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 539
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
I was raising my hand to vote, Madam Chair.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Greetings to all the witnesses.
I will yield my speaking time to Mr. Perron for this first round of questions.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Chair, thank you for your greetings. It is always a pleasure to be with you.
Thanks also to Mr. Savard-Tremblay.
I will address Mr. Forsyth first.
In your opening statement, you acknowledged that this bill was consistent with Canada's long-standing policy and its intention of protecting supply management.
Did I hear you correctly?
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
So it is part of a continuing process and is consistent with the intentions expressed orally. I believe this bill puts the election promises into concrete form.
You said that this might carry risks in the negotiations.
Whenever we enter into negotiations with a country for a free trade agreement, is there not always precisely such a risk, given that we need to be vigilant and protect our key sectors?
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Forsyth.
Some opponents of the bill argue that a change would not be prevented, because any act can be amended at a later date. So a government that had its negotiating mandate limited could always come back to Parliament to change it.
Is that correct?
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Perfect, thank you.
If I understand correctly, a government that came after and wanted to make concessions would have to assume the political responsibility and have the courage to include it in its mandate and seek the permission of the House first.
So the power is delegated to the members of the House. That is the aspect that I find interesting. I don't think it conflicts with our interests.
There have been several references to the agreement with Great Britain. I would like to point out specifically that the market shares that had been allocated to Europe had also been allocated to Great Britain. It was obvious that we could not have expected new concessions on its part. Unfortunately, the agreement signed with Great Britain is temporary. There is therefore still a risk of fresh demands.
I would like to bring this point to the attention of the committee members, because I think it is important.
You spoke earlier of the negotiating mandates. When a representative of the government participates in negotiations, they have a mandate from the government. Would the law proposed in Bill C-216 not simply be part of the mandate? Would it not impose a limit to prevent the representatives from touching supply management?
Would that not have the same impact?
There seems to be a desire to dramatize the fact that it is a law, but it could simply be set out in the government's instructions. On the other hand, if it is in a law, we are sure it will be there, regardless of what government is in office.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
You agree with me that it would be more or less equivalent, right?
It is simply defining a future government's negotiating mandate in advance, no matter what party is in power.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you. I will move on to my next question.
You say that all governments have expressed their support for supply management. That's true, but in the recent agreements, all governments, regardless of stripe, have made concessions, except in the case of the agreement with Great Britain, obviously, that we spoke about earlier.
So the goal of this bill is to cement that.
Someone cited the danger that other groups will be asking to have their interests entrenched in law. Is that not a slight exaggeration? We know that the other groups are not governed by supply management.
It must be understood that if we grant more concessions, then at some point, the supply management system will no longer be able to function. In order for a supply management system to function, supply has to be controlled. That is the very foundation of the system.
I would like to hear your thoughts on that subject.
I am putting the question to Mr. Fowler from the Department of Agriculture.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We know that in the United States, Congress can give a mandate, because it has authority over treaties. It is in the constitution. In Europe, also, it is the parliament that gives the mandates. Here, this is the Crown's responsibility, so it is the government that gives the mandates, as was observed earlier. This is a fair bit less democratic and less transparent.
In the United States, despite the constitution and the fact that Congress gives the mandates before the negotiations, some sectors are nonetheless protected by various laws, such as the maritime sector, government procurement and sugar. There are laws that prohibit touching those sectors in the negotiations.
You have had an opportunity to negotiate with the United States in recent years. My question is very simple. Around the table, did you feel that you had in front of you negotiating partners who were weakened, who had lost their bargaining power, and were condemned to lose in advance?
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Excuse me, but I would like to clarify my question.
It we leave aside the different procedures for assigning negotiating mandates, did the fact that the American laws rule out certain sectors give you an advantage? Did you think that this was perfect, that you were going to have perfect losers in front of you, that you were going to take jump at the opportunity?
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 Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
On a point of order, Madam Chair.
The interpreters are signalling that there is a problem.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am just going to ask my question again, but it will be much simpler and more concise.
I would ask the witnesses not to compare the constitutional system of the United States with Canada's or Europe's and not to talk about the model for assigning the negotiators' mandates.
In the United States, there is a law that prohibits touching government operations. Another, called the Jones Act, prevents touching the maritime sector. They are also prohibited from touching sugar, which is systematically excluded under an agreement dating from the war of secession.
I would ask the representatives of both departments whether they believe that the Americans are weakened by those laws and that Canada could have better bargaining power because the exclusion of certain sectors has the force of law in the United States.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Chair, I am going to let Mr. Perron ask the question.
Results: 1 - 15 of 539 | Page: 1 of 36

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

For more data options, please see Open Data