Evidence of meeting #6 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.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I seem to have technical problems. There is a message saying, “You cannot start your video, because the host has stopped it”. Can the host unstop it?
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, host.
As I was saying, my proposal would be, therefore, to indicate by the latest December 11, just to give us the opportunity to hear from the minister before the House rises, obviously. I would just like to give us all the opportunity possibly to have the minister come, and providing nine days out with which to work with the minister's schedule might prove difficult.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I'm not quite sure yet how this participants listing works, but I have Mr. Lobb down first.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Madam Chair, I don't think I had my hand up, so I'll pass it to the next person on the list.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you.
I'm sorry, but we're running out of time, through you, Madam Chair, to Ms. Bendayan. We don't have time to wait.
I know the minister is busy. She has too many things in the air right now. There should be two people in her job. That's not a criticism of her; it's a reality. She's trying to balance small and medium enterprises and trade, and trade needs a full-time person right now and we don't have that.
I'm sorry that this could be inconvenient to your schedule, but if she thinks this is going to be passed by December 31, how do we do that unless she's in here next week?
The concern I really have is that she's given direction to these negotiators that December 31 is the deadline. She's basically saying that there is not going to be any parliamentary oversight. She's basically telling us here that either we're all coming back the week of Christmas to do this or I'm not sure.... If December 31 is their deadline, that means we're coming back when? I don't know, but there's been no consideration for parliamentary oversight or for anybody to scrutinize the document.
The other thing that's really of concern to me is that there have been no consultations. This agreement looks to me like it could be a full-fledged trade agreement. There is no sunset. There is no trigger mechanism to say that by 2022 this will be changed over to an actual agreement. There's no game plan laid out, other than that we're going to all be nice people and go to the table sometime next year. He may not even get a mandate letter next year to proceed with negotiations.
These types of questions the minister has to answer, and she has to answer them now.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Chair, I just want to echo some of the concerns around timing. I have to say that, if it is really a priority of the government and of the minister to have some kind of implementing legislation passed by the end of December, I think the minister has to be able to make it a priority to appear swiftly before this committee. If the minister can't be bothered to come until December 11, then I don't think this is a priority of the government, in which case we're not going to see anything happen before the end of the year anyway.
I'm disinclined to change the timeline of the motion.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Yes, Mr. Sheehan. Whenever you want to speak, if you could use the “raise hand” feature, it makes it a little easier for the person operating this.
I have you, Mr. Sheehan. Please go ahead.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
No problem. I tried that little reaction button. You probably didn't see it, so I'll use my hand.
To the point that is being discussed today, I was just looking at the original motion we have before us that was adopted. It talks about a study of three meetings and that we're to get on and study this, with the transitional agreement with the United Kingdom being in place by December 31, 2020. I agree with my colleague the parliamentary secretary that the date should be flexible. I think it's in keeping with the original motion we all agreed to, with those timelines.
I would ask as well, perhaps, for a bit of smoothness, for up to two hours, whatever amount of time the minister can give here. I know we're all busy parliamentarians and we're doing a lot of things. The minister is very busy, but she said she would like to come back as well, so I think having some flexibility in doing it.... The minister is going to try to get here to satisfy the original motion as well, but with an “up to two hours", and before this date.... If she can get here earlier, great, but if not, I still feel the original motion that was adopted by all of us would be satisfied with what the parliamentary secretary has suggested.
Thank you.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
To add to my previous comments, we on the government side are certainly optimistic about concluding an agreement. I hope the officials are able to clarify that today.
I think it would be most useful for the minister to come once the committee has a document before it. Therefore, I am sympathetic to Mr. Hoback and Mr. Blaikie, who are insisting that this be a priority of the government. It has been, I assure you. The negotiators have been working around the clock in order to get this done. I would hope we would make the most of the minister's appearance by being able to ask her questions on an eventual document.
Therefore, I do not think it's unreasonable at all for us to suggest to give us a few more days. If she can come sooner because we have a document sooner, then so be it, but given the motion is going to be binding on the committee, I would suggest we give ourselves as much flexibility as possible to make the most of the minister's appearance when she does come.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Before I move to Ms. Gray, Ms. Bendayan, could you repeat how you are proposing to amend Ms. Gray's motion?
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Certainly. My proposal was to make the motion reflective of the fact that the minister could appear before the committee on or before December 11. I had suggested that we include the week of December 7 as a possibility for her appearance, whenever of course we are scheduled to sit at committee during that week.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Speaking to the amendment, we can certainly have the minister come back once we have a document, which could be a normal process considering this has to go to Parliament and then come back to the committee, so we could certainly have the minister back again.
I'm not prepared to vote for the amendment to this. We have to look at the timing of this. We have questions that aren't being answered because the officials here simply may not be privy to them, so we're looking at a very tight timeline.
I know we're all busy, as one other member has said, but I'm prepared to be here at five in the morning or at midnight. We are talking about one of the largest countries that we have trade with and this is incredibly important. We could have been doing this during the time period when the government prorogued Parliament. We are in this position because of a lot of time-wise decisions this government has made, so I think we need to work on this expeditiously.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
I would echo the comment that the minister can come more than once. If this is a real priority of the government, I don't think that's a lot to ask, particularly given that it's not the committee that established these timelines. It's the government that has created the predicament we're in.
As I said initially at the outset of this debate, I think one of the important reasons to hear from the minister soon has to do with getting an idea of how the government intends the parliamentary process with respect to the implementing legislation to unfold. That's not something that as a conversation.... I don't want to spend the limited amount of time that we're going to have to be talking about the content of the deal, which we still haven't seen—we're a month away from the deadline—and the content of the enabling legislation, which we also haven't seen and would have to be passed on the same deadline. I don't want to be spending that time talking to the minister about parliamentary process.
I'd appreciate understanding from the government how it is that they intend to try to shepherd this through Parliament in the time remaining before we're all submerged in these two documents, in what sounds to me a lot like a comprehensive trade deal and the enabling legislation to go along with it.
I think the minister should come without delay, and I think that if this really is a priority of the government, when they finally share some of the details within this agreement, she can come again.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Madam Chair, I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to a couple of things that have been said.
I appreciate certainly that I might not be changing anybody's mind here, but the minister did appear approximately 10 days or two weeks ago. At that time, members were free to ask the minister any questions that they felt were appropriate, including with respect to the timing of these negotiations and the introduction or passage of any bill through the House of Commons. I don't believe that any of the colleagues who seem to be interested in that today asked those questions.
The other point that I thought would be useful to make was that on the suggestion that there were questions left unanswered, I believe that our negotiators answered almost every question. The only question that I believe they were unable to answer was with respect to the House schedule, and I would suggest that the House leader and the minister responsible for proceedings in the House would probably be the people to ask that question of, and not our negotiators.