Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 7 of 7
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
This clause doesn't change the agreement. It changes the way the committee reports on the agreement.
Given the debate I've heard in the House of Commons about this agreement, there has been a lot of discussion about transparency. I've heard from the Conservatives that they want to see economic reports. I've heard from the Liberals that in the past they weren't happy with the way agreements were negotiated because they felt they were left out. I think this just adds a level of transparency to reviewing the agreement after it's been signed and ratified and that we can see the socio-economic benefits or drawbacks of the agreement.
Proposed clause 212.1 reads:
(1) Within two years after the day on which this section comes into force and every two years after that, a review of the socio-economic impacts of the Agreement on Canadians and on the Canadian economy, broken down by industry sector, is to be undertaken by the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of the review. (2) The committee is to submit a report containing any findings or recommendations that it considers appropriate to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee.
As we move forward into the review of the agreement, this will help Parliament understand the impacts of the agreement. As we move towards that 16-year renegotiation period, we're going to have a better understanding of the impacts for Canadians and Canadian industry.
Thank you.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you very much for letting me share your time to ask some questions.
My first question is for Mr. Trew. It's just about mitigating and enhancing the agreement, and whether you have some other suggestions. I'm wondering what kinds of processes and reporting you'd like to see on how the agreement is working for Canadians so that we can determine what the socio-economic impacts of the agreement are as we work towards these six-year review processes.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Okay.
My second question is for Mr. Leblanc. I know that in Montreal you probably represent a lot of cultural industries. I know in my riding there are cultural workers who have to apply six months in advance to be able to do a tour in the United States, and they pay $600 to get their work permits. The American cultural workers who come to our border can bring their work permit to the border and pay a $10 fee and cross the border, and there isn't this kind of delay.
I'm just wondering if you have any comments on that and also on the processes for CBSA for implementing the agreement and the kinds of regulations for importers and exporters in implementing the agreement, and trying to make that a seamless process in terms of training.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Yes. If the committee agrees, I would like to take a short opportunity to say something and ask a question.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
I want to echo some of the things I've heard from other members here. I'm not going to belabour these points, but in regard to your relationship to McKinsey and 22 of the 100 top state-owned corporations, your relationship to Teck Resources and the Chinese Investment Corporation and these conflicts of interest, I just want to put those concerns on the record.
However, my question is related to this position we're in between the United States and China with Huawei and 5G and how you see this unfolding, how we're going to manoeuver through this situation with the Five Eyes and the demands by the Americans that we not take on Huawei Technologies to implement 5G.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
I would like to request that this motion be turned down, because before this motion became a regular motion for committees, it's my understanding that independent members were able to put forward amendments up to the report stage. It's onerous on independent members. We don't have the same resources as the official parties do to do research and get amendments written. This would require that amendments be put forward while we're still hearing from expert witnesses.
Results: 1 - 7 of 7

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data