Finance Committee on June 13th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I shall call to order the meeting today pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, June 10, Bill C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act. We're dealing with clause-by-clause of the bill.

If there are any questions from anybody as we go through this, we have witnesses from the Department of Finance, International Trade and Finance Branch: Patrick Halley, Director General, International Trade Policy; and Michèle Govier, Senior Director, Trade Rules. As well, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have John Layton, Executive Director of the Trade Remedies and North American Trade Division.

Are we ready to roll? Okay.

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

There is a new clause proposed by the CPC in amendment CPC-1.

Mr. Poilievre.

[The Honourable Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Pierre Poilievre]

I suspect this one will just be a friendly amendment. The proposal would see that all of the surtaxes collected on steel and aluminum imported from the United States should be used to compensate the economic losses incurred by domestic steel producers and other industries as a result of the tariffs imposed by the United States on Canadian steel and aluminum products.

The government has made promises to do that. I'm sure they will have no problem putting it into law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I guess everyone has the amendment before them, so it's not necessary to read it out.

I will have to rule it out of order and inadmissible, and I will give you my reasons.

Bill C-101 amends the customs tariff—

[Pierre Poilievre]

Yes, that's not friendly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

—by suspending subsections 55(5) and 55(6) for two years. The amendment seeks to appropriate all amounts collected under certain surtaxes and use them to compensate domestic steel producers for economic losses incurred as a result of tariffs imposed by the United States.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, CPC-1 is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill.

In addition, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772—and I know Tom's not here to order the page stated—

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that seeks to appropriate funds from the public treasury and alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation.

Therefore, for both of those reasons, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Chair, given that there would be unanimous support for this amendment, I would challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You can do that.

The chair has been challenged.

Clerk, I guess you have to take a vote on whether the ruling of the chair is upheld or not. Am I, or am not, correct on that?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. David Gagnon]

Whether they want to have a recorded vote or just do it by a show of hands, the question is: Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It will be a recorded vote.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I'm not clear what the vote is actually on. What is the wording?

[The Clerk]

Shall the decision of the chair on Mr. Poilievre's amendment be sustained?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

He doesn't understand what was said.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I asked for clarity on the wording, and I got it.

(Ruling of the chair sustained [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Dusseault, Et tu, Brute?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Pierre, Mr. Dusseault is the former chair, so what else could he do? He has to abide by the rules.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

There's also a new clause 1.1 proposed by the NDP.

On amendment NDP-1, Mr. Dusseault, the floor is yours.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope that you'll rule this amendment in the package admissible. I'm confident that this will be the case, since the amendment is directly related to the testimony that we heard just yesterday from the United Steelworkers representatives. These people were interested in playing a greater role in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. They not only want to participate in its hearings, they also want the option of filing complaints with the tribunal.

My amendment seeks to achieve this objective by proposing a new definition of “domestic producer” in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act. Under this new definition, the employees and the unions or associations representing them would be considered domestic producers. As a result, they could file complaints through the complaint system set out in the act. If this definition were added, the unions and employees would be considered domestic producers. They could have a voice, and they could use the complaint and dispute settlement system set out in the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault. I will have to rule that amendment as inadmissible as well because it's beyond the scope of the bill. We did hear what witnesses had to say yesterday, but it is beyond the scope of the bill and I'll explain why.

The amendment seeks to define “domestic producer” in the interpretation clause. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 773:

The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause. In addition, an amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading must always relate to the bill and may neither exceed the scope of nor be contrary to the principle of the bill.

It's the opinion of the chair that the proposed amendment is a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause, and, therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Go ahead, Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, you've ruled twice now on two different amendments that in the opinion of the chair, with regard to the scope of the bill, both are outside the intent of the bill. Since I am new to this committee, could the chair please explain what he believes the intent of the bill is?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If you go back to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it explains this pretty clearly. It's beyond the scope of the bill.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

What, in the chair's view, is the intent of Bill C-101?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm not going to get into a debate with you on the ruling. Bill C-101 gives the Minister of Finance another tool to deal with the surge in steel imports, and to deal with it appropriately.