry, we're going to be a bit rushed here. We have a bill to get through, and we also have another amendment for our trip to go through.

Those in favour? Good. Passed.

The amendments have all failed. Shall we agree to the title of the bill?

Oh, I'm sorry, you missed part of that. We've just passed the bill and all the amendments failed.

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

Mr. Chair, first I'd like to say what an effective job you have done through this process on Canada-Jordan. This is I think a banner moment, because all of the witnesses certainly that we put forward either were present before the committee or declined to appear. That is a good model of cooperation that I certainly hope will continue in subsequent agreements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We will know in about 15 minutes whether or not we can have that level of cooperation continue.

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

As a result of that, Mr. Chair, I wanted to suggest a method of procedure: that we give you the 10 minutes of work you need to do around the clause-by-clause, but that we consider them adopted on division as we go through, with the exception of the four amendments I'm going to offer, where I will provide a very brief background. If we do it that way, I would expect we'd have everything wrapped up by 5:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I had hoped we could do it quicker than that.

I do have one other quick one, and that is back to our European Union visit. We have first a suggestion from Mr. Julian, and I've gone to the department and they are in accord, and that is they feel that even though the European Parliament is meeting in Strasbourg and we will have the benefit of meeting fellow parliamentarians in Strasbourg, there are sufficient ongoing officials in Brussels that we should also attend in Brussels. We can quickly make a change and do that by having one group go to Brussels and one group go to Strasbourg. So I think we can cover all those bases and not add significantly to the cost of the trip.

Essentially the change that would be made would be that group one, which had originally been going to London, Strasbourg, and Rome, would now go to London, Brussels, Rome. Group number two would remain with London, Strasbourg, and Budapest. That would be the only change.

We have also changed one member of the group, because I think you specifically wanted to go to Brussels, Mr. Julian. If that's the case, go into group one and we'll put Mr. Holder into group two.

That's it in a nutshell. If we can deal with this quickly, we'll just pass it right now. If not, we'll put it on for Wednesday.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to offer that I think both groups should be in Strasbourg and the group that was going to Budapest should go to Brussels. The most important part of the trip for all of us will be Strasbourg/Brussels. That's where most of the European parliamentarians are, most of the ministries, most of the civil society groups. That's really where the action is.

I really haven't heard a convincing argument about Budapest. The group that is going to Rome has already been approved, but I would suggest that we continue with being together in London and Strasbourg, and rather than going to Budapest, our group go to Brussels.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Keddy.

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

What are you basing your criteria on? Group one was already approved to go to Strasbourg and Rome. Most of us have some tentative plans, or at least thoughts on that, so wouldn't it be easier to take group two to Brussels and then Vienna, Budapest, Prague, wherever you're going in that second...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It wouldn't make any difference.

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

But my question is, why are you moving group one versus group two?

[An hon. member]

I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It was first on the list.

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

Yes, but we've already been approved, and it's already been established that we'd go to Strasbourg and to Rome, so if you're changing your mind--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Both of them have. There is no difference, Gerald--

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

--that a group would go to Brussels--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

--other than your preference. There's no difference.

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, we're not going to argue about--

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

--it's a legitimate question. Why would you move the group that's already been approved versus the group that hasn't?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

They've all been approved, Gerald.

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

What's the basis of the move? Is it cheaper to fly from Strasbourg to wherever the second destination is? Is it cheaper to fly from Brussels? I'm asking the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sorry, what is the question you're asking? What difference does it possibly make?

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

What are the criteria for moving group one?