Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 30th, 2012

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I have a small clarification to make, but perhaps Mr. Schellenberger should go first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, thanks.

Mr. Schellenberger.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'm wondering if this will make any difference. There's talk that over time there's been a channel deepened in the St. Clair River, which is an international river, which may or may not have helped to significantly lower the water level in Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, and Georgian Bay. Would this amendment stop something like that or make it more prevalent? It seems to have happened on the American side of the St. Clair River. It's probably to make sure lakers travelling up the lake can get through, but it seems to have happened without anyone knowing. Would this stop something like that? If you dig out a channel, it lets more water run through, so it is moving water.

[Martial Pagé]

Sir, if I recall the matter correctly, the International Joint Commission studied the situation and concluded that there had been no effect on water levels. I would have to check my notes, but I think that the matter has been studied by the International Joint Commission.

The intention is a little different. It is not in order to capture massive quantities, but, as you say, it was to facilitate shipping traffic. So it is not the same kind of activity. I do not think that this legislation would affect that sort of thing. I think that it is a different area. I really do not see any connection.

I really believe that the International Joint Commission has looked into this specific matter. Unfortunately, that is all I can tell you about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dechert, do you have a point of clarification?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Yes, I have a point of clarification that I failed to mention earlier, Mr. Chair. In our original version of the amendments, we referred to inserting the language into section 5, which I understand is currently vacant in the statute because it was amended at some previous stage and former section 5 was deleted. In consultation with the Library of Parliament it was suggested that it would be better to put these amendments into section 4 of the statute. The nomenclature has changed from five to four.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you for that clarification.

Is there any other discussion on amendment G-3?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

We're now going to move to amendment G-4, which I believe is another proposed amendment.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I can't find amendment G-4, so you're going to have to help me out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It's on page 7 of the handout. It's the last proposed amendment.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Right.

I believe I referred to this earlier, Mr. Chair, when I talked about the amendments to the definitions of “boundary waters” to make them consistent. To give effect to the changes that were proposed to clause 14, the drafting committee requires minor consequential amendments to the International River Improvements Act. The first of these consequential amendments is to add definitions for the terms “boundary waters” and “transboundary waters” to section 2 of the act. We propose to make this change through a motion to amend clause 13 of the bill. I also mentioned the changes to clause 14.

I believe Mr. Moffet was speaking to them at one point, but may have been interrupted before he completed his discussion of the changes to the definitions of “boundary waters” and “transboundary waters”. Perhaps I could ask Mr. Moffet to clarify the point I was trying to make earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Before we move that, though, I've been instructed by the Library of Parliament that this amendment seeks to amend section 7 of the International River Improvements Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766 and 767 that: ...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 7 of the International River Improvements Act is not being amended by Bill C-383, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, my ruling is that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Perhaps Mr. Moffet could comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sure.

Mr. Moffet.

[John Moffet]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just to clarify, Mr. Dechert referred to a suite of amendments, three amendments, all of which would affect the definitions and therefore the scope of the new prohibition in the International River Improvements Act. The first of this suite of three would amend clause 13 of the bill, which is a part of the bill and I think would therefore be within the scope of the committee to look at. The second of the suite would amend clause 14, which again is within the scope of the committee's review. The third one, however, is the one that would amend section 7 of the act, which has not been amended by the bill, and therefore subject to your ruling and the consensus of the committee, it may be outside the scope of the committee's review.

I think the first two of the three are amendments to clauses that were introduced in the bill itself.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Could I ask Mr. Moffet, what would the effect be if the first two amendments were made and the third one to section 7 was not made? That would obviously leave some inconsistency in the statute. Could you comment on that?

[John Moffet]

The government has suggested all three so that there is a coherent set of definitional provisions that would provide clarity as to the scope of the prohibition. The third one would enhance the coherence of that suite of definitional amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Actually, if I rule on an amendment, there's no debate. The only other option is to challenge the chair, in terms of response.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, could I propose something? If the fact is that Bill C-383 doesn't include an amendment to section 7, can we not propose an amendment now? I think we all agree we want the bill to be consistent and the definitions to be consistent. Could we not propose an amendment now supported by the committee to include section 7 in Bill C-383 for the purposes of this amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

From a process point of view, I wouldn't normally suggest this, but the first process is you need to overrule me if that's going to be the case.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The rules are straightforward. With all due respect it's ruled out of order and we deal with that first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

The process is if you want to challenge the chair, that's the only option you have to move forward on the particular rule.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I would love to challenge you, Mr. Chair, but I will pick my fight and do it on another occasion. We'll accept your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay. Thank you very much. We'll leave it at that then.

Go ahead, Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

May I propose a further amendment to Bill C-383?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You can, but you'll need to challenge me first.