International Trade Committee on Nov. 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Thank you very much.

We'll do the ruling now.

Bill C-57 seeks to enact the act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The amendment proposes that the Minister of National Defence donate to Ukraine any Canadian military equipment that is deemed to be surplus or no longer useful to Canada.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In my opinion, donation of Canadian military equipment represents a new concept beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

All right. Let's challenge the chair, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Do you want to challenge the chair, Mr. Genuis?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's absolutely surprising.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

We feel we might have a chance this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I took a suspension to think about it and make sure there wasn't any way and made my ruling.

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Okay. We will move on now.

We have another proposed amendment by the Bloc.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, do you want to move that amendment?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Yes, absolutely.

The wording of the amendment is quite clear. It is very similar to the one I proposed earlier on setting up an expert panel, which was rejected. This does not involve new spending. It has no impact on the public purse.

It means that the minister must now ensure that Canadian companies operating in Ukraine comply with the principles and guidelines referred to in article 15.14 of the 2023 Canada–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Do any other members wish to speak to the motion by Mr. Savard-Tremblay?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Is it admissible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It is admissible.

Ms. Fortier, go ahead.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Given that the amendment is in order, that it seems to be appreciated and that it will support the desired approach, we have no problem with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further debate or discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

There is already a robust dispute resolution section in chapter 28 of the agreement. In fact, there is a whole subsection that deals with these types of matters, so I don't see that we need to add this into the agreement.

Conservatives don't support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, go ahead.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I would just like to add that, in this regard, there are only references to the principles of corporate social responsibility strictly on a voluntary basis. There are no binding provisions. The goal is to add one because the least we can do is move from principles to actions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Shall amendment BQ-2 carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you. That is very much appreciated.

Shall clause 16 carry?

(Clause 16 agreed to on division)

We now have new clauses, as proposed in amendment CPC-4.

Is there a member who wants to move that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The amendment we're proposing deals with the issue of export permits. It amends the Export and Import Permits Act.

It says:

Despite subsection (2), any type of munition that is intended for export to the United States and that is excluded from the Export Control List shall not be included on the Export Control List if it is intended for export to Ukraine.

It also says:

For as long as any permit issued under subsection (1.1) to export any type of munition to the United States is in force, the export of the same type of munition to Ukraine is also permitted, subject to the terms and conditions described in that permit.

Essentially, this amendment would streamline the rules around export permits for weapons and ammunitions intended for Ukraine by applying the same standard of review that is applied in the case of the United States. There are various provisions that regulate export permits for munitions and there are some variations in the standard of review that's involved, depending on the country in question.

Ukraine is an important ally. We want to see weapons delivered as quickly as possible, and that is why we think applying the review standard for Ukraine that is associated with most other NATO partners is sensible and reasonable. The review standard that is applied to our other partners could be applied to Ukraine, and this would have the effect of significantly streamlining that review process, allowing weapons and munitions in general to be delivered to Ukraine more quickly.

Again, this amendment would have concrete effect for the brave women and men on the front lines fighting the illegal, genocidal invasion by Russia. I hope that members will be supportive of this amendment proceeding through the process.

If I can, in the context of speaking to this amendment, I would remind members of the processes around amendments. If the committee chooses to adopt this amendment, we can also seek the concurrence of the House to accept it even if it goes beyond the formal parameters of scope. I've been involved in legislative reviews in the past where committees have decided that expansions of scope are necessary and important and have sent requests to the House to expand the scope. Motions have been adopted in the House or there's simply been unanimous consent at report stage.

I recall the work that was done in Bill C-41, for example. We agreed on certain amendments that did, formally speaking, go beyond the scope of the bill at second reading, and therefore there was unanimous consent at report stage to allow those amendments to go through.

We have all the tools available to us to adopt these amendments. There is no fundamental impediment to us adopting this, or any other amendment that we wish to adopt, provided there is a will to do so. Sadly, what we've seen so far is that there hasn't been a will to adopt these important amendments that support weapons exports. We had motions last week from Conservative members that would have allowed these amendments to be deemed necessarily in scope. We tried to put those motions forward to make the process easier. Liberals and New Democrats opposed those motions.

Today, again, we're seeing opposition to our efforts to adopt these important amendments, but it is important to underline and get on the record that if the committee wanted to move forward with these amendments, we could. The only reason we're not moving forward with them, in most cases it seems, is that Liberals and New Democrats are voting against our efforts to move those forward.

I hope that on this amendment, a common-sense amendment to get munitions to our allies in Ukraine more quickly, we'll see more support from colleagues around the table.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

I will do the ruling. Let me just assure members and anyone who is watching that the House of Commons has very strict rules about what can be done and what can't be done. As the chair, it is imperative that I follow the rules that are set down for all committee chairs and all committees.

Amendment CPC-4 seeks to amend sections 3 and 7 of the Export and Import Permits Act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since sections 3 and 7 of the Export and Import Permits Act are not being amended by Bill C-57, it is therefore my opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

Thank you very much.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'll challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Of course.

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

Next, we have CPC-5.

Would the member like to move it?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I would, Madam Chair. Thank you.

CPC-5 is similar to the previous amendment. It amends the Export and Import Permits Act by saying that:

For as long as any permit issued under subsection (2) is in force to broker any type of munition that is to be imported into any country specified in the permit for end-use in that country, brokering the types of munition specified in that permit that are to be imported into Ukraine for end-use in Ukraine is also permitted, subject to the terms and conditions specified in that permit.

The effect of this is.... For those less familiar with the arms export process, there are so-called open policy countries that are designated for having a more streamlined review process for the export of weapons. Open policy countries are most of our NATO allies, as well as our Five Eyes partners. I believe South Korea is on that list as well. They are mostly our NATO partners, as well as some of our Asia-Pacific partners that are already on that list subject to a more streamlined review process.

That means that weapons exports get there substantially faster. If a weapons export is intended for one of these designated open policy countries, the typical standard for the timeline of that export is about one-quarter of the time for exports to countries that are not on the open policy list.

What we're proposing to do.... The effect of this amendment would be to add Ukraine, an important ally fighting an existential struggle for its survival, to that open policy list of countries, so that weapons would get to Ukraine faster.

I've been surprised before, but I don't see why anybody would have a reason to oppose this amendment to remove red tape. It would streamline and speed up the process of allowing essential munitions to get into the hands of Ukrainian soldiers.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. I will now give my ruling.

Amendment CPC-5 seeks to amend section 7.1 of the Export and Import Permits Act. As our House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 7.1 of the Export and Import Permits Act is not being amended by Bill C-57, it is therefore my opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I challenge the chair.