Evidence of meeting #58 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Madam Chair, I'm going to challenge the chair's ruling on that.
3:50 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Sophia Nickel
The vote is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
The decision of the chair was that it's not admissible.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 4)
Thank you very much.
On LIB-1, we have Mr. Arya.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Madam Chair, I move that Bill C-282, in clause 1, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 1 with the following:
give due consideration to the net benefit to Canada before making any commitment on behalf of the Government
As I said earlier, I'll make it very brief.
This bill is a big problem, and not only during the negotiations of any future trade agreements. In my view, it will start affecting Canada negatively even before certain agreements come for negotiation.
Currently, if I'm not wrong, there are free trade agreements negotiated with India, Indonesia and several other countries. The negotiators of the countries who are negotiating with Canada may use this bill as a tool to demand concessions or to prevent themselves from offering any concessions that Canada desires.
As I mentioned earlier, it is our responsibility as elected members of Parliament to look at what is in the best interests of Canada, not our partisan political interests. Supply management is well entrenched, and its supporters are quite vocal and very organized. We can't support a bill that goes against the interests of most of the farmers in the country just to respond to pressure from this small group of farmers, and not—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Arya.
I need to make a ruling on your proposed amendment.
Bill C-282 amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to restrict the Minister of Foreign Affairs from making certain commitments with respect to international trade regarding tariffs and the tariff rate quota for certain goods. The amendment seeks to remove these restrictions.
Again, as the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 770, states:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
As such, there is no debate. LIB-1 is inadmissible.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I am challenging that ruling.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I missed that. Was CPC-3 withdrawn?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We've heard testimony here that this bill seeks to entrench Canada's position, which is to not negotiate away access to supply management, but we've also heard that is Canada's position unless it needs to grant access to supply-managed sectors in order to conclude a trade agreement. We heard that from government officials with respect to the renewal of USMCA. If dairy were off the table, would that have been renewed? The answer is somewhere along the lines of highly unlikely. I think the same thing could be said for CPTPP: If no access to the supply management sector had been granted, then CPTPP would not have been concluded.
What this amendment does is to actually codify what Canada's policy is, which is that we will not negotiate on supply management unless we have absolutely no other choice. That's what this amendment seeks to do.
We heard extensively from stakeholders about their concerns with the absolute nature of this bill. Tree of Life suggested this:
If this Bill becomes law, it will remove the ability of Canada’s trade negotiators to properly assess the costs and benefits of potential trade-offs in the context of negotiations as well as run the risk of damaging our relationships with our valued trading partners.
The Canadian Canola Growers Association have said this:
If passed, Canada’s attractiveness as an FTA partner would diminish, adversely impacting Canada’s ability to launch and enter new negotiations. Canada’s leverage in successfully renewing CUSMA under President Trump or in negotiating membership to and conclusion of CPTPP would have been greatly diminished if such a Bill were in place.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Seeback, I'm sorry, but this process is that you move amendment CPC-4, and if it's before us appropriately then we have a debate and discussion on it, but I have to make a ruling on it and—
4 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
How was amendment CPC-1 in but all the others out? I think we're entitled to an explanation of that. I find this deeply troubling. Amendment CPC-4 is not so divergent from CPC-1 that it is inadmissible. What's the actual explanation?
I find this incredibly disappointing.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We have very specific rules in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which states on page 770 that an amendment to a bill that is referred to a committee after second reading is out of order “if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
4 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Why is it beyond the scope? What's the determination? What's the explanation? We're entitled to that.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Circumventing the restrictions set out in the bill is contrary to the principle of the bill. That is the reason it is inadmissible.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Well, I'm sorry, but it is. I'm ruling CPC-4 as inadmissible.
We then go on to new clause 2. Is that correct?
Hold on, we still have to vote on clause 1.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay, that's fine. It's your right to do that.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 4)
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Shall clause 1 carry?
(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
CPC-5 would create a new clause 2.
Would someone like to move CPC-5?