Debates of Nov. 26th, 1998

Special Import Measures Act

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

I tend to agree. I thank the hon. member for that intervention.

I am sure this is one of the few instances in which we agree with my colleague's previous statements, that in fact the public interest is a key component. We certainly would not want to in any way diminish that.

I think that by going with the clause which exists in the bill we strike that balance. It is very important to reiterate that the balance is struck between the industries and the stakeholders. That is a great improvement to this act and something which we will look forward to supporting when it comes to a vote in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I simply want to congratulate you on your efforts and the progress you have made in French. You are a very good role model, not only for the members of this Parliament, but for all Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is very nice. Thanks to all the members.

Motion No. 3.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-35, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 38 on page 33 with the following:

“important à l'entreprise ou aux activités de la”

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, for Mr. Benoît Sauvageau]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-35, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46 on page 33 the following:

“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” means harm that is more than negligible and that is not immaterial or trifling.”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-35, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46 on page 33 the following:

“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” has the meaning given to that expression by the regulations.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-35, in Clause 51, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 36 the following: f.3 ) defining the expression “material harm” for the purpose of section 44;”

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to those of the secretary of state. I believe it was highly appropriate to have you continue, because languages are learned through practice and besides, hearing you speak French here in the House was music to my ears.

Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 concern the notion of “material harm”. In our opinion, the definition of material harm is also problematical.

The Bloc Quebecois calls for insertion of a definition for the expression “material harm” into the Special Import Measures Act. This, coupled with the criteria suggested in the present regulations, would clarify this important concept for everyone.

For the benefit of all our colleagues in this House, I would like to read the various motions.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-35, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46 on page 33 the following:

“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” means harm that is more than negligible and that is not immaterial or trifling.”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-35, in Clause 44, be amended by adding after line 46 on page 33 the following:

“(3.2) For the purposes of subsection (3.1), “material harm” has the meaning given to that expression by the regulations.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-35, in Clause 51, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 36 the following:

“(f.3) defining the expression “material harm” for the purpose of section 44;”

The bill would thus leave no uncertainty for Quebec and Canadian businesses. These motions are very important, because the bill is supposed to improve the Canadian system of special trade measures so that it can better reflect the new economic context and the changes in the rules of international trade, and leave no room for confusion.

This motion is, moreover, far more constructive than that of our hon. colleague from LaSalle—Émard which, by substituting the term “dommage important” for the term “dommage sensible” in the French, only makes the scope of the concept even more nebulous.

This is why we have introduced these three motions, and we hope to obtain the enthusiastic support of the members of this House.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we support Motion No. 3. I understand this brings the French text into line with the English text.

However, we have a more difficult problem with Motion No. 4. Although I certainly sympathize with my colleague from the Bloc that the French part on material harm does not translate and therefore needs some clarification, material harm in English has a very precise meaning in law. It is a stand-alone section. It does not need to be defined any further. Instead of material harm, it would now mean that material harm means more than harm that is negligible, immaterial or trifling. It becomes almost silly in English.

If there is some way to resolve that I would not have a problem. But as it stands, if it is not resolved, then we will not support Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with Motion No. 3. We see however a discrepancy with the term “material harm” that could cause more harm than what we used to have.

What I have tried to do is go over the notes of the committee to find more arguments to use in the House. Unfortunately, I did not find any. Is it only a language issue? I hope not, but it seems like it.

We will vote against Motion No. 4, therefore against Motion No. 7 also.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I refer to Motion No. 3 which is essentially a technical amendment that has to do with the translation. In this regard it was the Bloc who suggested that the reference to “dommage sensible” in the French version of clause 44, as a translation for material harm, should be replaced with a different concept.

Essentially that is what Motion No. 3 does, and I am happy to see that there is support for that from across the way.

With respect to Motion No. 4, essentially I would agree with colleagues opposite with the exception of the mover of this that the definition of material harm as it pertains to the disclosure of confidential information really involves the qualitative assessment that is dependent on each separate case. The motion as it is presently drafted in a lot of ways creates greater uncertainty and really does not clarify the term. With this motion one adjective is being replaced with three adjectives and it does not help to clarify anything.

I would suggest that the government would support Motion No. 3 and not support Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I finished my speech by referring to the motion by our colleague from LaSalle—Émard, but I did not have time to elaborate on it.

With the consent of my hon. colleagues in the House, I would like to say a few words about the motion by our hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank all my colleagues for allowing me to say a few more words on Motion No. 3 brought forward by the member for LaSalle—Émard.

The amendment proposed by the member for LaSalle—Émard seems somewhat vague. Replacing the term “dommage sensible” by “dommage important” in the French version does not add anything constructive to the notion of harm itself. The new adjective used to describe the kind of harm is not defined, and we would like the member for LaSalle—Émard to give us some clarification on that.

I would also propose, in case our motion is defeated, that the government define this notion of “dommage important” in the regulations, so there is absolutely no confusion as to what it means.

A case involving material harm resulted in a conviction in the United States whereas a similar case was judged differently in Canada. In fact, there was no conviction. That is why we want some clarification on this definition so we do not end up with a double standard.

I thank all my colleagues in the House for allowing me to make these few remarks on Motion No. 3.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?