International Trade Committee on Feb. 4th, 2016

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

The other thing, and maybe the clerk can give us a few pointers on this, has to do with what we are allowed to say to the media and what we are not allowed to say.

Does anything we say in here have to stay in here? Yes. There's no tweeting, no texting, no talking. When we're in camera it's amongst ourselves, but it is recorded.

[The Clerk]

It's recorded. I receive the transcripts. For instance, for one of the motions of Mr. Albas that I divided, I receive the blues. It's kept in my office and it's only to be seen by the members or one of the designated staff based on the motion that was adopted. It's not public and it's not distributed to anybody.

I keep it because sometimes it could happen that I have to refer to it to make sure that the minutes of the committee will reflect exactly what was mentioned or what was adopted. It's especially helpful when there is a draft report debated. If there was a change in the wording or something, we keep track and the analysts keep track. Sometimes it's really good to be able to refer to the transcript in order to make sure that it reflects the discussion. Since nothing can be published outside, the transcript is kept by the clerk.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I have a question on that for clarification for me and for others here. Is that held for five years? It's not ATI-able, is it?

[The Clerk]

I think it's more than five years. I will have to check the agreement with the archives, but it would be archived. I could be wrong, but I think it's close to 20 or 30 years, something like that, and then it's released.

If you want, I can double-check the agreement with the archives to make sure that I have the exact dates.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The point I want to make is that it is archived and that it will show up somewhere in the future, so your kids or grandkids may read it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It's just that sometimes you hear something or whatever, and it's confidential here, because it can create animosity. It could be an honest mistake, but it goes the wrong way and it becomes frictional amongst us all.

[The Clerk]

If I could add to that, Mr. Chair, there will be that transcript, and the minutes of the committee for that in camera meeting will only reflect the motion adopted. The minutes won't say who proposed it or who voted yea or nay, and that's only if it's agreed to. If it's defeated, it won't be there at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It's a good thing. We know that we can all speak freely without a problem.

Are there any other questions about procedure?

There's a couple of things about witnesses. These are little things that I've seen over the years. If we are going to bring in witnesses, or you have suggestions.... Let's say the topic is softwood lumber and you have a witness in your area. That's very important. We will come up with witness lists, but timing is important in getting your person, or company, or whoever it is on the list, because we want to make sure if they're doing a presentation that it's in both languages. It has to be in both languages. It's not a problem if they're from New Brunswick, Quebec, or anywhere, but sometimes we might have a witness coming in from California, and if they're doing a presentation, we want to get their stuff.

These are little things that can happen, but it's very important that if we're going to run smoothly, translation has to be done properly. It's also important for the translators, because sometimes you have witnesses who speak fast and the translators don't have the script. These are all little things, but just bear them in mind if you're getting witnesses. We have to go through a process to make sure the translation and all of that is done properly.

Are there any other little things, Clerk, that you see and should tell all of us? It's pretty straightforward.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I know that we're going to be busy. This is going to be a busy committee and we want to get to work right away. There are lot of things to talk about and discuss.

We have some notices of motions that we'd like to bring forward to add to the discussions, to work with you guys to help set the agenda in moving forward.

The first one I'm going to read is a notice of motion:

That the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade immediately undertake a pre-study of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP); that this pre-study consist of not more than six meetings to be held between February 8, 2016 and February 26, 2016; that the Committee travel across the country for hearings; and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

I know that the minister has been talking about the number of consultations she's done on it. We think it's important to show that we're actively involved in this file. I know that the agriculture and manufacturing sectors want to see results on this right away. It's the same with the forestry sector. I think it would be wise to really get active on this file immediately and show Canadians that we're hard at work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a good suggestion by Mr. Hoback that the TPP should be the first thing on our agenda. I personally agree, but on the other hand, as the honourable member said, the minister has already done enough consultation.

It's not about the minister. It's about the committee, because the committee has its own destiny. We should be the ones deciding how we want to proceed, because certainly members on this committee have their own views and they have the views of their constituents.

It's good to have it as the number one item on the agenda, but fixing that and saying we should get it done...it's a big task, as I've said. The TPP is not a small issue and, on the other hand, our next-door neighbour, the U.S., is going through an election as well. Don't put a timeline on it. Let's decide as we go how long it's going to take. We should study this extensively and bring it forward at a time that is convenient to this committee, not the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I don't know how much time we're going to have. I have a suggestion. Maybe we should deal with this motion first, or we can get back to this motion. I'd like to make a suggestion because we have a lot of new members and members who have been here before and are new to the committee. I'd like to get a suggestion, one that comes from the floor, which is that at the first meeting back here we bring the officials in to give us a look at what's out there. What's on the table in Canada and the rest of the world? What's almost finished? What's not finished? What are we looking at?

I'm thinking that might segue into where we want to go. I'm not trying to quash any motions, but I'm just wondering about it. We could spend a lot of time figuring out where we want to go, but unless we really know what previous governments have done or what Canada and the rest of the world are doing, how do we know where we really want to go right away? That's all I'm suggesting.

Do you want to finish the motion first?

Go ahead, Mr. Hoback. It's your motion.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Why don't we stay on the motion? We have a few other motions we want to talk about too.

If you want to do that, Chair, I wouldn't have a problem with that. We could do that next Thursday. Instead of having Tuesday and Thursday meetings during the break week, we could come in for the Thursday and have a meeting in the morning and a meeting in the afternoon. For the meeting in the morning, we could have officials giving us their oversight of what they see as far as the trade file goes, what's going on, and what they're actually pursuing. I think that's fine. Then we could have an afternoon meeting starting off with the TPP. We would be actually starting that work.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Chair, being a new member to the committee, I would like to hear from the officials. I think it's a great suggestion to get a scan of everything that's out there, what's going on, and the scope of what we're going to be working on.

I've booked up my whole constituency week. I'm jam-packed every single day, so I don't see us being able to do this till we return.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Ms. Ramsey.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of things. I like the idea of having a briefing. We'd like to see what previous studies have been done and what studies have been done since the minister took on the file. We'd like to have that information. If there was in fact an economic impact study done under the Conservative government previously, all of that information would be very helpful.

To the particular motion that was raised, it's a little unclear to me. For these six meetings, who would they be with? Where would they be? Why the tight time frame? I'd like some more clarification on the six meetings and what they would entail. The tight time frame I think is not reasonable. I feel that we have more time. We have to put thought into what we're doing here. To set a really tight time frame around it limits our ability to do that to our full potential.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we just need to take into context what a notice of motion is. It's really that an individual member says, “I have an issue that I'd like the committee's attention on.” It doesn't actually have to be voted on and debated that day, interfering with the agenda. I do think we want to support the ability of individual members to come to this committee and say, “I'd like to have this motion.” As a notice of motion, I think it's just simply laying on the table that this is an issue.

Some of us are going to be a little more prepared than others because we've served before. Some of us are a little clearer on which issues we'd like to look at, but putting it out there actually does allow both the government members and the opposition members the opportunity to take a look at something and ask how they feel about that. It doesn't interfere with anything on the agenda that's being set up, but what it does allow is that it empowers members to make sure the issues that they feel are important are brought to the attention of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

That's a very good analogy, but it's just that this motion has quite an impact on people's lives in the next week and on how this committee is going to run. That's why it has to be dealt with. It's not just a suggestion. It's more than a suggestion. It's really setting the table for us for the next two months.

There's a little difference when you have a motion of intent that we look at something. This motion pretty well puts.... It makes a big difference, right?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I don't mean to debate that point, Mr. Chair. What I'm simply saying is that I have something I'd like to put on the table, and I'll let Mr. Hoback talk about the reasons why his course is better. I do think it's important for individual members to know that if they have a concern, they can bring a notice of motion. It doesn't have to be acted upon that day. That's why it's called a notice of motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I appreciate what my colleague from the NDP said. As you get into committee, you'll understand that you'll have your chance to bring in your witnesses and will have the ability to have input on how the meeting goes. We take it for granted because we've been here before, but you'll see it as it unfolds.

I just want to highlight to the government what their own minister is saying in the media today, “I think it's important to start with the committee and continue with a national consultation” on the provisions of TPP. She's actually asking that we do this before you bring any vote into the House. Let's get to work and get this done so that you can bring this into the House as soon as possible under your schedule. That is why the timeline is tight.

Basically, she has looked at this and has said that she signed it yesterday. She's saying that she wants us to do this work, and as opposition members, we're saying that we want to do this work too. We want to see this put forward as soon as possible, so let's get this out of the way.

That's why I think we should get to work next week, actually start our study, and have it completed by the end of February so we can go back to the minister and the House with a report. It will have contents that the NDP will like and not like, contents that government will like and not like, and contents that we will like and not like, but it will be done. Then the minister and the government will have the ability, if they so choose, to bring in legislation in March. Then we've done our work. It's there, done and complete, and she can bring forward that legislation as soon as possible.

We're ready to do that right now. We feel that it's time to go to work. Let's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Hoback, we are a bit of a steering committee, okay? This is like a steering committee. We're kind of charting our course, right? At a steering committee, we sometimes just sit among ourselves. We used to have one member from each party, and we'd ask how we were going to deal with issues. We are kind of talking like a steering committee now, even though it's a motion.

The thing is, if we were at a steering committee, I'd ask, “Okay, folks around the table, are we going to come here next week or not?” I'd ask for a show of hands and say, okay, we're not, or okay, we are, so now let's move on from that to whether we are going to bring the officials in.... A steering committee would be less formal, and you would do it that way, but we're not technically a steering committee.

You have the right to have this motion, so are we going to deal with your motion? It has been brought here. Does it have to be voted on?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

It has to have unanimous consent, first of all.