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.
7:40 p.m.
NDP
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 2, as asked for by Mr. Julian.
(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 4; nays 3)
(On clause 3--Interpretation consistent with agreements)
7:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We'll be asking for explanations of some of the clauses, and we would certainly appreciate hearing from our witnesses what the explanation is for the elements that clause 3 brings.
7:40 p.m.
Director General, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
This is a standard clause in our FTA-implementing legislation. It's just designed to ensure that the provisions of the implementing legislation are interpreted in a manner consistent with the agreements they implement.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Does that satisfy your...? No, that's the wrong way to phrase that. Do you have another question? You already have an answer to the question.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I have a supplementary, yes, Mr. Chair.
Is this the standard wording? I'm thinking back to previous bilaterals, and I can't say offhand—I don't have those previous bilaterals with me—but....
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I believe the answer you just got is that this is a standard clause to have in an agreement, Mr. Julian. If you have another question—
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
These are similar to clauses that we have seen in other bilateral agreements.
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I can clarify, if you like, that we haven't always necessarily referred to “related agreement”, but the idea of the provision is exactly the same as the provision we've had in other FTA-implementing legislation. I believe it's identical to the one that was in the Peru legislation.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The difference here is that the “related agreement” is inserted into the text, but I'm just thinking back to....
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask for a recorded vote. It's clause 3, actually.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Clause 3, I'm sorry
A recorded vote has been asked for by Mr. Julian.
(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 4; nays 3)
(On clause 4--Non-application of Act or Agreement to water)
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Let me ask our witnesses to explain this clause, clause 4, and if they could, to reference the other agreements we have signed in which this particular clause exists. I'm thinking primarily of agreements such as NAFTA, in which I believe the wording is different.
7:45 p.m.
Director General, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
There has been wording along these lines, not necessarily identical but to the same effect, in the implementing legislation for all of Canada's FTAs, going back to the NAFTA, designed essentially to make absolutely clear that natural surface and groundwater is not part of, not subject to the free trade agreement or the act itself.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative