Evidence of meeting #58 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.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That's fine.
I'm not seeing anyone move CPC-5.
(Amendment withdrawn)
We have CPC-6.
Is it being withdrawn?
Conservative
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Madam Chair, I think we all realize that we're in a minority situation, and there are certain agreements that are presently under way. This is a huge change in policy, so I think it's really important for our trade partners and for trust for Canada internationally that we have some type of transitional understanding that agreements that are under way aren't going to be affected by this, Madam Chair.
We have a precedent for this. You'll remember the original TPP that was negotiated, and under that negotiation there was a certain piece of supply management—I think it was 3% access. The original TPP also included the United States. It was President Obama's deal, so it would have been that set percentage. Under the Liberal government at the time, the Prime Minister decided not to sign that but came up with the new comprehensive TPP. Then we had to renegotiate CUSMA, and another 3% was given away.
I understand that we've had a lot of witnesses who were very mistrustful of governments in general because they had a deal, and then basically they lost because the government of the day decided to trade away more.
This is the argument. Mr. Seeback, with the first amendment, talked about it, so I think we should have a reasonable transitional provision in this bill if we're going to move forward with it, so that our trading partners know that there will be some certainty and that Canada's word at the negotiating table won't change.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
It's okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would simply say that the promise to protect supply management has been made and articulated, and I think all this statute is doing in this very short private member's bill is entrenching what is already the policy of the Government of Canada. There's no reason for enacting a transitional provision, because the policy is effectively already operative. This is just formalizing what is already operative in terms of the Canadian government's policy, so I wouldn't see any need to adopt CPC-6.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Is there any further discussion? I'm not seeing any.
Madam Clerk, would you please call the vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)
Shall the title of the bill carry? Do we need a vote on it?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Shall the bill carry? We'll have a recorded vote, please.
(Bill C-282 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)
Shall the chair report the bill to the House? We'll have a recorded vote again, please.
(Reporting of bill to the House agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
Thank you all very much. That concludes the clause-by-clause on Bill C-282. I will report it to the House, as directed by the committee.
Just for the information of the committee, on Monday we will be returning to the IRA and the discussion about the Washington travel. On Thursday, we will start on the non-tariff barriers and the motion from Mr. Seeback. Is everybody good with that? Okay.
I move adjournment.
