International Trade Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I believe that was the intent. We've done this before. Whatever we have gathered from a prestudy is then applied to the actual legislation when it gets here.

I have Mr. Seeback and then Mr. Arya.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I'm incredibly disappointed with how this has been done here, Madam Chair, by both you and the clerk. We had talked about studying the economic impacts of the strike at the port of Vancouver. That was going to be next week. A witness submission was never requested from us. Now, here we are on Thursday with no witnesses contacted to proceed with that study, which is completely out of the ordinary business as to how this committee operates.

We've operated this committee in a way where we've treated each other with respect and tried to work on things. To come in here today and be told that the minister has already been arranged to come on Tuesday for a study that is not before this committee, with a piece of legislation that is still being debated in the chamber, and will bump our study, which the entire committee agreed would be the next thing we study.... It's been bumped because not a single witness has been contacted. It's now Thursday at almost one o'clock.

There was a plan afoot here. The plan afoot was that this was going to happen and our study was not going to proceed. I find this to be something that I am exceptionally frustrated with. We do not have a bill before us. It is not the job of this committee to deal with incompetence in the government's ability to manage their legislative calendar in the chamber.

We had a committee plan. We agreed, everyone, to this plan. Now, all of a sudden, the plan has been thrown out of the window with no consultation with the committee. To somehow suggest this surprise announcement at committee business, when what we thought we were doing at committee business was to discuss this budget, I find to be a breach of how this committee has operated.

I'm incredibly disappointed. I'm disappointed in you, Madam Chair. We've had a good working relationship. I don't think this is the way we would treat each other normally.

I do not agree to doing a prestudy of that particular piece of legislation, because the committee had business we had already scheduled. If that legislation is before us, then of course it would bump a study, but to bump our study, which is an important study.... We all agreed it was important. We all agreed that it would go right after we finished Mr. Savard-Tremblay's biocides study. I think this is a big problem, and this is not how this should have been done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Arya.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Chair, if we are going to take this up, I agree with Mr. Savard-Tremblay that we should not extend the number of sittings for that particular study, because it is important legislation. If it gets through, it has to go through as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I believe I have Mr. Jeneroux next on the list. Then I have Mr. Baldinelli, and then I will respond to Mr. Seeback.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thanks, Madam Chair. I don't think your comment at the beginning that this was going to be a quick one is necessarily accurate at this point in time.

I don't sit on the subcommittee, but we all received a report from the subcommittee and I thought there was a lot of goodwill when we talked about the ability to talk about the supply chain issues that we're facing.

I think Mr. Sidhu's and Mr. Miao's motions were good motions, and I think we came to a good understanding about what that would be. The subcommittee report—to remind everybody—started with this biocides meeting that we had here for, I was going to say, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, but I think it was actually a pretty good study for everybody to understand that. Then we were going on to the port strike. I think, again, that was something that everybody was in agreement with. Again, it was in the subcommittee report that we were doing it. I just remind the committee that the initial motion for that was to include the minister as part of that study and that study would have been happening Tuesday.

We now understand that the minister is free Tuesday, but she's not appearing on this. It's about this prestudy, which seems to have jumped the queue, if you will. I think there was a lot of good faith in removing the minister from that and making sure that we're focused on the government's response and having government officials. We didn't necessarily demand that the minister appear, which I know has happened in previous committees that I you and I have sat on together, where we spent a lot of time demanding that the minister show up.

That wasn't the case this time. I think, again, it was the understanding that we were going to move directly to the port strike. I know there has been a lot of anticipation from pretty much everybody in this room, and we wanted to do it. It was topical. We wanted to do it sooner rather than later.

Certainly I think this is something that I, unfortunately, won't be supporting—going to this prestudy just because the minister happens to be free, when initially we were looking for the minister for the first one.

I'll leave my comments there, Madam Chair, but again, to my first point, I don't think this is going to be a short discussion, as you said in your opening comments. Hopefully we can resolve this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I have Mr. Baldinelli, Mr. Cannings, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Martel.

I'd like the opportunity to respond so I don't necessarily want to wait until the other speakers have spoken.

Is it okay with everybody if I respond to the suggestions so that there's a better understanding of where we're going with this?

We all know that Bill C-57 takes precedence, as Mr. Seeback said, over everything else. It was expected. Bill C-57 had to come. We have to deal with it because it's legislation, and then immediately following the four meetings that were decided on for Bill C-57, we go on to the port study, which is scheduled at the moment for the end of this month.

There's been a delay in the House with getting the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement into this committee due to concurrence motions being tabled. We all know what's going on. It's been deliberately to delay the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement from moving on.

The clerk has to have a schedule and we expected the legislation to be here, which is why the schedule is the way it is. We did the biocides and, normally, if it were not for the concurrence motions being moved in the House, the legislation would be here. It was scheduled for Monday, and we had asked the minister as well to be here for the beginning of that study, which is normal, and the schedule worked as well.

It's efficient use of our time as a committee. The concurrence motions in the House are delaying its getting here, because it was scheduled to be debated yesterday and Friday. We have the four meetings, and we immediately go on to the Vancouver port strike that we talked about. That was the plan. That is the schedule that is before us at the moment.

Since Bill C-57 is not here yet, but it will be at some point, the idea was to do a prestudy and then apply that information so that we can continue with the schedule that's before us. There was no intention to be devious about anything. The legislation takes precedence. It is the holdup in the House that's preventing it from being here, so that's all I'm going to say about that.

Mr. Baldinelli, you have the floor.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In terms of bringing forward some issues on this.... First of all, we're talking about committee business. I'd like to find out why we're not in camera to discuss committee business. At first, you said it would have been a relatively short discussion, so you didn't think it needed to be in camera.

However, to my colleague's point, I think this is going to be a rather long conversation. I think it would be the right thing to have these discussions held in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All those in favour of going in camera...?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. I will suspend for a moment so that we can go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]