Evidence of meeting #36 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was negotiations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Based on what was brought forth by Mr. Savard-Tremblay, we agreed, as a committee, what the timeline was going to be. We designated certain days and what we would be doing on those days. We, as a committee, all voted for that.
I have questions to ask. I'm sure my other colleagues have questions to ask. I'd like to continue with the agreed timeline that we all voted on recently that sets out the work the committee would be doing each day.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Madam Chair, I have not asked questions. I still have questions to ask. Some other members have maybe had their opportunity to ask questions to these officials and to get the answers they need, but I strongly object that my limited time is being curtailed.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
What I proposed was to set the dates in question, because that would be a lesser evil.
As you know, I proposed that we make this study the priority, as is ordinarily the case for a bill. This is June, and we passed the bill at second reading in March. This kind of time frame seems somewhat unusual to me. The committee has put an enormous effort into not making any effort.
I am therefore going to vote in favour of Mr. Blaikie's motion.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I simply want to clarify the situation.
With all due respect, Mr Savard-Tremblay, I tried to move the study of Bill C-216 forward. Then there was a discussion about the forestry industry and the possibility of holding an emergency debate on other equally important questions, I agree. Certainly not all of the committee members didn't want to have this discussion earlier.
I do not share Mr. Blaikie's opinion, given that some committee members still have questions to ask, but I will obviously respect the decision that the committee members make.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you very much.
If Mr. Blaikie's motion is defeated, does the meeting on Monday still go on in regard to Mr. Savard-Tremblay's Bill C-216? If it's defeated here, is that the end of it, and then we go to a new topic on Monday? If that's the case, I can't imagine that Mr. Savard-Tremblay wants that to happen.
I'd like a clarification on what happens on Monday.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Lobb. I believe if Mr. Blaikie's motion is defeated, we will continue the meeting today and Monday.
Madam Clerk, is that correct?
The Clerk
That's exactly what I'm checking right now. I will need maybe two minutes to make sure.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Committee members, this is a bit of an unusual motion, and the clerk needs a bit more time to get clarification. I'm going to suggest that we continue on with our speakers list until the clerk clarifies Mr. Blaikie's motion.
Mr. Aboultaif, you had your hand up before I suspended the meeting.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
In light of this development, I'm okay. Please continue.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a couple of quick notes, in that case. I'm fine waiting for the advice of the clerk on how to proceed with the motion. Although I'm not asking for extra time in this case, I think that normally when a member moves a motion, once the motion is moved, it doesn't count against the member's time.
As I say, I'm satisfied that we've learned what we need to learn from officials. I don't think that the question here hinges on any technical answers that they might provide. I think this is a political question and a question about the role of the legislature in determining trade policy.
I'm happy to cede the remainder of my time, which I take to be approximately two minutes.
Liberal
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The first question I have is for Mr. Forsyth.
Again, thank you for appearing before committee. I think you've been in the lead for most appearances since I've been on the committee—maybe you and the minister—so congratulations on being available.
When we say that we can't ever say we're not going to put certain items forward at the beginning of the trade negotiation, I understand the sentiment, but I'm curious that when we were doing the USMCA deal, softwood lumber never made its way on there and buy America really never got resolved either.
How does that happen? I'm not in the inner circle on this stuff, so how do we make a statement like that and then never get softwood or buy America dealt with?
Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I wasn't directly involved with the broader Canada-U.S.-Mexico negotiation at that time, but my understanding is that we certainly did start with the broadest possible negotiating objectives, including trying to deal with softwood lumber in some way, shape or form, as well as trying to deal with trying to negotiate a government procurement chapter in relation to the buy America provisions. It was clear, as we started to narrow down the issues, that the United States would not engage on either of those issues, so they were put aside as we reached to—
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Could I ask for one distinction on that?
I don't doubt we put it on the table and I don't know if you're prepared to say this publicly, but I don't think Donald Trump and his negotiators put buy America and softwood lumber on the table. Are you saying that they put them on the table in the negotiations, or did we ask for it in the negotiations?
Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you for the clarification.
No, what I'm saying, in fact, is that they were part and parcel of the broader dynamics of the negotiation. As I said, I wasn't there, so I can't say specifically that the United States ever said “no softwood lumber”. I'm saying that when we started, we started with 100% of the issues on the table and then narrowed them down. I think it became clear as time went on that the Government of the United States did not want to discuss government procurement at all, nor deal with softwood lumber in the context of the USMCA Canada-U.S. negotiation.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Humour me on this one. I'm sure I've asked you this one before.
In the CPTPP, if we're going to start negotiations again with the U.S. and with the U.K. in regard to access to supply management, how do you start the negotiations? I'm sure you've already talked to the dairy farmers and the chicken farmers and all that. We're not going to grant any new access to the United States or the U.K., so how do you do that when you go into it? How are you going to make that happen? It seems to me as though we're starting a negotiation by saying they're not getting any new access when we start this renegotiation of the CPTPP.
Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
The CPTPP, as you folks are well aware, is already in place. It has been agreed to by the CPTPP members. Anyone that wants to accede to it—and that would include the United Kingdom and the U.S., since they are not party to the agreement—would have to accept the terms and conditions as they are, and that includes the market access conditions. That includes the broader pieces, the parts that everyone has already agreed to, as well as the market access components to it. You're absolutely right. We have made market access concessions that include all of the tariff rate quotas in the supply-managed area, and access to it is open to CPTPP members. The new members would be able to access that same amount, not more.