International Trade Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

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

In any case, I find it a little strange to talk about support right away when it has not yet been given at the time the text was proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll go back to the title at the end.

We move forward, then, to clause 1.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

Go ahead, Mr. Savard-Tremblay.

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

It seems to me that we must first deal with the amendment before deciding to adopt the section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It is after clause 2.

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

I thought that subsection 2.1 was part of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Amendment BQ-1 is about a new clause, clause 2.1.

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

I have another question.

Is section 2 the one that establishes the settlement of disputes between investors and states, or at least activates the process in the case before us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could the officials comment on that?

[Rodney Neufeld, Senior Counsel, Investment and Services Law, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much for the question.

I'll answer in English so I that I don't get my words wrong.

This provision makes the ISDS award an award in Canada, per domestic law, so it's enforceable in Canada.

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

In that case, I request a recorded vote on this item.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll have a recorded division.

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

We move to BQ-1 and the new clause 2.1.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, would you like to read it into the record, please?

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

I imagine you have the text in front of you, so I will explain it.

Given that this famous investor-state dispute settlement mechanism is so highly touted, we often ask for statistics on it. If it is so wonderful, it should be legitimate to have reports on the results, the effects on public policy and the costs. So, the idea is to have transparency.

So, of course, you may or may not be in favour of it, but in the name of transparency, I still call on members to request this follow-up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, the amendment actually seeks to amend the Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states in section 16.75:

an amendment is generally 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.

The Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act is not being amended by Bill C-13, and it is therefore my opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

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

Obviously, I disagree with your decision.

I voted specifically against section 2 because, in response to my previous question, I was told that this was indeed what it would implement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any comments to respond to Mr. Savard-Tremblay?

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

In fact, it would be more a matter of responding to you, Madam Chair.

[Rodney Neufeld]

Could you repeat the question, please?

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

The chair should repeat her remarks, because I based my opposition to section 2 on her response, according to which it was possible to establish dispute resolution for private investors under Canadian law. That is what you said. At least, that is how it was translated. That is why I voted against the section.

However, from what I understand from the chair’s rejection of my amendment, that is not what the clause would ultimately do. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding; that is possible, given that the interpretation has to be made quickly. I would just like to clarify things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would you like me to read again the reason that I am ruling it inadmissible?

an amendment is generally 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.

The Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act is not being amended by Bill C-13. That is the reason that it is referred to as being inadmissible.

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

Mr. Neufeld, I would like to hear your comments so that I can understand properly.

[Rodney Neufeld]

I think there is some confusion because we are talking about two different acts. The first question referred to the Commercial Arbitration Act. My answer concerned that act.

Now we are talking about the Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act. That is a different act.

This act brings into Canadian law certain aspects of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID. This is a different act entirely from the Commercial Arbitration Act.

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

I still contest your decision, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

My decision has been challenged. We'll have a recorded vote.

If you support the fact that I have indicated that it is inadmissible, you will vote yes. If you don't support my decision about it being inadmissible, then you would vote no.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8; nays 1)

My decision has been upheld.

We will move on.

Since there are no amendments proposed for clauses 3 to 20, is there unanimous consent to group them for the vote? Okay.

Shall clauses 3 to 20 carry?

(Clauses 3 to 20 agreed to)

Everybody can then go to amendment BQ‑2.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, you have the floor.

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

We have heard in numerous statements that certain regulations and non-tariff barriers were a significant obstacle to the entry of products, particularly agricultural products from livestock farming, from Canada and Quebec into the United Kingdom. This is a criticism that we also heard about the agreement with the European Union.

In this case, it would be a matter of still being able to request reports, obtain data and be kept informed of the consequences, costs and effects that this may have on businesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, thank you very much.

I have to again point out that the amendment seeks to add a provision for the Minister of International Trade to report on amendments made to the sanitary and phytosanitary regulations of the United Kingdom.

Again, “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.” In my opinion, the sanitary and phytosanitary regulations of the United Kingdom are a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill.

Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.