Bill C-216 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management)

This enactment amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act so that the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot make certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding certain goods.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I think the amendment I mentioned earlier is still relevant, even though the amendment we just adopted changes things a bit.

I had suggested that we study Bill C-216 before moving on to the softwood lumber study. Since certain dates have already been designated for the Bill C-216 study, I'm wondering whether the amendment still works.

Madam Chair, would you mind reminding us what we have on the schedule for next week? That will give us an idea of what's in store for the next few days.

[The Clerk]

Yes, just for clarity. The question is on Mr. Savard-Tremblay's motion to devote June 7, 11 and 14 to Bill C-216.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes. They would be devoted to Bill C-216.

Not seeing any further discussion, I will ask all those in favour of the amendment to the main motion to signify. Can I see some hands?

Madam Clerk, can you record this, please?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Christine Lafrance]

Mr. Savard-Tremblay just added that June 7, 11 and 14 be devoted to Bill C-216.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Madam Clerk, I will read out the motion Ms. Gray moved, but we will be voting on Monsieur Savard-Tremblay's amendment to start Bill C-216 on June 7. Is that correct?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

The purpose of my amendment is to secure the specified dates for the study of Bill C-216. I am open to hearing Ms. Bendayan's amendment to change the June 4 deadline, but I still want to add my comments. After that, we can discuss another amendment, but I do want to secure the three dates.

I will read the amendment. At the end of the motion, the following wording would be added: “whereas the meetings of June 7, June 11 and June 14 be devoted to Bill C-216”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Just to clarify your motion, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, your amendment to Ms. Gray's motion is to add that on June 7 we would start Bill C-216. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I was trying to clarify that.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay wanted to move an amendment to Ms. Gray's motion, adding that we would for sure start with Bill C-216 on June 7. What I reiterated was exactly how that might work. I'm very conscious of time, as well, so if we can come to an agreement on how we want to do this....

I have Ms. Gray and then Mr. Aboultaif.

Go ahead, Ms. Gray.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'm sorry. I'm terribly confused as to what is on the table at the moment.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay had proposed something, I had proposed something and we were discussing it.

With all due respect, Madam Chair, I don't think the amendment before you is very clear.

I think it would be better if we came to an agreement on how to move forward. I can propose an amendment, if you like, and send it out. However, I move that we start with the study of Bill C-216, and then move on to the softwood lumber study.

I think the Conservative motion put forward by Ms. Gray would need amending only in relation to the June 4 deadline. The deadline would need to be pushed back until after the Bill C-216 study.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you can propose the amendment or I can, if you prefer, but I think, at this point, it's important to have things laid out clearly so we know what exactly we are voting on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Madam Clerk, I may need your assistance here.

In advance of knowing that there was a lot of interest from all committee members on the softwood lumber, the clerk reached out to the minister as to her availability. She has confirmed that she would be available on June 4.

I'm going to ask the clerk to make sure I'm following things. As I understood it from Mr. Savard-Tremblay and everyone else, if we were to adopt the motion as is, as Ms. Gray put forward, understanding that the minister would appear on June 4, that satisfies the requirements.

I had already put together a schedule based on the responses to the email that went out, which suggested that on June 7 we would deal with Bill C-216, that June 11 would be Bill C-216 with officials, and that June 14 would be clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-216.

If I put that out there, if everybody is in agreement with this—

Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm glad we were able to hear from Mr. Sarai. I know that this issue is important right across the country, but particularly so in British Columbia, and many members of our caucus are from British Columbia, including on this committee.

I think what you have before you, Madam Chair, if I can summarize, is what sounds like general agreement that the softwood lumber issue should be studied.

I understand what our colleague Monsieur Savard-Tremblay is proposing, but I wonder if I might propose to him and to all colleagues that, rather than engaging in what might be a truncated study, we first address the private member's bill, Bill C-216. I believe the discussion around the table was revolving around either two or possibly three meetings. I'm happy to have that discussion again to see where members stand on this, but we should complete the review of Bill C-216 and go to softwood lumber thereafter.

That would be my suggestion, and I would be happy to move a formal amendment, but if you would like to hear from others first, I'm fine with that as well, Madam Chair.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I have an amendment.

As alluded to by Ms. Bendayan, the supply management study is very important to me.

I want to be sure we don't go longer than we are supposed to.

I propose that a clarification be added, but it would not alter the rest of the motion. I move the following wording be added at the end of Ms. Gray's motion: “whereas the meeting of June 7 be devoted to Bill C-216”.

I think we should put that in writing.

That is the amendment I am proposing to the motion put forward by the Conservatives.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Chair, everybody is talking about the full schedules that other committees might have. Here at CIIT, we also have important studies before us, including from our colleague from the Bloc Québécois—the reference from the House of Commons on the private member's bill of the Bloc Québécois.

I just wanted to add that Bill C-216 was referred to the committee and that we have other priorities as well.

I completely understand the rationale for wanting to study the softwood lumber situation, but we have a very important matter to deal with, Bill C-216.

Would the honourable member from the Bloc Québécois like to comment?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I understand that you are considering it. I would like to ask you some more questions before my time runs out.

There is a great desire to increase exports, and we agree on that. At the same time, we see the parallel threat of complaints from the U.S. We know that we're respecting the agreement, but it is something that is never ending.

There are two very important bills right now. There's Bill C-216, which addresses that issue, and there's another one on farm succession, Bill C-208. I would imagine that these bills are progressing well and that we can count on the government's support for farm succession, among other things.

This is an issue that is near and dear to your heart, isn't it?

Committee Study of Bill C-216—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 11, 2021, by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot concerning the consideration of Bill C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), by the Standing Committee on International Trade.

In his remarks, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot explained that the bill had been referred to the committee last March 10 and that its clause-by-clause study would not be until June 7. Until then, the committee had decided to concentrate its efforts on studies carried out under its general mandate.

According to the member, bills referred to a committee must take precedence over its work since they are the subject of a specific order from the House. He cited several extracts from the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which say that committees do not enjoy absolute freedom and that they are constrained by orders of reference and instructions from the House.

He added that since committees are creatures of the House, the consideration of bills should take priority and he asked the Chair to order the committee to proceed with the study of Bill C-216 without delay.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to remind members of the rules governing the consideration of bills in committee, and of private members’ bills in particular.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is right to say that committees are entities created by the House. They must take account of the orders of reference that the House sends them from time to time, particularly in the case of specific instructions. The House has also given them the power to undertake their own studies under Standing Order 108. A committee may, therefore, decide to study questions related to the mandate, organization, administration or operation of the department or departments within its purview.

As for private members’ bills referred to committee, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us at page 1,158 in footnote 21:

Until 1997, there was no time limit on committee consideration of a private Member’s bill. [...] In April 1997, and again in November 1998, the Standing Orders were amended to require committees considering a private Member’s public bill to report back to the House within a time limit.

Since then, there has been an established framework for the study of these bills and committees must comply with the deadlines prescribed by Standing Order 97.1. They must consider private members' bills within 60 sitting days following the date of reference. If it is not possible to proceed by the established deadline, a committee can request a 30-sitting-day extension, failing which the committee is deemed to have reported without amendment. The rules in place thus prevent a private members' bill from remaining in committee indefinitely without being studied.

Practice is explicit regarding the moment when a committee proceeds with the consideration of bills. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, specifies at page 1,004 and 1,005 that:

The committee decides when and how it will consider each bill that is referred to it. It also decides when the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill will begin.... The period of time devoted to the consideration of the bill is determined by the committee, but it can be circumscribed or restricted by various factors, such as the obligation to report the bill within a prescribed time pursuant to a special order of the House or to a time allocation motion, or due to limits the committee has placed upon itself by adopting motions to that effect.

Each committee therefore remains the master of its proceedings and decides how it will organize its work, within the limits, of course, of the mandate and powers conferred by the House.

Thus, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, barring any indication to the contrary from the House, the Committee has 60 sitting days to deal with this bill and must report it to the House by September 27, 2021.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.