International Trade Committee on March 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Julian. I think that was quite clear, the intent of the amendment, and your expression of the amendment.

Bill C-2, among other things, amends the customs tariff to provide for the legislation of reductions in tariff rates....

Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I think Mr. Silva had his hand up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, I saw that. Thanks.

I'm actually going to deal first with the amendment, and then I'm going to go back to Mr. Silva. We have it down here. Thank you for that, Mr. Cannis.

I was saying that Bill C-2, among other things, amends the customs tariff to provide the introduction of a reduction in tariff rates agreed to in the CEFTA. As per clause 33 in the agreement, goods originating from Iceland that are identified as Q1 or Q2 have a gradual and steady tariff reduction to a rate of free after a certain period of time has elapsed.

This amendment, as Mr. Julian has just clearly stated, proposes to eliminate certain provisions of clause 33, notably the provisions with regard to items categorized as Q1 and Q2 in the column entitled “Preferential Tariff”.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:

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, the elimination of these provisions is at odds with the intent of the CEFTA and contrary to the principle of Bill C-2 and is therefore inadmissible. As a consequence to this ruling, the chair must also find that the following consequential amendments are also inadmissible, and those are the ones that Mr. Julian announced at the beginning, and that would be NDP-2, NDP-3, and NDP-4.

Mr. Silva, did you want to comment on that?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I think a lot of the points I wanted to raise you've already clarified. I was going to mention the fact that I am new to the committee, but I do understand a little bit about parliamentary procedure. Constitutionally, trade deals are the prerogative of the government. I know they've been forwarded to the committee, but our system is very unlike the American system where you require through the Constitution in the U.S. to have Congress also have its stamp of approval. Technically, we could actually vote against it and the government could actually still sign and ratify it. It's a different system altogether from the American system.

I think you can vote for it or against it, but I'm not sure you can make amendments that the government has actually--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Fine. I get the point. It's not a point of order. The chair has ruled. The amendments are inadmissible. It's not debatable.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I wasn't arguing with your point, by the way. I was trying to clarify things and ask for your opinion as to whether I was right or wrong in my opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You were right. Thank you.

All right. We'll move on to NDP-5.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

On a point of order, I'd just like to thank Mr. Silva for bringing that to our attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Harris. Thanks anyway.

Mr. Julian, you have the floor for movement of your amendment, NDP-5.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will have to disagree with you in terms of your ruling on amendments NDP-1 to NDP-4. It doesn't expand the scope of the bill at all. In fact, it is perfectly in order with an implementation bill to subscribe or delete now--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Excuse me, Mr. Julian, are you challenging the chair?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

No, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Then please move your amendment and carry on.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I suspect, Mr. Chair, we're going to see a similar ruling on this next series of amendments, and I will challenge you on that. I wanted to respond to Mr. Silva's comments.

I'm moving amendments NDP-5 through NDP-8, Mr. Chair, so they're now on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

All right.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

To start off, responding to Mr. Silva, I'll say that Parliament is sovereign and Parliament does have the responsibility to amend the implementation legislation. It doesn't change the text of the treaty; it changes the impact of the agreement itself, which would mean, of course, if there's a carve-out on shipbuilding in the implementation bills as a result of that, we would go back to the EFTA partners and explain that Parliament has amended the implementation bill. EFTA, in the same way that Peru responded to the U.S. Congress when they amended the U.S.-Peru trade agreement, would then have to respond in a similar vein. It is current practice around the world for legislatures to provide that oversight, that due diligence.

It's not a question of the same system. It's certainly not a question of constitutional responsibilities. We have the right and the responsibility--I would suggest the responsibility. We certainly have the right to amend implementation legislation.

This next series of amendments would amend the Norway tariff, and that is very clearly where most of the concern is around our shipbuilding industry. The Norwegian industry has been built up through a very smart and strategic development of their shipbuilding industry. Norway has decided to put forward a shipbuilding industrial strategy. We haven't. So at the same time as Canada's shipbuilding industry has declined markedly—and Mr. MacPherson testified just a few minutes ago that we are at one-third of our capacity, which means thousands of lost jobs—Norway has built up its shipbuilding capacity and has become one of the world's leaders in shipbuilding.

Mr. Chair, you're too young to remember this, but in the Second World War we had the fourth-largest navy on the planet, and our shipbuilding industry in British Columbia, in Nova Scotia, and in le chantier naval Davie Québec--right across the country--was extremely strong. We had an extremely strong shipbuilding industry that has declined. Norway has built up its shipbuilding industry. What's wrong with that picture? Norway has put the emphasis on building up their shipbuilding industry while we've forgotten it, so we have a responsibility.

We certainly have the right constitutionally and the right as a parliamentary committee to amend the implementation legislation. It is not beyond the scope of the bill. It is very clearly within the scope of the bill to make these amendments.

Mr. Chair, if you're going to be ruling on that shortly, I will challenge your ruling to that effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Don't put the cart before the horse.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Very clearly, what is proposed here is constitutional. It is within the scope of the bill. It is responsible, and it is what the shipbuilding industry unanimously has asked for. We have the responsibility, I believe, to approve these amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Julian is moving amendment NDP-5 and the consequential amendments NDP-6, NDP-7, and NDP-8.

As suspected, Mr. Julian, the chair will again rule that the elimination of these provisions is at odds with the intent of the EFTA and contrary to the principle of Bill C-2, so the amendment is therefore inadmissible. As a consequence of this ruling, the chair must also find that the consequential amendments NDP-6, NDP-7, and NDP-8 are also inadmissible. It is not debatable.

We'll move on.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

All right.

Mr. Julian has challenged the ruling of the chair. That is also not debatable. I would ask those who wish to sustain the chair to please raise their hands.

Just so we are clear, the chair has ruled that Mr. Julian's amendments regarding a carve-out for Norway are inadmissible. The chair has ruled these amendments inadmissible and contrary to the principle of Bill C-2. Mr. Julian has challenged the chair. It is not debatable.

I'm asking the committee now that those in favour of sustaining the chair please raise their hands.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 3)

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, the vote was 9 to 3, but there are only 11 members.

[The Clerk]

Oh, I'm sorry. It was 8 to 3.