Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 560
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I suppose I might start by expressing some sympathy for Mr. Forsyth, who has been sent here to defend the government's right to ultimately betray supply-managed producers in trade negotiations on what I think are frankly some specious grounds.
I don't think the bill was presented in ignorance of the fact that Canada's trade negotiating teams receive mandates from cabinet, but one has to wonder—and perhaps you could answer for the committee—whether the negotiating mandates for either CETA, the CPTPP or CUSMA included a prohibition on conceding market access in supply-managed sectors.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
That's fair enough, although I think that the concern of supply-managed producers has less to do with the feelings of government decision-makers in respect of their decision to betray them and more to do with the substantive consequences for their industry.
On that point, those three agreements were clearly failures to protect the supply-managed sector in a way that the government has indicated it would like to or that it would. It seems to me that there is a stark difference between legislation that takes making those concessions out of the purview of government and a mandate that restricts the government but that the government can change from day to day.
In your opening remarks, you said that Parliament has the ultimate say because it can pass or decline to pass the legislation that enacts these agreements, but I think you also know—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—that by the time enabling legislation comes to Parliament, the deal is already signed. If Parliament declined to pass enabling legislation for those agreements, Canada at that point would be in default of very serious international commitments already made on behalf of Canada by the government. Is that not true?
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
But to be clear, typically Parliament doesn't actually get to vote on the text of the agreement except in appendices to the enabling legislation, perhaps, and Parliament can't actually alter the wording of those agreements. It can change the wording of the enabling legislation, but it can't in fact alter the wording of the agreements. Is that not true?
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
I think there's a bit of a deception in saying that Parliament has the final say when the agreement has already been signed, sealed and delivered. What Parliament is studying and making decisions about is how to enact that agreement within Canadian law, not whether to enact that agreement within Canadian law. That is why I began my remarks by expressing some sympathy for your having to be the ambassador of those arguments, because I don't think they really hit the nail on the head, frankly.
I think what we have here is a dispute. While I always appreciate the kind of information that officials can provide in the context of a debate, what we have here is actually a political debate. It is first and foremost about the role of supply-managed industry within Canada and the extent to which there is and ought to be political will to properly defend it within trade agreements, notwithstanding what appears from time to time in the mandate that can be changed by a particular government.
We also have a debate—I think a good one and an appropriate one, but not one that can be solved by technical expertise—about the role of the legislature in determining what kinds of international commitments Canada is going to undertake in respect of trade. This bill promotes a view that would have the legislature take a far more active role in determining what governments can and cannot do within a trade negotiation.
I've been clear many times before that this is something I support, so I don't agree with so-called principled objections to the legislature weighing in on these things. I think the treatment of the supply-managed sector in the last number of trade agreements—I'm thinking particularly of the three I mentioned earlier—shows there is a need for the legislature to get more involved, because we clearly can't trust the word of government, even when it has said that this is a priority for them. Even on the Canada-U.K. trade deal, we can talk about how there was no market access ceded under that agreement, but that's because there continues to be temporary market access for U.K. cheese makers under existing agreements. That's going to expire. In fact, the expiration of those agreements and the U.K.'s desire for Canadian market share has been cited by the government as a reason that the U.K. would be interested in coming to the table to negotiate a future agreement, so—
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I said earlier, I think the issues in the legislation are pretty clear-cut. It seems to me that committee members have a pretty good sense of where they're at on that.
Madam Speaker, I would simply move that we consider the bill to have passed clause-by-clause consideration and report it back to the House unamended so that the debate can continue on the floor of the House of Commons and the bill can make some more progress in the life of this Parliament.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
I hear that, Madam Chair, but I'm moving the motion nevertheless. I think it would be a nice way to move on and perhaps use our time in other ways on Monday.
I'm satisfied that from the technical point of view, all the questions have been answered. I think it's really just a matter of committee members deciding whether they think the bill should proceed back to the House or not.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Sure. I move “that the bill be deemed to have passed clause-by-clause and be reported back to the House without amendment.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Sorry, Madam Chair, you are on mute.
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 Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Just following up on that, am I hearing that we have a trading partner that has a prohibition in law on granting access within an agreement, yet nevertheless granted access to Canada within a trade agreement?
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Fair enough.
In the case of the Canadian cultural industry, protecting the cultural industry has obviously been an important pillar in trade policy. That's been made known to our trading partners and is represented within a number of agreements.
Has Canada's hard line on protecting its cultural industry gotten in the way of being able to conclude agreements with major trading partners?
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you. That's all, Madam Chair.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In view of the answer that Mr. Perron got, if he has other questions to ask, I will be happy to yield my speaking time.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Plamondon, it seems to me we have a strange situation on our hands. The government claims it will never again open up breaches in the supply management system, but it nevertheless doesn't want to adopt an act that would prohibit it from doing so. In other words, it wants to keep all its options open. The Liberals are afraid it may be impossible to reach a free trade treaty with new partners if it can't open up breaches.
How should Canadians and Quebeckers who depend on the supply management system understand this tension within government, which claims it doesn't want to open up breaches but simultaneously wants to keep all options open?
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Another argument we often hear is that we'll never be able to reach another free trade agreement if we have this kind of restriction in place. However, we have other well-established limits on national security and the cultural exemption, and that hasn't prevented us from signing free trade agreements.
Why do you think the Liberals and others think that this issue is different and that we can't hang onto this kind of exemption?
Results: 1 - 15 of 560 | Page: 1 of 38

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data