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 488
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 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.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome to all my colleagues.
I also welcome my colleague Mr. Plamondon and thank him for introducing this bill, which will definitely solve some longstanding problems. Of course, nothing is perfect, and there's no magic solution, but it's preferable to have statutory provisions on the subject than not. I think that's obvious.
Before asking you my question, Mr. Plamondon, I want to correct a few points for the record.
First, the obligations under Bill C‑216 apply before any agreement implementing act is introduced. In other words, it will become part of the minister's mandate: the minister will be barred from making any commitments on Canada's behalf. Consequently, this is in no way an agreement implementing bill.
I'd also like to clarify another point in view of our colleague's previous remarks. Supply-managed sectors receive no production subsidies. That's also important to note.
Mr. Plamondon, I'd like to ask you a question that, in a way, is a kind of rhetorical question.
Some of our opponents tell us that the bill might undermine other sectors during negotiations. My impression is that everyone is a believer when it comes to supply management, but there aren't a lot of practitioners. We often hear elected representatives say they fully support supply management and that they're committed to keeping it intact but that we shouldn't deprive ourselves of certain opportunities in future negotiations. Ultimately, they say they'll keep supply management intact but want to have the option of opening up a breach.
Doesn't that argument alone indicate how necessary this bill is?
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Earlier you were asked whether you trusted the Liberals to apply or comply with this act. You essentially answered that you would trust them even less if there was no act. In other words, you trust them even less at the negotiation stage if there are no legal obligations and all there is, ultimately, is whatever word has been given.
Like everyone else, you agree that an act can be repealed. That's normal; we live in a democracy. The question I want to ask you seems obvious, but I nevertheless feel it's important to clarify the point: don't you think the obligation to repeal an act will prolong negotiations where parties want to open a breach in future? Then the government will have to accept the blame for repealing it before it can open that breach.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.
I see that Madam Chair is about to speak. So I imagine my time is up.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank all the witnesses here with us today.
I have just one brief question.
I find your comments interesting, Mr. Lampron. We in the Bloc Québécois represent Quebec. You, on the other hand, although the supply management system is extremely important in Quebec, represent not only Quebec dairy farmers, but also those in the rest of Canada.
You spoke to us about the usefulness of Bill C‑216. Would you yourself describe it as essential?
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Lampron.
Madam Chair, I will give the rest of my speaking time to my colleague Yves Perron.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, before I get to my questions for the minister, I want to say how shameful it is that the meeting started before I arrived. I was voting. Committees usually suspend when votes are being held. What's more, we are always told that we have to stay until all the votes have been tallied. I just want that on the record.
Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for being here today.
According to transcripts of the calls between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States, the Prime Minister did not raise the issue of softwood lumber or try to resolve the ongoing dispute, once and for all.
Are the two leaders expected to discuss the issue? Has a conversation been scheduled?
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
I will ask the question again.
Do the Canadian Prime Minister and the U.S. President have a meeting scheduled to discuss the softwood lumber dispute, among other issues?
Results: 1 - 15 of 488 | Page: 1 of 33

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

For more data options, please see Open Data