Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 91 - 105 of 8934
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
What I proposed was to set the dates in question, because that would be a lesser evil.
As you know, I proposed that we make this study the priority, as is ordinarily the case for a bill. This is June, and we passed the bill at second reading in March. This kind of time frame seems somewhat unusual to me. The committee has put an enormous effort into not making any effort.
I am therefore going to vote in favour of Mr. Blaikie's motion.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.
Ms. Bendayan is next.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
I simply want to clarify the situation.
With all due respect, Mr Savard-Tremblay, I tried to move the study of Bill C-216 forward. Then there was a discussion about the forestry industry and the possibility of holding an emergency debate on other equally important questions, I agree. Certainly not all of the committee members didn't want to have this discussion earlier.
I do not share Mr. Blaikie's opinion, given that some committee members still have questions to ask, but I will obviously respect the decision that the committee members make.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.
Go ahead, Mr. Lobb.
View Ben Lobb Profile
CPC (ON)
View Ben Lobb Profile
2021-06-11 13:53
Thank you very much.
If Mr. Blaikie's motion is defeated, does the meeting on Monday still go on in regard to Mr. Savard-Tremblay's Bill C-216? If it's defeated here, is that the end of it, and then we go to a new topic on Monday? If that's the case, I can't imagine that Mr. Savard-Tremblay wants that to happen.
I'd like a clarification on what happens on Monday.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Lobb. I believe if Mr. Blaikie's motion is defeated, we will continue the meeting today and Monday.
Madam Clerk, is that correct?
Christine Lafrance
View Christine Lafrance Profile
Christine Lafrance
2021-06-11 13:54
That's exactly what I'm checking right now. I will need maybe two minutes to make sure.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
All right.
We will suspend for two minutes.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Committee members, this is a bit of an unusual motion, and the clerk needs a bit more time to get clarification. I'm going to suggest that we continue on with our speakers list until the clerk clarifies Mr. Blaikie's motion.
Mr. Aboultaif, you had your hand up before I suspended the meeting.
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
CPC (AB)
In light of this development, I'm okay. Please continue.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
Mr. Blaikie, you have 53 seconds left.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a couple of quick notes, in that case. I'm fine waiting for the advice of the clerk on how to proceed with the motion. Although I'm not asking for extra time in this case, I think that normally when a member moves a motion, once the motion is moved, it doesn't count against the member's time.
As I say, I'm satisfied that we've learned what we need to learn from officials. I don't think that the question here hinges on any technical answers that they might provide. I think this is a political question and a question about the role of the legislature in determining trade policy.
I'm happy to cede the remainder of my time, which I take to be approximately two minutes.
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
We'll go to Mr. Lobb for five minutes, then.
View Ben Lobb Profile
CPC (ON)
View Ben Lobb Profile
2021-06-11 14:02
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The first question I have is for Mr. Forsyth.
Again, thank you for appearing before committee. I think you've been in the lead for most appearances since I've been on the committee—maybe you and the minister—so congratulations on being available.
When we say that we can't ever say we're not going to put certain items forward at the beginning of the trade negotiation, I understand the sentiment, but I'm curious that when we were doing the USMCA deal, softwood lumber never made its way on there and buy America really never got resolved either.
How does that happen? I'm not in the inner circle on this stuff, so how do we make a statement like that and then never get softwood or buy America dealt with?
Doug Forsyth
View Doug Forsyth Profile
Doug Forsyth
2021-06-11 14:03
I wasn't directly involved with the broader Canada-U.S.-Mexico negotiation at that time, but my understanding is that we certainly did start with the broadest possible negotiating objectives, including trying to deal with softwood lumber in some way, shape or form, as well as trying to deal with trying to negotiate a government procurement chapter in relation to the buy America provisions. It was clear, as we started to narrow down the issues, that the United States would not engage on either of those issues, so they were put aside as we reached to—
Results: 91 - 105 of 8934 | Page: 7 of 596

|<
<
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data