Evidence of meeting #20 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I'm sorry, but we do not have the French translation. It's in English on both sides. It will be difficult for us to vote for or against it.
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
That's shocking.
What are you doing, Mr. Julian? You don't give them a translation...?
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
The day is unfolding quite well; we're ending the same way we began.
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
9:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're now on clause 7, and what was offered and what has been rejected, without even the right to vote on it, is collective bargaining rights.
Mr. Chair, as you know, given the witnesses who have come before this committee and those who wanted to come before this committee and have not been able to come forward because of the aborted committee process, we had, fundamentally, the question of collective bargaining and labour rights come up again and again and again.
Why? Because of the number of murders, of the repeated intimidation in the workplace, and the fact that people who do things in Canada that are legal put their lives on the line in Colombia.
So, Mr. Chair, to say that we would—after this despicable action around collective bargaining, and excluding even a free vote on collective bargaining in clause 7—then adopt this clause 7, when we know very clearly that those who fight for labour rights and for a bettering of working conditions of working women and men across Canada and around the world are very concerned about the lack of bolstering of collective bargaining.... They don't see the labour side agreement as credible. They certainly don't see any amendment that's been brought forward as credible. Now, again, Mr. Chair, we're seeing a situation where even a minor clause around purpose has been gutted and there has been a refusal to allow members to vote on the record on this issue.
For all those reasons, I'm opposed to clause 7 and I will be voting against it.
9:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you.
Is there any further debate on clause 7?
Well, we have some dissent, so we'll ask for a vote on clause 7.
9:55 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask for a recorded vote on clause 7, please.
9:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We'd be pleased to do that. There will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
Clause 7 carries.
I just need to have clarification of the timing here. I beg the indulgence of the committee for a minute. I just wanted to see the timing of our motion that says “...and that six (6) hours following the start of clause-by-clause consideration...”. There is a bit of a discrepancy in the points of view. We passed the motion at 4:01 p.m., six hours ago, but we had a minor point of order or something that delayed the commencement of clause-by-clause. We started clause-by-clause at about 4:30, I think.
Did somebody take note of the time? I'm now told that it was 4:30. There may be some debate on the motion, but for the difference of 29 minutes—and I'm sure we would probably have that talked out anyway—I think we'll just rule that we'll go until 10:30 p.m. to begin the vote.
So we have another half an hour of the pleasure of our departmental witnesses to respond to any questions. I thank you for your patience. Mr. Julian has kindly offered to contribute to babysitters tonight. And we'll proceed to clause 8.
(On clause 8—Causes of action under Part 1)
We have an amendment from the NDP on clause 8.
I think that is NDP-4, is it not?
10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Well, first, of course, Mr. Chair, we have the explanation of the text for clause 8. I'd like to ask our witnesses for an explanation on the causes of action and what is contained in clause 8.
10 p.m.
Director General, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Briefly, clause 8 prevents anyone from bringing a civil action or other legal proceeding based on a power or duty arising under part 1. In particular, the focus is on clause 15, the suspension of benefits under the bill, or from the free trade agreement itself, or a related agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General.
This is to prevent private lawsuits from being brought against governments or administrative bodies by private parties to enforce what they see to be obligations under the act. There is an exception in subclause 8(2), of course, and that exception is to permit two things. One is to permit investor-state dispute settlement as provided for in the free trade agreement. It also permits proceedings to enforce monetary assessment as provided under the agreement on labour cooperation.
10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you.
Mr. Julian, do you have anything further?
Okay. I think we've heard the debate.
Monsieur Laforest.
10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Julian regarding the amendment he is proposing to the English version, by adding the words: “No person, party or government”.
What does that mean, given that his amendment does not amend the French version? I would like him to explain why the same words are not being added in French and what might be the effect of their absence in the French version.
10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Mr. Julian, you've been asked a question. Would you give us the pleasure of an answer?
10 p.m.
Conservative
10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm glad to hear you say that, Mr. Chair, though I'm not sure everyone on the other side would agree.
10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
That's a good question and I'm going to answer it. In fact, if you compare the French and English versions, you will see there is a difference between the two. In the French version, subclause 8(1) says: “Le droit de poursuite, relativement aux droits et obligations fondés uniquement sur la partie I ou sur les décrets d'application de celle-ci, ne peut être exercé qu'avec le consentement du procureur général du Canada.” There is no cause of action without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
In the English version, it says “no person”, but does not necessarily refer to a party or government. There is an imbalance between the two in terms of the legal basis in French and English—a problem that could be addressed by adding the words “party or government” after the words “no person”. The construction of the two clauses is different and this would make them consistent.
10:05 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I understand it, we run the risk of passing laws in this Parliament which are different, depending on whether they are drafted in English or in French. Is that right?