Evidence of meeting #221 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. David Gagnon

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

What would that be?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

What we're dealing with here is the bill that makes that possible. All I as the chair can do is to rule on whether amendments are admissible based on our rules and practices and on the procedures outlined in various documents around this place. In those two cases, they are not. The other three or four amendments in our deck are, I believe, admissible.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Chair, the reason I ask is that you've been here a lot longer than I have, and sometimes I think we tend to walk through those doors and common sense tends to kind of go out the window. In no way is that referring to you chair; I just mean overall, Mr. Chair.

I just want to know, because Bill C-101 in laymen's terms would be there to protect our domestic producers. Am I correct in that assumption?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Yes, and more than that.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Correct: and more than that.

The reason I offer this is that if Bill C-101 is here and being developed and passed and put forward to protect our domestic producers against, well, the protectionist measures proposed by those south of the border, as well as dumping by other countries, it would make sense if we reread the original motion that was put forth by the CPC: that it's only to remedy any harm or trade injury to our domestic producers, and that any tariffs or surtaxes that have been collected would then be paid and “shall be used to compensate economic loss incurred by domestic steel producers”.

Mr. Chair, that goes to the direct intent of Bill C-101; it's not outside of Bill C-101. If your argument is that it doesn't fall within the intent of Bill C-101, I think that is a faulty argument.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. Doherty, we've already ruled on that. We had a challenge to the chair. The ruling of the chair was upheld.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

It was the chair's opinion that it fell outside of the intent of the bill.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We can only deal as a committee with legislation that is within the parameters of a bill that the government presents to us.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

That's fine, but would you not agree—

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

If you were talking about general trade practices within that scope and how we handle them, your argument would be valid, but the scope of this bill does not allow us to go that far. It's beyond the scope of the bill, and I've ruled that way.

(On clause 2)

We will move on to clause 2. There are no amendments to clause 2. Shall clause 2 carry?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Chair, I just want to comment on that.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Clause 2 is on the floor. Go ahead.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

The bill summary says:

This enactment provides for the repeal of subsections 55(5) and (6) of of the Customs Tariff and their subsequent re-enactment two years later. It also makes consequential amendments to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

Those acts have as their purpose the application of tariffs, customs and duties. The amendments that were proposed dealt with tariffs, customs and duties, so they're entirely within the scope of the bill and serve precisely the purpose that the bill was set out for.

I appreciate that you've been trying to protect your Liberal friends from having to vote on those amendments. They'd rather duck and hide than take a stand, and your rulings on those amendments have helped them to do that, but frankly, the amendments are entirely in order, as they relate directly to the bill at hand.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

I've already ruled on the amendment being out of order. They're inadmissible, and that's the end of that.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

I have a point of order.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

If you have some questions you want to ask witnesses about clause 2, you're welcome to do it, or how it interrelates....

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

A point of order.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

A point of order. Yes.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

There were a couple of irregularities in the vote challenging the chair. One of the Liberal members admitted to being confused about what the vote was about, and that may have caused some difficulty in properly conducting the challenge vote.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We're not—

3:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Point of order, Chair.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Go ahead.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Secondly.... Yes, they think it's hilarious, you know, and then having a good laugh about serious matters relating to international trade and people's livelihoods....

3:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Point of order.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

There is a point of order.