Evidence of meeting #133 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 way.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Okay. If you can read your amendment, I'll make a ruling on whether it's admissible.
Go ahead.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Okay.
That Bill C-85, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 2 the following:
“6.1 For greater certainty, despite paragraph (b) of the definition territory in Article 1.7 of the Agreement, this Act and the Agreement apply to the territory of the State of Israel except for any territory administered by that State since June 4, 1967.”
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, sir, but the ruling says here that the amendment is inadmissible because it is beyond the scope of the bill, since it aims to determine how the definition of “territories” is understood in the treaty and in the bill. That's the ruling on it. It's not admissible.
We have another one here. We're going to move to NDP-4.
Madam Ramsey, go ahead.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
This is about the non-application of the agreement to water. This is a change being made from the language that exists right now. It's expanding that scope a bit.
In lines 18 to 21 in clause 4, this would replace line 21, as follows:
gaseous or solid state, and nothing may authorize the bulk export of water or the treatment of water, by labelling or otherwise, as a commodity.
Are you going to rule?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
It is admissible, so if you want to make a few comments on it, we can move on.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Yes. Again, this is reflective of expanding the scope of understanding of water. We saw it addressed in the USMCA. The concern is that these are bottled water loopholes. We want to make sure that there isn't a way for bulk water to be extracted from Canada or to be removed in any way, and if we're really specific about the way that water could be exported, I think it would help.
Canadians are very supportive of protecting and keeping our natural and very healthy resources of water here in Canada. We see a lot of different initiatives for that. This really just expands a bit of that language to make sure that there isn't a way for Israel, in this particular case, but any country, really, to be able to have water exported. We know that Israel is a desert, so they may have water concerns in the future. It's a resource that's very important to Canadians and that we want to protect. For all natural water to be exempt is very important.
This is a specifically worded exemption, and we have to make sure that it means any water would be included. I bring forward that amendment.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you. Are there any comments or questions on this amendment?
Go ahead, sir.
November 29th, 2018 / 12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alex Nuttall Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Can you restate in one sentence exactly what the goal of the amendment is?
12:25 p.m.
NDP
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Yes, from Canada. The goal of the amendment is to make sure that we're entirely clear about the definition of water to prevent bulk water exports in any way, whether it's bottled or in a container.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Okay. Are there any more comments or questions? If not, I'm going to bring it to a vote.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Yes, sure.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That is defeated.
Shall clause 4 carry?
(Clause 4 agreed to)
(On clause 5)
Now we're on clause 5. We have a few changes there.
Ms. Ramsey, you have NDP-5.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I do. This is about the powers of the Minister for International Trade. I'm proposing that we add a new clause, 12.1, after the existing clause 12:
12.1 For consultation purposes, the name of each individual whom the Minister proposes to appoint under section 12 must be published in the Canada Gazette, Part 1, for at least 90 days.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
It's admissible to enter it as an amendment. Do you have any more comment, or is it pretty self-explanatory?
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I think this is really about transparency, and this would make the membership of the tribunals and the panels more broad-based and accountable. It's something we're always trying to achieve, to have Canadians understand and to have more transparency across the board on who we're appointing to particular positions.
Also, we really do oppose the minister having this exclusive power to appoint representatives, panellists and chairpersons.
We think these decisions should be taken in consultation, with a set number of days and with the Canadian public being aware of them.
Again, this would just bring pure transparency from the government, and it does not alter the spirit of the agreement. It would only be an obligation here within Canada.
I would think that people who would want to serve now or in the future as ministers of the Crown would be concerned about transparency, with Canadians knowing that the process is open and accountable.