[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 15, 1996
.1550 
[Translation]
The Chair: [Technical difficulties - Editor]
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): [Technical difficulties - Editor]...the presence of a minimum of three members, including a member of the Official Opposition. In the absence of a quorum, you might find yourself alone with a witness since the sub-committee is very small.
The Chair: It is important to point out that at least two persons must be present, including a member of the opposition.
Mr. Sauvageau: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with that for practical reasons. If we take two people and one must be a member of the opposition, and if when we are hearing witnesses that member goes to the washroom, does that constitute a break? We had to deal with that at some length in the fisheries committee at one point. So when you deal with quorum, which we dealt with, I agree that a member of the opposition should be present, but I'm not sure we should not be able to hear witnesses if a member of the opposition is not present.
.1555
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): When you speak of opposition, do you mean the official opposition or just the opposition party?
Mr. MacDonald: No, opposition.
Mr. Assadourian: Either one.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: We are not chauvinistic about this.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: So what we're saying then is that if they don't show up, we cannot have a meeting.
The Chairman: That would be the effect.
Mr. Assadourian: I don't think that's fair. Is that how it works?
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Several parties are represented here. If members of the opposition were unable to attend several meetings - we are all full of good intentions, but supposing there is a problem - and witnesses were invited to attend in their absence, this would be unacceptable.
Getting back to Mr. MacDonald's comments, if, for example, Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Dupuy and myself were present and one of us had to leave for a few minutes, I don't think someone would be so spiteful as to say that we had lost our quorum and then proceed to thank the witness and adjourn the meeting. That's not what I'm saying. I believe it is essential that a member of the opposition, whether it be a member of the Reform Party or the Bloc Québécois - I have no partisan feelings on this score - always be present and that there be at least two or three committee members in attendance.
The Chair: Our clerk has something to say.
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee (Ms Hilchie): The quorum is three, and the quorum cannot be qualified, so the committee could proceed with a meeting. As long as it has quorum, you cannot qualify that it has to include a member of the opposition.
Mr. MacDonald: With respect, you can, because it's been done on other committees. I chaired the fisheries committee for two and a half years, and the committee can do whatever it wishes by way of motion. We're masters of our own fate and can make our own rules. In order to protect the rights of members who are not government members, most committees insist that in order for a meeting to be started a member of the opposition must be present. I've been around here seven years and it's something we fought hard for in opposition, and I think it's something that has to be maintained.
Since we're among friends here and we're having this strike committee, in opposition I was guilty of being a bit of a bulldog at times against the Conservatives. In the government operations committee, where the rules were not very clear, we opposition members got up one day and walked out of the room. There was still a quorum, but no member of the opposition was present. In hindsight I think it was rather irresponsible, because that committee could no longer hear witnesses who had been flown in.
When we make these rules I think we have to ensure that the rights of the minority, being the opposition, are always looked after, but we also have to ensure that when we get witnesses in, they are heard. So there should be a member of the opposition present in order to start the meeting, but once started, I don't think we should constrain ourselves by saying that the member of the opposition must be one of the two or three to hear witnesses.
The Chairman: Thanks to our efficient clerk, here is Mr. Francis LeBlanc's motion to which he was referring:
- On motion of Francis LeBlanc it was agreed that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in
order to receive and authorize the publication of evidence when a quorum is not present,
provided that at least four members -
- and that refers to that particular committee
- - are present and that both government and opposition members are present.
Mr. MacDonald: But that is a motion... Was that motion made at the foreign affairs committee?
The Clerk (Ms Hilchie): Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: We're not the foreign affairs committee, we are a subcommittee of it, and we will decide on the most efficient ways for us to conduct our affairs.
There's nothing nefarious about my point. We had a fisheries subcommittee that went out west and we specifically didn't require that an opposition member had to be present. Mr. Cummins had indicated that he could not go into Manitoba and we were not sure whether the Bloc Québécois would be able to send somebody. But it was important that we hear the evidence. We couldn't vote or anything, but we took the evidence.
.1600
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I don't know whether I understood you correctly, Mr. MacDonald, but I hope I didn't.
If I understand you correctly, in the case of the sub-committee of which you were a member while in opposition, the requirement for a quorum was that a certain number of members, including at least one member of the opposition, be present.
You used this formula as a political tool, not I'm sure because of any ill will. Since you are no longer in opposition today, you would like to take away from the opposition the right that you yourself claimed at the time.
If my understanding is correct...
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the rules in that committee were not very clear.
It was used at one point, and perhaps not properly, to stop a witness from giving testimony. It was immediately after that the committee corrected its rules so that when we did have witnesses in... For example, if you're the only opposition member present and you get a sudden call and have to remove yourself from the hearings, but you know that by allowing the witness to continue you will have access to the testimony and there will be no motions or anything... If you remove yourself and we have a witness that has been called in from Toronto or Halifax, an argument could be made that since you are no longer present, we cannot take testimony from that witness.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: To call a meeting to order and to hear from a witness, we would require the presence of one member of the opposition, one Liberal member and the Chair. Is that correct? The Chair could then call the meeting to order.
Without all members necessarily being in attendance at the start of the meeting, we would need at least one member of the opposition, one Liberal member and the Chair to be present.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: So we have three then?
Mr. Penson (Peace River): It seems to me that we should go by the rules of the Standing Orders. There must be a section that deals with it. I don't know specifically what it is, but surely there has been a precedent for this. It seems to me that we should follow the rules that are there.
The Chairman: The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has adopted the rule in the form I read a moment ago. We could keep the same rule but adapt it in relation to numbers.
The proposal would be that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive and authorize the publication of evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least two members are present or three members are present - this is where the choice is - and that both government and opposition members are present. That would be the rule, if we decide to adopt it.
Mr. Penson: I guess I'm asking if we have that freedom under the Standing Orders, or if we have to be guided by whatever guidelines are in place in Standing Orders for subcommittees.
The Chairman: The quorum here is three. This particular motion is a derogation from the quorum. If we say three members must be there, in effect it means we cannot operate without a quorum and a member of the opposition must be present at the meeting.
Am I getting it right?
Mr. Penson: Does that address the issue that Mr. MacDonald raised? If opposition members have to leave during the course of a meeting, what happens to the meeting at that stage?
Mr. MacDonald: That's my point.
Mr. Penson: I guess we should be guided by whatever is in the Standing Orders.
Mr. Assadourian: Except there is nothing in the Standing Orders. Am I right?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, my experience is that small committees usually function much better than large committees because people are able to have a better interaction.
If the motion reads that three members must be present, one of whom must be a member of the opposition... I would like a caveat in there in case a member - I'm looking after the interests of the opposition here - has to remove himself. If we're into hearings and you're called to some other committee, I want some mechanism there that would allow for the committee to continue - maybe it has to be with consent, I don't know - in the absence of that.
.1605
The Chairman: I'm told by our clerk that this indeed is the practice - that it's the initiation of the meeting, the start of the meeting, that has to meet the criterion. After that, obviously, one of us may have to leave the room, but the proceedings can continue.
If there is understanding on this, the only question that remains is whether we have an obligation to start with three members or with two only, with a member of the opposition.
Mr. MacDonald: For a quorum, you're talking about to start a meeting, and a quorum is three?
[Translation]
The Clerk of the committee (Mr. Etoka): We need three members.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, it is a small committee, but I would hope we would always be compelled to have more than two people here. It gets very lonely and it certainly does not look good to witnesses when you only have two people on a committee.
Mr. Gerald Schmitz (Committee Researcher): But all members are eligible to come if they want.
The Chairman: Then what we would have is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive and authorize the publication of evidence when a quorum is present, provided that both government and opposition members are present.
Mr. Penson: That's satisfactory.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, no, that's bigger than...that is quorum.
The Chairman: A quorum is three.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, a quorum is three, but the chair is included in the quorum.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: So, Mr. Chairman, you're basically saying that you can only take evidence when there is quorum, and when a member of the quorum is a member of the opposition.
Mr. Penson: Initiate a meeting, I believe he said.
The Chairman: That is indeed the way I interpreted your suggestion, that two people would not be enough, and that three would do, but the quorum happens to be three.
Mr. MacDonald: I'm sorry about being obtuse, Mr. Chairman, but could you clarify this? A quorum is three individuals, one of whom must be a member of the opposition. Am I correct? Is that not what we just agreed to?
The Clerk (Ms Hilchie): But quorum is actually three members of the committee.
Mr. MacDonald: One of whom must be a member of the opposition.
Mr. Assadourian: No, it doesn't say that.
The Clerk (Mr. Etoka): If I may, the Standing Orders say that quorum is a majority, which is 50% plus one. It doesn't specify whether you have to have a representative -
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I've been on about five committees in my seven years, and in actual practice usually a member of the opposition will raise as an amendment to that standard rule for quorum that one member of the opposition be present, and I think that's important. However, for the taking of evidence I think we should say three members, and not put the attachment that one member must be a member of the opposition.
The Chairman: So we have a divided house then, because basically the proposal is a definition of the quorum that does not include the presence of the opposition. That's what you are basically saying.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, what I would put forward is that a quorum be viewed as three members of the committee, one of whom must be a member of the opposition.
The Chairman: Ah, well there is no problem then. Agreed.
Mr. MacDonald: Agreed. The second thing is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive and authorize the publication of evidence when a quorum is not present, but when there are at least three members present.
Now, let's say we said that. What is the difference, Mr. Chair? The difference is - if there was an agreement on the first one, that a quorum must be three members, one of whom must be a member of the opposition - that in order to continue to take evidence or hear witnesses after the meeting starts, you must have three members present. This means that if a member of the opposition is here and has to leave, we can't continue, as there must be three members of the committee present.
Mr. Assadourian: Can I ask you a question? Correct me if I'm wrong. What I understand is we can start the meeting with a quorum of three, but if we drop number two, we cannot continue the meeting. Am I right? Is that what it is? If that's the case, we don't need this...
.1610
The Chairman: At this stage I think we have agreement on the first proposition.
Mr. MacDonald: The first one?
The Chairman: I think we had an agreement. I heard ``agreed'' on your side. I think you would agree to the definition of the quorum that we need to operate here.
The second aspect can be handled in two ways. We either go by the practice, as described by the clerk, it being that the rule applies at the beginning of the meeting but then we carry on. The meeting cannot be stopped simply because somebody walks out. This, of course, is the simplest way of doing things, or we have a sub-rule, as you suggest.
I must say my inclination, for the sake of simplicity, is to accept the practice as governing our operations, which means, in effect, that no one could stop the proceedings simply by walking out. Is that agreeable?
Mr. MacDonald: Agreed.
Mr. Penson: I see. So what you're saying is that if it falls to two people here the meeting would continue.
The Chairman: It would continue.
Mr. Penson: I think that's okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Could you refresh my memory as to the definition of a quorum?
The Chair: A quorum consists of three members, one of whom represents the opposition.
[English]
I think we have agreement. Can somebody move this motion?
Mr. MacDonald: I so move.
The Chairman: Seconder?
Mr. Penson: I'll second.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Therefore, we move on to ...
The Chair: The third item is "Transcripts of in-camera meetings".
[English]
For the transcripts of in camera meetings, is there a mover?
Mr. MacDonald: I'll move that.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The fourth item is "Library of Parliament".
[English]
An hon. member: So moved.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Number five is witness expenses. Is there a mover?
An hon. member: So moved.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Number six is questioning of witnesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I'll move that.
[English]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Where was I?
Mr. Sauvageau: We were on the seventh item.
The Chair: Item seven: Future business.
[English]
Perhaps I should at this stage explain the discussions I've had so far as background to our meeting. We obviously have to agree on a program that works. I'm most willing to listen to all suggestions.
[Translation]
I would be very happy to hear your suggestions. I think it is important to agree at the outset on the work that we will be doing and on our priorities.
Perhaps I can start out on this note. The discussions that I have had have centred primarily on the interest that other committees could have in some of the subjects that we will be reviewing.
[English]
And we may end up having to organize some activities with other committees. For that reason, I don't think we can button down our work program today, simply because there may be need for agreement with other subcommittees or committees. If you're willing, I would be very happy if you would express your views and
[Translation]
perhaps I should call upon the members of the opposition to give their take on the committee's agenda and to make some suggestions.
Mr. Sauvageau: I must admit that we have not given it much thought to research or otherwise. The Liberal government made a commitment on page 24 of the Red Book to renegotiate certain side agreements and aspects of NAFTA with a view to ensuring more equity between Canadian and American exporters and importers in the area of countervailing and antidumping duties.
.1615
As we examine the issue of trade disputes, it would be interesting to discuss the deadline of last December 31, given that nothing has been done. Since the biggest dispute is perhaps the one involving Canada-U.S. trade, the sub-committee could use this opportunity to analyze the whys and wherefores of the Red Book commitment which to date has not been fulfilled.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Penson: It seems to me that we might be tying our hands a little too much here. I'm thinking specifically of a trade dispute, following up on what Mr. Sauvageau was saying, specifically with steel and the dumping issue that our steel industry faces.
I want to talk specifically about dumping as it relates to steel. We've put the provision in number five that we can have witnesses travel here and give testimony to the committee, but it seems to me that there might be times when we want the committee to travel to certain areas, such as Hamilton, to see first-hand or to talk to witnesses first-hand in their own environment, in their own business setting.
I don't want to keep the idea going that everybody has to come to Ottawa. Sometimes I think it might be good to take the committee to where the source of the problem is and talk to people directly in that setting. It seems to me that's something we should probably do.
I would hope the committee would look at that as a way of addressing some of these serious issues. We might even want to go across into the Detroit area and talk to some of the automobile manufacturers about purchasing steel and how the issue affects them.
The Chairman: Thank you. Perhaps we should turn to our clerk and ask whether we have authority to decide these things. We're an emanation of the standing committee.
The Clerk (Ms Hilchie): You are in a position to decide on your future work. As far as travel goes, you would report to the main committee to seek permission. That committee would then report to the House to get permission for the subcommittee to travel.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chair, as a point of clarification, when the request goes to the committee, the committee has to make a request to the liaison committee. From the liaison committee it then goes to the House for permission, but usually that's not a problem.
The Clerk (Ms Hilchie): Yes, if the liaison committee grants the funds, usually the House will grant approval as well.
Mr. MacDonald: It's been incumbent upon the whips of the three parties present to ensure that when it gets to the House it's approved.
The Chairman: On that point, Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian: I would like to see, Mr. Chairman, whether it's possible before we call any witnesses to have someone from the department come in and explain to us this particular resolution process, how it starts and what the whole system is all about.
For me it's a technical issue. I'm not very familiar with this. I don't want to go to Hamilton or anywhere else before I know what job we have to do. If someone comes from the department and explains to us this process, we will have some idea about technical issues. They'll probably brief us. Then I think we should start calling witnesses and addressing the issues. We have to do our homework before we start, I think.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my colleague. I think the first thing we should do is seek some rather detailed briefings.
There are a couple of issues. One deals with the steel issue. We should make a decision in advance to either call a witness or take somebody in, so that the committee can try to get its head around some of the options open to Canada, as well as try to sort out whether or not some of the statements made by the steel industry in Canada are indeed factual or whether they are posturing - and I don't say that in a negative way - to try to keep the issue current, not just for the Canadian Government but also for the Americans and their counterparts in the American industry.
.1620
I got a detailed briefing on this about a week ago, after having two sort of not too detailed briefings, and my understanding is that although there has been some sabre rattling in public, the industry and the department are not that far apart. I don't want to say more than that, but it's important.
In order for us to be successful in the steel end of it, we have to ensure that some people who are purchasers of Canadian steel on the other side of the border start pressuring their members of Congress and senators to cease and desist on some of the bothersome activities that have been undertaken against the Canadian steel industry.
There's also the whole area of what the possible remedies are for Canada, using trade remedies or being bothersome like the U.S. is with Canadian steel producers. What are the potential impacts on other industries? My understanding is that there are some players in the automotive parts sector who say that if we did the same thing the Americans are doing, in actual fact it may cause them to lose some contracts in the United States. So maybe if we had a really good briefing, and tell the department we want a really good briefing with details available, then we could make a decision as to where we would go.
The second thing would be on the Helms-Burton bill. I think it would be very important for us to get a good briefing so we understand about where the United States currently is on that one, such as whether they have decided how they can actually implement sections of that legislation that was passed, what the potential is, the possible impact on Canadian industries, and at the same time talk about what options are open to the Canadian government.
The last thing I'll put on the agenda deals with the SIMA review that is about to get under way. My understanding is that it's not yet clear who is going to do that review, whether or not it is the finance or foreign affairs committees, this subcommittee, or a hybrid of a subcommittee from finance and either this subcommittee or another subcommittee of foreign affairs.
I think that is probably one of the bigger pieces of work that needs to be done. In the next few days I think somebody is going to say some committee is the one that should do it. I think it's a good piece of work for us to do as well, the Special Import Measures Act review.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to say something,
[English]
we have several questions put on the table now and perhaps we could dispose of them one by one. I think travel by the committee is something we can decide when we feel travel is appropriate. We know the procedure and I assume there is no objection to the prospect of having to travel, subject naturally to the full respect of the procedure. Is this agreed among us? Thank you very much for the suggestion.
The second one, which is also of a general nature and is in a sense procedural as well, is to start our work with appropriate briefing sessions. We can indeed invite officials to provide us with the fundamental parameters of knowledge we need to be fully effective. I certainly would see no objection to that; on the contrary, I assume that we have agreed on this way of proceeding. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Penson: I would like to discuss this further.
The Chairman: Okay, of course. We're here for that. You're welcome.
Mr. Penson: It seems to me that what we need to do is identify what disputes we have. I think the library could probably do that for us. Then at some point, once we have some background on those disputes, we should identify what ones they are, have some background on them, and then it's probably appropriate to try to decide the priority for what ones we want to start looking at.
Until we get that, there are a number of disputes that are ongoing. There are other areas in addition to that, such as future work for the WTO in developing a subsidy code, and all that area needs to be addressed too. But initially I think we have to at least identify what disputes are out there that Canada is facing right now and get some background on them for us.
.1625
The Chairman: I recognize that I may have put the cart before the horse. Obviously we have to tell officials what we want to be briefed on, and to do that we need to have in our minds the subjects. I was rather referring to the general procedure of being first briefed by officials, whatever the subject we pick up, and then moving on to a more substantive discussion.
The next question is really the set of proposals we just heard from Mr. MacDonald regarding his suggestion about steel, the Helms-Burton bill and the SIMA review. These would be added to the suggestion that we should look at the state of the negotiation on the trade remedy measures.
[Translation]
Your suggestions had to do with negotiation, or the possibility of negotiation, on the issue of countervailing measures.
Mr. Sauvageau: You are restricting the scope of my suggestion to the dispute over automobile parts in a region of Canada. I don't think that this is what the Liberal Party had in mind when it stated on page 24 of the Red Book that it would seek solutions to the subsidy, countervailing and dumping issues before December 31, 1995. Agreements were concluded and panels did meet within this framework. Of course, we have the problems with the steel industry, but there are many other problems as well. I was referring to a Red Book commitment and this brought us around to a problem with the steel industry, and to a problem with automobile parts in a municipality... I think the scope of my suggestion has been somewhat restricted.
Helms-Burton is also a good topic and if we want to take a little preventative action, we could look at what lies ahead with the Canada-Chili and Canada-Israel bilateral agreements. Since these have not yet been signed, perhaps we could prevent trade disputes instead of having to resolve them.
The Chair: The list is getting longer, but we are here precisely to get an overall view of the problem.
[English]
On the SIMA review and on the issue of harmonizing our work with other committees, I welcome the presence at the table of the chair of the standing committee. I know he's been active trying to sort out these issues, so I invite you, Mr. Graham, to give us the benefit of your knowledge.
Mr. Graham (Rosedale): Right. On the SIMA review, the proposal from the finance minister had been that it would go to the finance committee. I spoke to the finance minister this afternoon at the break, and both he and the chair of the finance committee agreed it would be perhaps more appropriate to send it to a joint committee of finance and foreign affairs and international trade. He has requested a letter from me explaining to him why, and I've just been drafting that letter.
Basically what I've said in the letter is that since anti-dumping and countervailing duties are really a response to an international issue in which we are directly involved in terms of trade disputes and the WTO and NAFTA and how it functions, it would be silly for finance to go off and do that. We could end up in what I wouldn't call turf wars, but disagreements as to what the appropriate manner is. So we should be together on this.
I'm getting that letter ready and I'll send it out to him today. My understanding is that we have his provisional agreement but then he'll show this to his officials and this will then come to a joint finance and international trade committee. I sort of assumed that it would be this subcommittee it would come before.
We might want to reconstitute this in terms of membership, because there might be other interests. I think one thing all the members have to recognize is that this is a highly technical, very legally driven, politically contentious and probably quite time-consuming process.
Don't forget that the last SIMA review covered more than just countervail and anti-dumping duties. Every interested party in Canada that's ever been before the CITT is going to want to come before this body to argue why the law should be jiggered some way that is going to suit their interest. So this is going to be quite an exercise, and I think the members of the committee have to recognize that.
But that being said, Mr. MacDonald, since about 90% of the steel issues are anti-dumping and countervail issues, I just wondered if maybe one wouldn't subsume the steel matter into the SIMA review. At least we should perhaps look at that as maybe being a logical thing.
.1630
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I think you're right. But I'll tell you, after the initial briefings I got from the department I thought I understood the steel issue. After I met with the steel industry and got their questions and went back to the departmental officials, the briefing was somewhat different because my questions were different. I knew a little more than the first briefing. I learned that dealing with international trade people, as good as they are, you better be darn sure you ask the right questions; otherwise, they don't volunteer the information all the time.
So I think it would be useful before any decision is made on steel that we get the briefing. I think once the briefing is done we may see that it is the best forum to try to deal with that issue. So I do agree.
Mr. Graham: I would hope that by this Friday the decision will be made. I am going on the assumption it will be a joint finance committee and this committee. That's at least provisional with what the minister and the finance chair and I agreed to in the House today. But things have unravelled before around here.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of International Trade as well, because you've had three ministers involved, two directly and one on the periphery, and that's Eggleton. It's really over in the other area, although the impact is over here. I was asked about this the other day and I agreed that I thought it should come to a joint committee, that I did not think it should be over with finance or revenue.
Mr. Graham: Mr. Eggleton was there when we were having that discussion, so I think we're all in agreement on that.
Mr. Penson: Mr. Chairman, surely Mr. MacDonald isn't suggesting that we decide what to do based solely on a briefing of the department.
Mr. MacDonald: Not at all.
Mr. Penson: This committee is to look at the problems associated with countervail and dumping as it pertains to the steel industry. Certainly the department would have very strong views on it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make recommendations that might be different from that.
Mr. MacDonald: Not at all.
Mr. Penson: I'd like to put that on the record, that we don't have to be guided simply by the department in this area.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on that point, I'm never quite guided by the department, but I find them a very valuable source of information. There are other sources as well. I just think we should get the view from them and that may generate other questions and some suggestions as to how we should act. So I agree.
Mr. Graham: I appreciate this is an organizational meeting, not a substantive meeting, but since you brought up Helms-Burton it might be an appropriate moment to report that at the Canada and United States joint meetings we have just had, parliamentary delegation meetings where Maud Debien was the Bloc representative and Herb Grubel was the Reform Party representative, it was quite superb and we accomplished a great deal.
We had a long discussion in the committee that I was chairing on the Helms-Burton bill - and Sarkis was there as well but sitting in another committee - and we had the benefit of having Senator Mack from Florida sitting in with us and quite a few of the other U.S. legislators who are interested in this.
The prevailing feeling in the United States and I must say my own personal view while we were there was that they've done it, it's been passed, and now the way we have to look at it is how to limit the mischief as much as possible. I would say that pretty well all the senators - not so much the House people but the senators - were unanimous in that agreement.
The shooting down of the planes caused them to do what they did. Now they're sitting back and saying that the Europeans are swarming around them like a bunch of hornets, we're screaming and yelling, everybody's threatening all sorts of retaliatory action, so now they're looking at a way they can limit the damage and go into damage control. That might be the best thing we could try to do too for our thing, but we'll no doubt hear all that from the officials.
It was a very interesting meeting, actually, to find out just how much they agreed that they had to do this, but now that it has been done, how do they get themselves out of the mess they've created for themselves.
Mr. Penson: An election.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
We now have the indication that the chairman of our senior committee is working out the creation of a joint committee to merge our activities on steel with the SIMA review. Are there any further comments on that?
Mr. Graham: I don't think there'd be any likelihood of it coming just to us. I don't think that would happen.
[Translation]
The Chair: Under the circumstances, shouldn't we accept the invitation?
An honourable member: Certainly.
.1635
Mr. Graham: If we want to be a player, we have to say yes.
The Chair: Well then, so be it.
[English]
Very good. So that is clear.
Perhaps I should mention the cultural file, because the matter has been raised with me by several of our colleagues. That is also an area for potential trade disputes with the United States, and of course it has a wide and interesting background. I would welcome your comments as to whether we should put it on our list as a subject we would like to eventually cover. I'm not at the stage facing ranking on anything. Are there comments?
Mr. Penson: I think all potential or real disputes that are going on should be on our list right now. Then we will set priorities at some future meeting of what we want to talk about.
Mr. Graham: Mr. Chairman, I agree that we've hit some of the most contentious areas, and clearly the cultural industry, in my view at least, is one of the areas where we're most likely to have most of our difficulty. A lot of the other stuff we're dealing with, be it with steel or be it with Helms-Burton, is being done for some rather narrow political reasons in the United States.
When you deal with the larger issue of cultural exemption under the NAFTA and some of the current disputes with respect to culture, I think they are probably the more difficult ones and the ones that are most likely to cause us more trouble in the future than this other single issue. I think we should put it on.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that one of the things we may want to do, at least initially, is take a few meetings to arrange some very good and informal briefings, because the informal briefing may be better for us all than the formal briefing. You get officials sitting down at that end of the table, Mr. Chairman, and they have a script. It is sometimes more difficult.
Maybe what we should do, Mr. Chairman, is look at a number of briefings on these subject areas sooner as opposed to later. Maybe we could take this very small committee to do it in an informal atmosphere over at the department so we have a better exchange of ideas at the table and may be able to get a better flavour than we would from formal committee briefings at this point. We could arrange, Mr. Chairman, for a number of them depending on the subject areas we agree to today.
Mr. Assadourian: May I come back to the point I made earlier, Mr. Chairman? Is it possible to have a briefing or material I can read to familiarize myself with the subject of the dispute resolution process? What is the process? That's what I want to know. I don't know the process. Maybe others know, but I don't know the process - how to go about settling disputes and what happens before we study the disputes.
The Chairman: I certainly would not oppose that. The mechanisms of dispute settlement are complex, and of course we've got them in the agreement with the United States, in NAFTA, and in the ITO. So if it is generally felt that this would be a useful exercise, I would welcome it.
Mr. Assadourian: Do you know how the system works?
Mr. Penson: I know how the system doesn't work.
Mr. Assadourian: We have to make it work.
Mr. Penson: We have agreements to try to make it work, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it works.
I don't have anything against some kind of briefing. It just seems to me, though, that a lot of the work we should be doing, Mr. Chairman, is the future work that needs to be done to advance our agenda at the World Trade Organization to settle things like subsidy definition, countervail, and dumping. That will address many of these issues we're talking about now. I think that our main focus overall should be to have a position that Canada presents to the WTO in the next round to try to advance some of these areas.
It would look after many of these disputes if we can get that. In the meantime, of course, there are immediate disputes that have to be resolved. I understand what Mr. Assadourian is saying. If it's helpful, I certainly don't oppose any briefings in that regard. But we do have a lot of things in place right now that haven't necessarily been serving us, because we have a partner in the United States that doesn't always follow all the rules.
.1640
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Since we seem to be focusing on this topic, I am somewhat surprised by Mr. Assadourian's comments. I would suggest that we bring along a copy of page 22 of the French version or page 24 of the English version of the Red Book to our next meeting and that we work on the basis of the definition given. It was on the basis of this definition that you were elected. We will take the definition as it is written and work with it.
We will discuss subsidies, as well as countervailing and antidumping duties as defined in the Red Book. I agree with this approach. We should bring along a copy of the page for each committee member and start our research on the basis of what has been written. I think it's wonderful that we can work in this manner. I'm certain that you will agree with me. You can't help but do so.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I'd like some directional stuff here. I'm one of the best partisans you can get. I love the cut and thrust of partisan debate. Since this is a steering committee meeting, if you want to deal with the red book, we'll deal with the red book. If you want to deal with trying to be proactive, putting forward... The Reform Party, obviously, is interested in putting forward some suggestions on how we can improve the position of Canada at various levels. But if you want to deal with the red book, I think the Liberals are quite prepared to deal with it.
I thought what we were doing here today was looking at some areas where we could find some common ground. There will be plenty of time for partisan debate here. I would hope we would stick to the agenda of looking at where this committee could, at this point in time, best place its efforts where we need some background information. Then, when we settle our agenda, we can assume our respective roles around the table, because that's usually helpful. It usually means at the end of the day some issues get debated in the light that's important.
At this point in time, Mr. Chairman, I think we have put some things forward. I would hope we could move from this point to agreeing to get some briefings rather quickly, and after that getting back together and finding which areas we thought we could best deal with, how to prioritize them. I think by that point in time we will know whether or not we have been given the task of doing the SIMA review, because that's going to take a huge amount of our time. I don't know the timetable for that. Maybe Mr. Graham does.
Can we agree now to go forward and try to get some of the briefings, and if so, how do we want them, formal or informal?
The Chairman: Mr. Graham, you wanted to address these points.
Mr. Graham: No, I was just going to make a facetious remark, Mr. Chairman, that if Mr. Assadourian wanted to understand more about international trade dispute resolutions, perhaps the chair would like to buy five copies of my law school textbook.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Graham: They could be circulated among the members of the committee. Royalties are always very welcome to writers in this area - and there are not a lot of them around in this country.
The Chairman: Thank you for the commercial.
I think we have an interesting list. I've taken notes. I'm not trying to do any ranking now, since we seem to be in agreement that we'll come to ranking at a future meeting. I have trade remedy measures as a rather general subject, and dispute settlement mechanisms also as a fairly general subject. As well, steel, cultural issues, the Helms-Burton bills, and Canada-Chile, Canada-Israel also have been suggested.
Perhaps we could start with a fairly general briefing on trade remedy measures and dispute settlement mechanisms, which would get us into the action. Then, after we hear this initial briefing, we may be able to do it in a single session. We would come to the ranking of the subjects.
Mr. Penson: I had thought that perhaps the starting point would be to identify all of the disputes.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Penson: Otherwise, I could raise some, too, that should be on there. It seems to me perhaps our research could, at least for the first session, identify and give some kind of short background on the dispute, how it developed and where it's at in its current format. We could move from there to discussing what kind of priorities we should develop. Otherwise, I think we might miss some, or at least not be as aware as we should, of the history of these and how they developed and so on.
.1645
The Chairman: Basically you suggest tasking our researchers to do a paper on the general subjects. We would have this paper in hand at the next meeting, and we would get cracking on priorities. That's your proposal.
Any comments?
Mr. Graham: The department always used to keep an ongoing list of Canada-U.S. disputes. I think that's probably easily done. I'm not sure vis-à-vis Europe and things like that they keep an ongoing register.
Mr. Penson: But our more pressing ones, I think, are with Canada-U.S., 83% of our trade.
Mr. Graham: No, I'm not saying they aren't, but I'm sure that list is readily available from the department.
Mr. Penson: The United States also has identified 27 areas where they have problems with us. That would be helpful to note.
The Chairman: Other comments?
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I think that information is readily available, as Mr. Graham said, from the department. That's not difficult. I wouldn't want to overburden the research staff at this point. I'll certainly put a call in to find out what we can easily get for the researcher. Perhaps if they can distribute that, he can have a look at it to see if it seems to be tainted or biased. If we got that distributed prior to the briefings, I think it would be very helpful. It's always nice to walk in with a better understanding, because the questions will be more pertinent.
I still think we should try to organize - because I think you covered the waterfront on this - those briefings with the department, perhaps as soon as we get back. I'm worried that the SIMA briefing at the SIMA review may suddenly take over our entire agenda. So if we could get the briefings done the week after we got back, at the department, if that was enough time for the researcher to give some background notes on the disputes that are currently troublesome, then we could take it from that point, after that initial briefing, as to where we wanted to go.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Perhaps the last question I should raise is whether there are any views on when and at what pace we should meet. I gather the practice is for subcommittees to meet on Wednesday afternoon - or when the main committee is not meeting.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Graham, who has honoured us with his presence here today, could help us answer this question. We should put this question to him since he keeps us busy. He even makes us work harder. Does the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade meet at a specific time?
Mr. Graham: As a rule, we meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Mr. Sauvageau: Then perhaps the sub-committee could meet on Wednesdays.
Mr. Graham: There are, however, exceptions in the case of the A and B committee meetings when visiting dignitaries are welcomed.
The Chair: Perhaps we could establish as a principle that we will follow the customary practice, that is we will meet preferably on Wednesday afternoon. It is still too early to determine the pace at which we will tackle our work agenda.
[English]
We'll see when we have established our priorities how fast we want to move. I would therefore suggest we move to the last item on the order of the day.
We are adjourned to the call of the chair.