Yes, please go ahead.
Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I have paper copies for everyone. I’ll give them out in a moment.
Should I read the proposal, or would you prefer that everyone be free to read it in the language of their choice?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Everyone will have the wording, so I’ll just tell you that I think the softwood lumber issue and the forestry issue need to be looked at urgently. So, if possible, I would like to see this motion passed today.
Thank you.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Again, I have no issue with this. It's just the process. What we are going to use for new studies coming forward and how we do that is the only concern I have. Again, I have no issue with this study. I think it's a great study.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Yes.
Chair, do you want to have each party put forward three or four ideas or motions for us to consider in subcommittee before January? I'm just asking the question.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I think it would help to have an idea of where the different members are coming from and what their thoughts and suggestions are, and then it's going to be up to the subcommittee to evaluate which ones prioritize which study we're going to do. We're going to start with Mr. Sheehan's, maybe Mr. Savard-Tremblay's will be the second, and somebody else's will be the third. That will come forward with the recommendations.
The sooner we know where the ideas are.... As in politics, new things always hit on the horizon very quickly, which then get added on to the overall.
Mr. Arya, did you have your hand up?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I agree with what Mr. Hoback said, that all parties can pull in their three or four ideas, and the subcommittee can evaluate and bring the short list back to the committee, which we can discuss in detail.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Hoback is right. This was the compromise related to Mr. Sheehan's motion. Let's now get everything else to the subcommittee and go from there. I think that's where we're at. This is a good idea. I think we're clear on that.
I want a proposal of something more broad because there are so many trade issues with the United States now too. We went after just one little...as a compromise, and maybe we can go through the subcommittee for the rest of the stuff.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
For Mr. Savard-Tremblay's motion, is the direction of the committee to refer it to the subcommittee?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, I would agree with what's been proposed by Mr. Masse, Mr. Arya and Mr. Hoback, that it be referred to the subcommittee.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Any other additional motions that anybody wants to move today would all be referred to the subcommittee for discussion whenever we're able to arrange for that to happen. For now we have Mr. Sheehan's motion adopted and moving forward as soon as we come back. The first opportunity that we can have a meeting of the subcommittee, that will happen.
Okay, everybody is okay with that.
Any ideas or thoughts you might have, please refer them directly to the subcommittee. That should be all right.
Mr. Savard-Tremblay.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Why is it that all the motions are being referred back to the subcommittee, when the first one seems to have been adopted more clearly and decisively?
Why can’t we adopt the other motions in the same way, in other words, keeping some flexibility in their application?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you've introduced your motion, and you're asking that we vote on that motion today. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
That’s what I would like. If it was offered to handle the previous motion this way, why not do the same with this one?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Each motion is of course calculated differently and examined differently. You've moved your motion. It's been introduced.
He's moved his motion, and he's asking for a vote on that motion. Madam Clerk, is everything in order for Mr. Savard-Tremblay's motion to be voted on? He didn't have to give advance notice for it either. Correct? I'm just making sure procedures are being followed here.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
On a point of order, Madam Chair, we all talked and agreed that we would just deal with the one motion today, and the rest would all go to subcommittee. That was agreed upon, so to have this come forward now kind of breaks what we originally agreed on. I have no problem with this; it's just that we should not to deal with it today. Let's deal with it in subcommittee.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
However, in the agreement we reached on the first motion, priority wasn’t an issue. We agreed that we were interested in the subject, but there were no firm terms.
According to what has just been said, though, the subject of the first motion would be studied as a priority. I think there is a problem of understanding what has been adopted and that this would need to be clarified.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
It was the decision of the committee that the committee would adopt this, given the urgency of this particular issue—the EV issue and Canada and the U.S. Any other motions that were introduced would be referred to the subcommittee for further discussion and prioritization at the first meeting of that subcommittee.
That was my understanding of everything.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
However, in the discussion we had, it was clear that we were adopting the principle, the theme, the idea, but that we were not restricting ourselves to a specific formula. This means that this topic was not necessarily going to be studied first. We did not determine that it would be. We didn’t set a timetable.