[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 31, 1996
.1647 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
Could I ask our guests to identify themselves so that the record will show who is speaking in the event that somebody is asked a question? Can we begin with Mr. McLeod, please?
Mr. Ian McLeod (Counsel, Trade Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I'm Ian McLeod, from the trade law division at Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Derek Smith (Officer, Origin Policy, Department of National Revenue): I'm Derek Smith, from the origin determination directorate at Revenue Canada.
Mr. Bill Claypole (Director General, Origin Determination of Customs, Borders and Trade Administration Services, Department of National Revenue): I'm Bill Claypole, from Revenue Canada.
Ms Ellen Stensholt (Senior General Counsel, Department of Justice): I'm Ellen Stensholt, from the Department of Justice.
Ms Patricia M. Close (Director, Tariffs Division, Department of Finance): I'm Patricia Close, from the Department of Finance.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Carrière (Director, Tariffs and Market Access Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Claude Carrière, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[English]
Ms Barbara Gibson (Director, Middle East Relations Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I'm Barbara Gibson, director of the Middle East division at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. So we have people from the Departments of Justice, Revenue, Finance, and Foreign Affairs and International Trade with us.
Now it's time for the clause-by-clause. By the way, I have received one technical amendment to the bill, at clause 61, which is a government motion, and Mr. Sauvageau and Mr. Bergeron
[Translation]
have given me a possible amendment to clause 62. We will consider it when we get to that point.
.1650
[English]
As I said before, I intend to proceed by just saying the number of the clause, so if you have a problem with one clause, stop me, at which point we will go back and ratify every one ahead of it, severally, and then we'll deal with the objection.
So clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 -
Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I think we should just go up to clause 60.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Can we do that, Mr. Chairman? Can we move that clauses 1 to 60 be deemed to be adopted?
The Chairman: I can put it to the members if they're happy with that, severally, but I want to make sure there isn't some clause 32 or clause 20 where there's a problem. If everybody's happy....
May I put it this way, then? May we move that clauses 2 to 60 be severally adopted?
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): It's clause 55.
[English]
Ms Close: No, Mr. Chairman, I think clause 55 needs to be amended with the technical amendment.
Mr. Morrison: Okay.
Mr. Campbell (St. Paul's): So it's clauses 2 to 54.
The Chairman: Have you furnished that proposed amendment to the clerk? The only government amendment we've seen amends the schedule.
Ms Close: You can do that in clause 60.
The Chairman: What amendment do you propose to clause 55?
Ms Close: That's the amendment to the schedule.
The Chairman: Ms Close, this is the document we've received. Annex 001.04a is at the top left-hand corner. Is that correct?
Ms Close: That's right.
The Chairman: That's an amendment to the schedule.
Ms Close: That's right.
The Chairman: I take it we don't have to amend a clause of the bill to amend the schedule. We'll do that when we get to the schedule.
Mr. Carrière: Clause 55 brings the schedule into the proposed act.
The Chairman: Yes, that's right, but you're not amending clause 55. We're still going to bring the schedule as amended in, aren't we? We'll amend it when we get there, but clause 55 is still going to bring it in.
Some hon. members: Okay.
The Chairman: Okay. Fine. So we'll go back to our original proposal. Do I take it that clauses 2 to 60 have been carried?
Clauses 2 to 60 inclusive agreed to
On clause 61
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: In the case of clause 61, I think there is an amendment from over there.
The Chairman: No, that is the schedule.
Mr. Sauvageau: There is no problem with clause 61.
The Chairman: If I understand correctly, it's just the terminology of the schedule.
Clause 61 agreed to
Clause 62 - Coming into force
The Chairman: I have an amendment that has been put forward by the Bloc Québécois. I don't know whether everyone has received a copy of it. I believe it was distributed to everyone.
I have consulted our experts on the rules. They tell me that the proposed amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, and that citation 698 of Beauchesne states:
- 698. An amendment which is out of order on any of the following grounds cannot be put from
the ,Chair:
.1655
So in accordance with the precedents of the House, I regret to have to rule that this amendment is out of order.
Mr. Bergeron: Excuse me, I am not sure I understand.
The Chairman: I have just ruled that the amendment is out of order because it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
Mr. Bergeron: What does that mean, ``goes beyond the scope of the bill''?
The Chairman: If I understand correctly, at the committee stage, amendments can be accepted if they are in keeping with the bill, if they do not change it. Here, rather than indicating a date on which the bill will come into force, a whole series of very subjective conditions are set out. In the view of the experts who examined the proposed amendment - and I consulted them because I knew there was an intention to introduce an amendment to this clause - the amendment is out of order
Mr. Sauvageau: May we speak nevertheless?
The Chairman: Yes. You may put forward another amendment.
[English]
I think there's a point of order from Mr. Penson. Then we'll come back to your amendment.
Mr. Penson (Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I think it's incumbent on you as chair, and maybe some of the people we have here, to give advice to us today on what portion of this is unacceptable as an amendment. There are three parts to it. I'd like to have it pointed out to me which ones substantially change the bill.
Mr. Bergeron: Oui.
Mr. Sauvageau: Oui.
Mr. Penson: For example, we certainly agree with sections A and B of this amendment, but in my own judgment I too have trouble with section C. Maybe this amendment could be changed to reflect how it's not substantially altering the bill. Subclause 62.(2) of this bill, the one we're talking about right now, does deal with the implementation of the agreement. I would ask you to explain how this is in contradiction to the bill.
The Chairman: As I understand it, the problem is that the amendment introduces into the notion of when the bill will come into effect a concept of negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian authorities which have been appropriately arrived at and dealt with and satisfactorily concluded, and that's not something that's in the bill we've got from the House. The bill we've got from the House says it's going to come into force on a firm date. Now we're going to introduce this whole idea of peace in the Middle East, or at least of getting a certificate from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or of we ourselves determining that peace in the Middle East has been achieved. So we're creating a whole new, very different, condition from the one that was imposed by the bill, because the bill says it's going to come into effect when the Governor General fixes it.
I would understand it would be perfectly receivable, for example, for an amendment to be proposed which would state that the bill comes into effect a year from now, or something like that, because that's a certain time and it would be dealing within the spirit of when the bill would come into effect. But to introduce this notion would be going beyond what the bill we have from the House of Commons has. If we want to go back and do this, bring this in at the House of Commons third-reading stage, but don't try to deal with it here, because the Speaker will just rule it out of order, because he'll say you guys didn't have authority to do this; you have to bring back the bill we sent you, with minor modifications to it; you can't change the whole nature of it.
That's what my instructions are. That's the best advice I've got from the table officers.
I'm trying to be helpful to you. What I would suggest is if you want to amend it in this direction, amend it in the sense of making a clearer date. That we can then discuss.
Mr. Penson: I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that when this bill was negotiated and signed there were very different conditions. I think we've talked about that for an hour here. Everybody agrees with that. For advice to come to us that says if we change it and say a year from now it should come into effect.... We don't know if those conditions are going to be the same as they were during the negotiations that led up to this agreement.
I think section B of the Bloc's amendment makes eminent sense, that the peace process be back to where it was prior to the negotiating and signing of this agreement. It seems to me that's a very reasonable way to resolve this issue.
The Chairman: I accept your proposition from Mr. Bergeron. What you're saying makes eminent sense. I'm talking about the rules that surround us in terms of what we can do as a committee.
.1700
I think the point you're making is that at third reading in the House it would be totally and utterly appropriate to say we've got to deal with this. But at this stage in the committee, if we accepted this amendment, my understanding is that the Speaker will rule it out of order, because it won't be appropriate at this stage. We won't have been dealing with the bill as it was sent to us; we will have totally changed it.
I'm not saying that as a concept it's bad. It's a very excellent concept. It's just that this is not the stage at which to deal with it. The stage to deal with it is in the House, as I'm informed by our order.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: We could do the same.
Mr. Bergeron: Needless to say, I do not have the legal knowledge required to draft an amendment of this type, that is why we turn to the staff of the House. The amendment you have before you was drafted by a legislative counsel of the House. This is a person with the knowledge required and the desire to make the amendment acceptable to the Chair.
Since your ruling runs counter to that of the legislative counsel, I would like to request a written legal opinion on our amendment.
Mr. Sauvageau: And that's that.
[English]
The Chairman: Let me call Mr. MacDonald. You had something you wanted to say. Then I'll deal....
[Translation]
Excuse me, Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Sauvageau: I would like an answer to my question.
The Chairman: Yes, yes, you will get an answer.
[English]
Perhaps you'll just want to hear this, and then you will have -
[Translation]
But first, I will give the floor to Mr. MacDonald.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's anything nefarious about the ruling. I accept the ruling, and I think most members will. I appreciate that you're giving us unusual leeway as chairman to debate a ruling by the chair, because that usually happens only when the chair's ruling is challenged. But in the spirit of good camaraderie at the table here, you're allowing this to happen.
I would say two things. I understand why it's been put, because we participated in the debate for an hour. But there are two fundamental problems with the motion, and that's why I would support the ruling. One is that it puts restrictions on the rights and privileges of the Governor in Council, and I think this is contrary to what a committee can do. The Governor in Council has certain rights and privileges ascribed to them, and this bill clearly sets a condition on their exercising those rights and privileges. So I think on that ground it would probably be out of order to start with.
The second thing deals with the fact - and the chairman has ruled on this - that this introduces a concept that is not dealt with in the substance of the bill: that there must be a subjective evaluation made by this committee before a date can be set for a proclamation of the bill. I think that is wrong.
Perhaps more appropriately, as the chairman has pointed out, since there are no such subjective clauses in this bill, it might be more appropriate, if an opposition member so felt, to put a motion that the bill be delayed by six months or a year. I think this would be more appropriate.
The Chairman: I think we could do that. That's my understanding of the rules. We could do that. We can't do this.
Monsieur Sauvageau, then Mr. Morrison, and then I -
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: As my colleague from the Reform Party said earlier, I would like to know whether the amendment is completely or only partially out of order. Let's say that our proposed clause 62(2)(a) is out of order. It is taken directly from Bill C-61. is Bill C-61 out of order?
If you read clause 62 of Bill C-61 and the second part of the clause 62 proposed in the amendment, you will find the same words, the same commas and the same vocabulary. Could you tell us, Mr. MacDonald, how are we restricting the functions of the Governor in Council if we use the same vocabulary as the government? Why, then, is our amendment out of order? Once clause 62(2)(a) is passed, we will talk about paragraph (b). Thank you very much.
.1705
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I'm not the chairman, but if you would indulge me for one moment, let's read what it says: that no order may be made unless the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to foreign affairs sends a notice to the Governor in Council stating that this committee is satisfied that....
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. MacDonald missed a good program because I just said that clause 62(2)(a) is taken, word for word, from the bill. Does the wording of the bill run counter to the powers of the Governor in Council?
[English]
The Chairman: You're going to have to explain to me where you're finding that.
[Translation]
Where does that come from, Mr. Sauvageau?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, they are not the same at all.
The Chairman: No, no.
[Translation]
I do not accept that argument. It's not the same thing. This is in reference to the Governor in Council.
Mr. Sauvageau: Excuse me.
If I were to alter the amendment in accordance with the very enlightening recommendations of Mr. MacDonald, would it be found in order? It would then read as follows:
- (2) No order may be made under subsection (1) unless the Governor in Council is satisfied that:
- and then subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) would follow.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, the problem is the same. With all due respect to the drafter of the amendment, I also consulted a parliamentary procedure advisor, and, believe me, I am trying to follow what he says. I am told and I state that it would be unacceptable to the House if a series of conditions regarding the decision of the Governor in Council were to be introduced. This would run counter to the spirit of the legislation.
[English]
Mr. Penson: Mr. Chairman, there are already conditions in subclause 62(2). The condition is that the Governor in Council has to be satisfied that the Government of the State of Israel has taken satisfactory steps to implement the agreement. That is a condition in itself.
The Chairman: No, no, wait a minute. Wait a minute. May I deal with that point?
If you look at trade agreements, they usually say that. This says that before we apply it we're going to make sure the Governor in Council, that is to say the cabinet, is going to be assured that Israel is taking the necessary steps to implement this trade agreement - not to implement a peace process or to enter into a nuclear non-proliferation treaty or a host of other conditions, but to make sure that technically....
If you look at trade agreements, they all basically say the same thing. They say we're not going to go into it unless we're satisfied the other side is implementing it as well. Jurists may wish or not wish to confirm that, but this is the sort of normal boilerplate in trade agreements to deal with that problem. But to take it out of the trade agreement context and introduce the peace process of the Middle East is taking it out of the bill we have in front of us.
As your colleague on this committee, I'm being guided by what I'm being advised on procedure, because I saw this coming and I've done some research on it. My understanding is that this type of amendment would have to be reserved for the floor of the House, where the House can deal with that bill on those conditions. At this point we're constrained by the procedural rules we have to deal with. That's my understanding and that's my ruling.
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Chairman, the chair has made a ruling. I suggest we move on. I wouldn't like to put that to a vote. The chair's authority, which is receiving the best advice, is being challenged at this point.
.1710
The Chairman: If one wants to move to a vote on that.... But we've always operated pretty well by consensus. Obviously we can't let it drag on forever.
Mr. Campbell: I have a suggestion, which may help you resolve it. I concur with what Mr. Flis has said. You have ruled the proposed amendment out of order, in which case we're not really at liberty to amend it. It has been ruled out of order.
There is precedent for.... We're not our own court of appeal, Mr. Chairman. This committee doesn't stand as a court of appeal for its own decisions.
The Chairman: Well, you can overrule my ruling.
Mr. Campbell: If the ruling is considered inappropriate, there are procedures to deal with that. There is also the opportunity at report stage in the House to present amendments, including this one, if it's in order. But I think to continue to discuss an amendment that you've ruled out of order is kind of pointless.
The Chairman: I think that's fair -
Mr. Morrison: On a point of order....
The Chairman: - but let me just take a moment to let all members understand why I'm allowing the discussion to go on. The discussion around the amendment really is a discussion of the main issue we've been trying to come to grips with. That's why I've been allowing it. It's another way of.... At some point we have to stop, because we're just going around in a circle, and I certainly don't intend to allow it to go on forever. If somebody wants to move ``Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?'', at that point we'll bring it to a closure, but perhaps we do have an opportunity for a couple of observations before we get to that point.
I have Mr. Morrison, and then
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron would like to make a few points.
[English]
Mr. Morrison: My point of order was simply that you had recognized me when Mr. Flis jumped in.
The other point I would like to make is a point of information, Mr. Chairman. Were you aware, in your own mind, before we got into an hour and a quarter of debate on this, that you were going to make this ruling in the end? Were we just spinning our wheels here for an hour and a quarter because you knew you were going to make this ruling that the thing couldn't be amended along these lines?
The Chairman: No, no. The reason we had the debate, Mr. Morrison, was because when we broke off last time we agreed we should discuss this. I didn't take the debate we had earlier on this issue. I'm quite open, as I said, to another motion to have an actual clear time, and I'm informed that would be acceptable. With this particular one I just had an opportunity. We have consulted with the clerk, who said they'd done their research and determined it's not acceptable in its present form. I think we could do it in another form.
I also felt the debate was very useful for getting our minds around it, because I think this matter will go forward on the floor of the House, and we'll be able to review these issues on the floor of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Bergeron: For the benefit of Mr. Campbell, who does not seem to have followed what I did very well, I did not try to alter the amendment that had been ruled out of order by the Chairman. I tried to introduce a new amendment that took into account the very enlightening comments made byMr. MacDonald regarding the fact that the Governor in Council should not be restricted by a parliamentary committee. In the second amendment, I left it up to the Governor in Council to decide for himself when the conditions for the implementation of the Bill were met.
I come back to our second amendment. Regardless of what you said, I think the conditions under which the Governor in Council should decide on the implementation of the treaty are of the same type as the conditions that we are trying to introduce here in our second amendment. In other words, the Governor in Council would make a decision not only on the basis of conditions already set out in the Bill regarding its application, but also on the basis of three new conditions, unless you rule that one of these three conditions is out of order. In that case, we could remove those conditions you find out of order, but in my view...
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: I'm sorry, the whole thing is out of order, the whole amendment.
The Chairman: Let him finish.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: In my view, the conditions already set out in the Bill and those we would like to add are not of a different type. If the Governor in Council must be able to comply with a number of conditions in order for the Bill to come into force, why would we have to comply with some conditions and not others in determining the advisability of putting the Bill into force?
.1715
The Chairman: Listen, I have tried to explain to the best of my ability the difference between taking the necessary steps to implement the agreement itself and introducing a whole series of conditions that have to do with other political factors in the region. I cannot explain it any better than I have. I think my opinion is still confirmed by my procedural expert. Consequently, I must rule the amendment out of order. That is
[English]
my ruling. I'm stopping there. We're not going to end up arguing back and forth.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, can I make a motion, please, so we're on proper ground?
I find the discussion going on is getting very close to challenging the chair, so I move that clause 62 be adopted. If there's further debate on that, fine, but let it be on the motion that clause 62 be adopted.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: I see your decision remains unchanged, Mr. Chairman. It applied to our first two amendments. I would ask once again for a written legal opinion on the two amendments, and I would draw the committee's attention to a third proposed amendment to clause 62.
The Chairman: You have a third one?
Mr. Bergeron: Yes.
The Chairman: Fine, go ahead.
Mr. Bergeron: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Let's move on. We have another amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: It would read as follows, and I will give the clerk a copy of it so that more copies can be made. I have it in French and English.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't know if the committee has agreed that the committee will seek a legal opinion on the correctness of the interpretation of the chairman on the appropriateness of the previous motion. If that's what was asked, then I would like it put to a vote.
The Chairman: I don't think it was.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Bergeron just asked whether or not we could get a legal opinion about the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. MacDonald, for my personal edification, I would like a legal opinion, because the amendments we suggested to the Chair were drafted...
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Then perhaps he should seek it through his own caucus.
The Chairman: I've taken Mr. Bergeron's request to be for me to give him a ruling in writing as to my reasons for the ruling, and I'm quite happy to do that.
[Translation]
I will do that.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: It's not on the correctness of your ruling?
The Chairman: No. I'm not getting independent legal advice as to my ruling, as if it were an appeal to a lawyer. But I'm quite happy to furnish written reasons for why I've ruled. That's all.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: The amendment is as follows, Mr. Chairman:
62.(1) Subject to this Act...
We are just adding the following sentence to the existing clause:
[English]
After ``Governor in Council'' you would add:
- which day or days shall not be earlier than December 31, 1999.
In English, after the words "Governor in Council" you would add:
- which day or days shall not be earlier than December 31, 1999.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, we've had debate on this for an hour and a half and we've had 20 minutes on your ruling. It's all on the same substantive issue. So please put the question.
The Chairman: Very well, I will put the question on this amendment.
Amendment negatived
Clause 62 agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: I would ask that it be stood, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: No, it just passed.
The Chairman: On division?
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: No, I'm asking that it be stood.
[English]
Mr. Flis: Do you want a recorded vote?
The Chairman: We've done all the other clauses.
[Translation]
We've done all the other clauses. There's nothing to be stood.
[English]
We can't reserve it; we've done everything. There's nothing.... We've done it.
.1720
Mr. MacDonald: The motion was to carry.
The Chairman: We've done everything, except for clause 1, obviously.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Chairman, I heard from across that they want this to be a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Yes. We'll take a recorded vote on it, if that's what you wish.
Clause 62 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 5
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry, subject to the amendment that has been distributed by the government, which is a purely technical amendment dealing with the wording in tariff item number 0603.10.21, in the column entitled ``Description of Goods'' on page 1? Can I take it the schedule carries, with this technical amendment to the tariff?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Schedule as amended agreed to
Clause 1 agreed to
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: On division.
Once again, thank you very much, members. It's been a very interesting discussion and I appreciate everybody's help.
I will report the bill to the House tomorrow morning. Thank you very much for your help.
We're adjourned.