International Trade Committee on April 26th, 2012

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

(Amendment negatived)

Let's move on to amendment NDP-2.

Before we open discussion—

[A voice]

You should let him move it first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Go ahead. Are you interested in moving this one?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, I will move this one, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Before we get into it, you're saying that you're going to move it, but I will be ruling it beyond the scope of the bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'd just like to speak to that briefly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

You can go ahead and speak to it briefly, but that's what I'll be doing.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While we're talking about the purposes of the bill, what the NDP would like to do is add a paragraph 7(g), which would say that a purpose of this agreement should be to: enhance and enforce laws with the goal of eliminating human trafficking and forced labour in Jordan.

The reason I'm going to pursue this, with due respect to your indication that you will rule it out of order, is related to my initial question to the officials. These purposes listed here are not the purposes indicated verbatim in the original agreement. These are characterizations of the purposes that could be extracted from the agreement itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I won't allow you to go on too much longer on this. You've made your point, and I've made mine. If you could just wrap it up very quickly, then we'll move on.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think it's fair to say that our government has prioritized and invested a lot of political capital in indicating their wish to have a strong position against human trafficking, and I give them credit for that.

We have heard evidence at this committee that this phenomenon is happening in Jordan, and indeed with forced labour as well, and I credit all of my colleagues around this table for being opposed to that. We heard strong evidence that passports are taken from people in Jordan. They're forced to work and are essentially trapped because of that.

So I don't see why this would be inconsistent: it's consistent with the agreement itself and consistent with government policy. So I don't see how this is out of order. We already have the goal of protecting, enhancing, and enforcing basic workers' rights. The right to not be trafficked or be subject to forced labour has to be consistent with basic workers' rights. So I don't see how this could be inconsistent with either the bill or the agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

I'm not going to allow any more discussion on it. I allowed the mover to explain his position on this. I will be ruling it out of order, and that'll be the end of the discussion.

If you want to challenge the chair on it, go ahead and we'll put it to a vote. But I'm telling you what I'm ruling.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Fine, but I want to know your reasons for ruling it out of order, or I am going to challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I will explain the reasons that I'm calling it out of order. I was just about to do that before I was interrupted.

I'm calling it out of order not because of its intent or where it's going, but because it adds another objective to this agreement that was not set out in the agreement initially. It adds something to an agreement that was not there; therefore, it goes beyond the scope of what we're dealing with now. The intent of it can be argued, but technically it's adding another concept at this stage of the game to the bill, and that's why I'm ruling it out of order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Maybe this question is to the parliamentary secretary or the officials. Just because the government in its negotiations with Jordan has come up with a basic agreement, are you suggesting in your ruling that this committee cannot go in any respect beyond where the discussions were?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'm going to close debate on this part now. We can debate a clause that's in order, but when it's ruled out of order it closes debate on it. I was gracious enough to allow the mover some discussion of it. I am not going to extend that to any other member of the committee. I'm moving on. I've given you an explanation, and you can accept it or reject it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm asking, Mr. Chair, but not on this point. I am going to challenge the chair, because we need to know as a committee what our rights are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

The chair has been challenged on the ruling. Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

It's not debatable.

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Shall clause 7 carry?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We need some clarification so we know what our rights are as a committee. You made the previous ruling and that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's right.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But when the government negotiates some kind of an agreement with any country—it doesn't need to be Jordan, as in this particular case—what are our rights as a committee in amending it? Can we not be at all off the script or the draft agreement that's been agreed to between the government and, in this case, Jordan?

We need to know that. If the government is just coming before this committee with a fait accompli and we have no say, then why the hell are we here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, let me just answer that. You're actually going back to the previous ruling, which I told you that I'm not going to revisit. I will say this to you: This has nothing to do with the government. This has to do with the chair's ruling on the technical aspect of adding something to a bill that was not negotiated before the committee at a clause-by-clause stage. That's where we're at with this one.

We'll move on now to the actual clause 7, as unamended.

Shall it carry?

Those opposed?

(Clause 7 agreed to)

Now, let's move on to clauses 8 through 11.

Shall clauses 8 through 11 carry?

Opposed?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

We need time to read them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes.

The reason I'm doing it in a grouping is that there are no amendments to those.