International Trade Committee on Oct. 4th, 2012

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

Mr. Chairman, we won't be supporting this, but I certainly want to be clear as to why not.

The amendment, as many of them are, is absolutely redundant. The minister, as well as members of international trade and the bureaucracy, meet on a regular basis with Canadian business, labour, environment and human rights organizations. They've been to committee numerous times. We've called them forth. When any member of cabinet representing the Canadian government sits on an international panel, they always take the considerations of all Canadians to mind. It's simply redundant. That's why we're not supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies, very quickly.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have two quick things.

In response to Mr. Lamoureux, the amendment under consideration would require the Canadian minister of trade to consult with representatives of Canadian society. I don't think there's anything in that amendment that would alter in any substantive way the text of the free trade agreement, nor would it be, to be frank, any of the Panamanian government's business how we perform our consultations and do our representation of Canada on the joint commission.

In response to Mr. Keddy, in law we have a saying that a promise that's not written down ain't worth the paper it's not written on. It's not a question of redundancy. What we have here is a question of a promise, and whether or not that promise is committed to strongly enough to be put in writing. I would say that any international trade minister who is truly committed to consulting with Canadian business, labour, environment and human rights organizations would have absolutely no problem agreeing to that in writing, and that's all this amendment requires him or her to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but perhaps I can get a bit more of an explanation. With this particular amendment, all it would require is the minister to do what, and what would be the consequence? Would that ultimately postpone this particular bill, or does the bill continue on if in fact this is passed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, simply as clarification, it wouldn't alter the text. I understand if it altered the text of the agreement, then we would see it as unamendable and out of order.

From that perspective, go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think I see Mr. Lamoureux's question. No, this amendment isn't to require consultation by the minister as a precondition of carrying out the agreement. The agreement provides for the creation of a joint commission. Once the agreement is passed, one of the administrative mechanisms of the agreement is to create a joint commission, if I understand it—and perhaps Mr. MacKay will correct me if I'm wrong—and the minister is deemed by the legislation to be the principal representative on that commission in carrying out the trade agreement in the future.

What we're saying is that in the carrying out of those duties, this amendment would require the minister to have regular consultation with Canadian stakeholders as he or she carries out that duty.

Mr. MacKay, did I significantly misstate anything there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Please put your question through the chair.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. MacKay, if you have anything to add that's different, then go ahead.

[Cameron MacKay]

It is correct that the treaty would establish, if it's passed by Parliament, a joint commission between the two countries, and the Minister of International Trade in Canada would be the principal representative for the Government of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Very good. I think we're clear.

Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Is this a standard procedure that is present in all the other trade agreements, or would this be relatively unique just to the country of Panama?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I know this is the only one we're dealing with today. I can't answer where the others are. I don't know if Mr. MacKay has any answer to that.

[Cameron MacKay]

I apologize. I was consulting with my colleagues at the time. If there was a specific question, could it be repeated, please? I didn't hear it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Go ahead, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

If this motion were to pass, would this be unique to Panama, or is it incorporated in other trade agreements?

[Cameron MacKay]

I believe this would be unique to the Panama implementing legislation. We would have to confirm that by checking the other bills, but I believe it would be the first time this is done. I'm not certain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. Very good.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will just clarify. The way it is right now is standard. This is the standard template that we use in other trade agreements. Is that correct?

[Cameron MacKay]

That's correct.

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

That's what I think Mr. Lamoureux was asking. If we amended it, it would be different.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, very good. I think everyone is clear. We've gone around a round. I'll ask the clerk to call the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

(Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 12—Powers of Minister)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Now we'll move on to clause 12. We have amendment NDP-9.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

This is a series of three amendments, Mr. Chairman, all designed to ensure that the oversight of experts in implementing the agreement is there. By changing “may” in the agreement to “must”, we are simply ensuring that expert panels are set up and that they are made up of people who have a detailed knowledge of the subject matter of the agreement. It simply makes mandatory what the bill already provides for in a suggested way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Can I ask the mover if all three are exactly the same? Is it a change from “may” to a “must” in all of them? Would you be prepared to take them as one motion?