So, Mr. Chair—
Evidence of meeting #117 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cptpp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #117 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cptpp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
—if it's defeated.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
What we'll do is vote, and then I'll have to propose a new amendment from the floor.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Wait, we just want clarity. You just said that we could vote on this and then bring a new amendment.
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes; it has to be different, but yes.
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
A single word is enough.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Okay. We'll vote to withdraw it, and then I'll bring another one forward.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
We don't need to vote to withdraw this. You're asking for a new one, right?
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I just want to do this properly so that I can reintroduce it in the amended format.
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
From a procedural perspective, the amendment has been moved. Now it's before the committee.
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
There needs to be consent to remove it. If all members agree, we can just withdraw it and then we can move another one.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
May I ask the officials a question?
My understanding is the NDP-2 amendment as drafted would be impractical to put into the agreement because it would affect other parties to the agreement. Is there any way to salvage this amendment with wording that wouldn't have an impact on the other parties? If there is no way to do it, there's no point in going through this procedural rigmarole. I'm just wondering: In your opinion, no matter what this says, is it still going to impact the other parties to the agreement and therefore prevent us from making any amendments in this regard?
12:35 p.m.
Director General, Trade Negotiations, and Deputy Chief Negotiator, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I think the answer from our lawyer is that it really depends on how it would be worded. It is also possible that the Government of Canada could take a decision to voluntarily publish its expenses without it being written into the legislation. That's another way of looking at it.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
What part of the wording here engages the other parties? Is it just the definition of the commission in the agreement?
12:35 p.m.
General Counsel, Market Access and Trade Remedies Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Yes. It's “incurred by the Commission”.
12:35 p.m.
Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations and Lead Negotiator of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
There are 11 parties, including Canada.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
General Counsel, Market Access and Trade Remedies Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
We wouldn't even know what this number is. We wouldn't have that information.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
We're in sort of a foggy territory, but unless somebody has questions about the legislation and how we can deal with this, I'd like to bring it to a vote.
Go ahead, Mr. Carrie.