Evidence of meeting #13 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)) Liberal Judy Sgro

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 6, 2020, we are studying Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States.

Today we are going to be doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-4.

We are joined by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, with Nicola Waterfield, deputy director, trade negotiations, North America division; Steve Verheul, chief negotiator and assistant deputy minister, trade policy and negotiations; Robert Brookfield, director general, trade law, deputy legal adviser; Andrew McCracken, director, trade negotiations, North America division; and Vickie Iacobellis, counsel, trade law bureau.

Thanks to all of you for coming this morning. Before we commence our clause-by-clause consideration, we will hear from Ms. Bendayan.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Further to some discussions that were had last night at the end of our committee meeting, I would like to put forward a proposal for discussion and vote, if my colleagues so wish this morning. That is, further to the hearing of testimony these past two weeks:

That the committee tasks the analysts to prepare a letter from the committee to the Deputy Prime Minister for release after the Royal Assent of Bill C-4; and that the letter briefly summarize the testimony of witnesses and the recommendations made by witnesses for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider.

Thank you.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much.

I have Mr. Dhaliwal and Mr. Hoback.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC

I think this is a great idea. We should call the question on this.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

I think Mr. Hoback wants to make a comment.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

That's great. I am in favour of this.

We heard testimony last night and I just think of Ken, the one in softwood lumber, a finisher. He had a message but he said it never gets heard. This is a chance for that message to be heard.

I think it's a good idea. I'm in favour of it, for sure.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

That's carried unanimously. We have a great committee.

Before we go into clause-by-clause consideration, given the fact that we have four new members at committee and it's their first time with clause-by-clause, I will briefly read out some of the instructions and the way that it will flow this morning.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all of the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member has received from the clerk.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown. If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

As indicated earlier, the committee will go through the amendments in the order in which they appear and vote on them one at a time. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner of each page to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, though, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment will be considered at a time and subamendments cannot be amended.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and on the bill itself. If any amendments have been adopted by the committee, an order to reprint the bill will be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses. Speaking to any of the amendments is for five minutes per clause, per party, as we move forward.

Mr. Hoback.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Madam Chair, in light of speeding things up, I know that in the past when I was chairing, clauses were grouped when there was no controversy amongst the members. I hope you'll do that today.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

That's an excellent idea. Thank you.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC

I second that idea by Mr. Hoback.

Let us get this bill through the House ASAP.

I would recommend that we move to clause 1, and that clauses 2 to 12 be carried.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

All right.

Pursuant to standing order 75(1) consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, is postponed to the end of all of the clauses.

Mr. Blaikie.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

I just wanted to state for the record that I agree with grouping the clauses.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much.

(On clause 2)

Mr. Blaikie, do you wish to speak to this?

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

I do, thank you.

The amendment that I'm moving to clause 2 is to add a definition for “indigenous peoples of Canada” to the bill . This is necessary in order to make a further amendment, which would introduce a non-derogation clause. We heard about that in the testimony from the AFN. It's consistent with the report that the Senate made on non-derogation clauses in 2007, I believe. I think this is part of the value-added detailed work that legislators can do. Particularly when we're talking about reconciliation, these are some of the things we can do to move forward on that path, which is why we're happy to be moving this amendment today.

I do have to say, in the event that we don't add the definition, that is to say, if this amendment is voted down, I don't think there would be much point in moving the subsequent amendment, which is the actual non-derogation clause, because without the definition it wouldn't make sense.

I consider us to be voting effectively on the non-derogation clause with respect to this amendment. If it fails, I won't be moving my other amendment.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Mr. Hoback.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Yes, this is one of those examples of where, if we had more time, I would like to look a much closer at it, because it may be a good idea. However, I definitely want to make sure it doesn't have any negative consequences on moving the legislation forward or create a situation where we end up being stalled or have to renegotiate.

That is my holdback on that. I'm not against it necessarily; I would just like to have more information. I would like to get that on the record right now.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC

Do we want to call the question?

9:10 a.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Chair, I would ask that we have a recorded vote.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Are there any further comments on NDP-1?

February 27th, 2020 / 9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Madam Chair, I'd like to speak.

My colleague Mr. Blaikie indicated that if NDP-1 does not move forward, he will not pursue amendments NDP-2 and NDP-3, so I would like to speak to all of them as a whole.

First, as I indicated to my colleague yesterday, the intent of this amendment is positive, and we on this side are very much in favour of the spirit and the intent of it. It is one of the reasons our main objective for the new NAFTA was to better reflect the interests of indigenous peoples. We indeed worked very closely with Perry Bellegarde and others to secure important clarity in the form of a general exception related to the rights of indigenous peoples as well as policy flexibility for indigenous peoples and indigenous-owned businesses in CUSMA.

That being said, this amendment is a departure from our other free trade agreements. It does cause some legal inconsistencies with other FTAs that Canada has signed. I would also note, as I'm sure everybody in this room knows, that Canada's obligations to indigenous peoples are enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, which supersedes all other legislation, including CUSMA, and renders these amendments redundant.

For that reason, Madam Chair, we will not be voting in favour of these amendments.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 agreed to)

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Yes, Mr. Dhaliwal.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC

Madam Chair, can we look at grouping the clauses now?

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Yes. I'm going to do that.

I need unanimous consent to group clause 3 to clause 5.

9:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

(Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to)

Mr. Blaikie, you're not moving your new clause 5.1.

May I have unanimous consent to group clauses 6 to 212?