Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 76-90 of 106
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

International Trade committee  Yes, they were--

March 10th, 2011Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  I think that's an excellent question, and for the first time in the Canada-EU negotiations, the provinces are directly represented at the negotiating table, as you note. I don't know what the exact provisions of that treaty will be with regard to provincial compliance, but I do

March 10th, 2011Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. The constitutional dimensions of this issue relate to the prospect that the federal government, rather than acting simply as the signatory of the NAFTA, assumes responsibility for whatever fines or awards are levied in relation to NAFTA chapter 11 when

March 10th, 2011Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  I entirely agree with that analysis. Just in terms of the basic propriety or rightness of this settlement going solely to the investor and disregarding these other legitimate claims—as you've said, just stepping back from them—is, on the face of it, an unbalanced and inappropriat

March 10th, 2011Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee again. The AbitibiBowater settlement raises many serious concerns, and I will briefly address three. First, AbitibiBowater was compensated in part for the loss of water and timber rights on public lands.

March 10th, 2011Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  Again, I think there has to be a dose of reality here. We didn't make any significant inroads. The U.S. did not make any significant concessions, despite the major effort and high priority that Canada put on this deal. This is not a new story. There were additional negotiations u

March 16th, 2010Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. I would be very concerned, given the price, the steep price, we paid for very little result in these further negotiations, as I said before. The one thing to note about this agreement with the United States is that it did not require any congressional

March 16th, 2010Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  Thank you. That's a very good question. I think this is an important point: the GPA rules, and in fact even the temporary arrangements--and I think this is an important point--ban what they call offsets. Basically, offsets are when governments, procuring, go out to negotiate wit

March 16th, 2010Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  There are different forms of litigation under this agreement. The provinces, as far as the WTO GPA commitments are concerned, have agreed to set up what's called a domestic review process under our own domestic law, so every province would have to give suppliers who are covered b

March 16th, 2010Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  No, the Europeans are in the same situation basically as Canadian suppliers. Actually, you might argue that before we signed this deal we were in a slightly better position than the Europeans, who are now, at the WTO, trying to back out of certain of the commitments they made und

March 16th, 2010Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  Just quickly, there are no enforceable legal safeguards in this agreement that would protect Canada or even insulate it from Buy American preferences in future legislation. The proof of that pudding will be in the eating very soon in the Jobs for Main Street Act, which has Buy Am

March 16th, 2010Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  I have to say, as someone who's followed procurement policy for 20 years, that I was somewhat taken aback at the reaction in Canada to the Buy American preferences in the recovery act. They are a long-standing feature of U.S. policy. They have systematically excluded them from mo

March 16th, 2010Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  Thank you for the question. I think there's one clear lesson from this experience and the steep price we paid in this deal for very little relief from the Buy American preferences that have been in place for a long time, although they were intensified under the recovery act. The

March 16th, 2010Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Thank you for the invitation to appear today and for the opportunity to discuss the February 2010 Canada-U.S. government procurement agreement. The Canada-U.S. government procurement agreement, which I'll refer to from now

March 16th, 2010Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair

International Trade committee  Sure, thank you. In terms of provisions that we would not want to adopt from the U.S.-Korea agreement, the intellectual property rights provisions that I refer to, data exclusivity and so-called linkage provisions--I know those are complicated terms—that would push up the price

November 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Scott Sinclair