International Trade Committee on June 1st, 2010

[Matthew Kronby, Director General, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Perhaps we could clarify who exactly is asking the question and which question is being asked. With all the debate going on, I think we've lost track of what exactly it is we've been asked to answer.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It looked as if the three of you were digging into finding the answer to Mr. Julian's question.

Mr. Laforest asked a question in regard to another agreement from May 27, which I'm not aware of. If you have the answer to Mr. Julian's question now, let's get it out of the way.

Mr. Bouchard.

[Pierre P. Bouchard, Director, Bilateral and Regional Labour Affairs, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

In regard to Mr. Julian's question on the account, this is dealt with in clause 43. Should we wait until we get to clause 43 before giving an answer?

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I believe we have our witnesses here, Mr. Julian, to answer that. So when we get to clause 43....

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I understand the point he's making. Certainly, though, we're talking about two different clauses. My preference at this point would be to have the answer while we're on clause 2.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

The specific question was on the fines paid, I believe, and whether they are paid internationally. Was that the way you worded that, Mr. Julian?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, but are they paid to the...?

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Is that a yes or a no?

[Pierre P. Bouchard]

Yes, I can give the answer.

The answer is found in clause 43, but we have no problem giving the answer now. It's specifically part of this bill in clause 43.

I believe the question is whether the monetary assessment of the financial penalty that would be paid as a result of a complaint—let's say in a case where the complaint is against the Government of Colombia—would be paid to another account within the Government of Colombia or whether it would leave the country.

According to this, if the complaint is against the Government of Colombia, the money would be paid into a special account that would be set up within the Canadian consolidated revenue fund. So that account would be set up to either receive monetary assessments that are paid by other countries or also be credited for a monetary assessment that Canada could pay if Canada is the object of the complaint. The answer is that the money would leave Colombia in this regard and come into a special account of the consolidated revenue fund.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Does that answer your question, Mr. Julian?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, I have a supplementary on this. This is only in the case where Canada is the object of the complaint.

[Pierre P. Bouchard]

In both cases: when Canada is the object of the complaint but also where Colombia is the object of the complaint. It says it clearly:

...any monetary assessments to be paid into an interest-bearing account designated by the Ministerial Council and for these monies to be expended at the Council's direction on initiatives to rectify the non-compliance. Section 19.1 of the Act creates such an account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The account may either receive monetary assessments that are paid by other countries or be credited with a monetary assessment that Canada must pay. Interest accumulates and money is paid, as directed by the Council, at the request of the Minister of Labour.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, Mr. Julian.

Don't you like the answer?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

No, I've heard the answer, Mr. Chair. I did want to ask a quick question on the....

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Did you hear my question earlier? I don't think so, because you were looking for something.

[Pierre P. Bouchard]

Sorry.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

No, it's all right; I understand perfectly. In any case, when something happens without warning, it can be a distraction. You can't do two things at once.

I was just saying that clause 2, which we are discussing now, provides definitions… It says: “The definitions in this section apply in this Act.” It talks about the Agreement on the Environment Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia, the Agreement on Labour Cooperation Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia, a Joint Commission, and so on. However, on May 27, an agreement was signed regarding annual human rights reporting and free trade between Canada and Columbia. Why is that agreement not mentioned here? Why isn't it in the bill? Should it not be, to validate the Act? If the Act refers to related agreements, but no reference is made to an agreement that was signed afterwards, could that cause a problem? That is my question. Should it not be included? If it should, I suppose the bill will have to be more closely scrutinized than what we are doing now.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Can somebody answer that?

[Matthew Kronby]

The question seems to be, and I'm paraphrasing a little bit here, why the agreement concerning annual reports on human rights and free trade between Canada and the Republic of Colombia is not mentioned in the definitions section here or not mentioned in the bill as a whole.

I suppose if someone wanted to table an amendment to do so, they could. There's nothing here right now that requires that the agreement be referenced in the implementing legislation.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

When you draft a bill and include definitions for interpretive purposes—and, in a way, they are the meat and potatoes of the bill—it's to indicate that the bill deals with this or that matter, which are to be defined and interpreted in a specific way. Agreements have been negotiated, they are included in the bill drafted by the government and, in the meantime, another agreement is negotiated but nobody thinks of including it.

That seems rather odd to me, because it basically means that we sign agreements and draft a bill at the same time without necessarily making the important connection between the two. As the term suggests, these are related agreements, which means there is an important cause-and-effect relationship between the bill and the Agreement. That means that the bill as a whole—even if an amendment were brought forward today to include it, it would simply be an amendment that is tacked on—was not drafted with that Agreement in mind. That is also what this means. So, even if we pass amendments, we will have forgotten an extremely important element in drafting this bill. That means that the bill—yes, we can pass an amendment, people could propose something and we expect that they will—or that the legislation as a whole and the different clauses it includes, do not refer to that. It's rather odd and somewhat anachronistic to simply add something without actually amending any other clause in the bill. It seems a little ad hoc.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That was more commentary than anything. You asked a question. You got the answer. You obviously don't like the answer, but you got the answer.

Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

For Monsieur Laforest, there will be amendments, which have already been submitted, that will refer specifically to the human rights treaty signed by the Republic of Colombia and the Government of Canada on May 27. Your concern will be addressed in the amendments. We will certainly welcome your support.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the amendments that I have are the amendments at committee stage. Are there other amendments that haven't yet been distributed to the committee?

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

There are pages 8.1 and 11.1. Apparently they were passed around, Mr. Julian. They're two separate amendments. They'll be coming up at a later date.

Is there no further discussion on clause 2?

Mr. Julian.