FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 3, 1998

• 0913

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): As you know, this is the consideration of Bill C-35. I'm informed that there may be some amendments proposed during the consideration, but we'll see how it goes.

I don't think there's any need for an introductory statement for anybody, is there? We had a thorough examination of the bill the other day with the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Finance and various officials.

Mr. Collins-Williams, who was to be here, unfortunately had a death in the family, so can't be, but we have a very competent-looking group of members of various departments with us.

Thank you very much for coming here today, ladies and gentlemen. Hopefully we can get through this fairly quickly.

Bill C-35, then, just taking it clause by clause.

(Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to)

[Translation]

(Clauses 6 to 10 carry)

[English]

(Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to)

• 0915

The Chairman: Shall clause 15 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau.

(Clause 15)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): The amendment that might be moved for clause 15, Mr. Chairman, reads as follows:

(3.1) In determining whether the complaint is properly documented, the Deputy Minister shall not take into account representations received from parties other than the complainant.

I'd like to hear the officials' opinion on its feasibility or on the fact that during representations, representations other than those received from the complainant will not be taken into account. We discussed this at the last meeting. It's a simple question. We discussed it with the officials, but I'd like to have more detail from them on this provision, its feasibility and the problem it raises today.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc (Senior Chief, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance): I think the question was debated last week. I'll ask my colleague Saroli to answer you.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Pat Saroli (Senior Economist, Trade Remedies and General Economic Relations, Department of Finance): Merci. Revenue Canada considers relevant third party submissions in the context of the WTO obligation in the anti-dumping and the subsidies agreements on the investigating authorities to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the information contained in the complaint prior to initiating an investigation. So to the extent to which they receive relevant and probative information, the WTO would seem to suggest that they are obliged to consider it.

However, given the fact that article 5.5 of the anti-dumping agreement precludes the authorities from publicizing complaints, the only way a complaint would be made known to a third party would be if the complainant in fact publicized it, in which case, submissions could be received as a result of that only.

We don't see the need for this particular amendment, based on these two considerations, those two WTO obligations: number one, not to publicize a complaint, in which case there wouldn't be any third party submissions, presumably, unless the complainant chose to publicize it; and number two, that if that information did somehow find its way into the hands of Revenue Canada, and if it was probative, then Revenue Canada, based on the anti-dumping agreement obligation to consider adequacy and accuracy of information, would be obliged to consider to the extent to which it is relevant.

Does that answer the question?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Shall clause 15 carry?

(Clause 15 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: I'd like to ask whether clauses 16 to 26 shall carry with unanimous consent.

(Clauses 16 to 26 agreed to)

(On clause 27)

The Chairman: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): The motion is that clause 27 be amended by adding after line 32 on page 17 the following:

(7) On the first day on which the House of Commons sits following the day three years after the coming into force of this subsection, the operation of the process of inquiry into public interest established by the Section, is automatically referred to the Standing Committee of the House appointed to deal with finance.

(8) On receiving the reference mentioned in subsection (7), the Standing Committee shall consider the effectiveness of the process of inquiry into public interest established by this section and report on it to the House.

• 0920

The purpose of putting this forward is to make sure that we do not have a situation like that which occurred with the Gerber/Heinz baby food problem, where measures were enacted against one of those parties that resulted in a monopoly by the other one and higher costs to the public.

We want to make sure that the public interest is taken care of, that the subsection is reviewed to make sure the public interest is considered in the subsection.

The Chairman: Just so we're clear, this is not to suggest that individual cases would be referred to the standing committee. This means that the standing committee would be obliged three years after the coming into effect of this law to review the efficacy of the public interest section.

Mr. Keith Martin: Precisely.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Le Blanc, do you have any comment on the proposed amendment? Then I'll go to any of our other colleagues who might.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: Probably I would just remind the committee that the bill as it is right now reflects a delicate balance, and I think everybody heard that last week when the industry representatives appeared before the committee.

To us, this clause would not appear to be necessary, since I believe—and I'm not an expert on committee procedures—the committee can call and hear witnesses on any issues it may wish if it wants to review a certain situation. Since, then, the committee already has the power to call on officials to come to testify and explain how things are evolving and how certain provisions are working, it is already there and we're not convinced about the need for this particular procedure.

The other thing I would say is that there is that balance, so some other interested parties may then see this as tilting the balance a bit, and they may say okay, but then say they would like to see other provisions of the bill reviewed at the same time. I'm not sure that this proposal would maintain the balance that Bill C-35 is trying to maintain between the various interests in this area.

The Chairman: Mr. Speller, then Mr. Martin.

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just very briefly, I appreciate the fact that Charlie has put this forward. I, for one, though—as one who has always promoted the work of committees in saying that the question isn't free votes that we deal with, the question is giving committees more power—think it takes away somewhat from what committees can do. If we start putting in legislation mandating what committees have to do in the future, our agendas are going to be so busy with doing mandated stuff that we're not going to have time to do exactly what we should be doing as a committee—some independent work.

So even though I do appreciate Charlie putting this in and I understand what he's trying to get at, committees have a right to do that now. In fact, I think it's a good suggestion for that committee to do that in three years. I just don't want to see it mandated within legislation because, if that's the case, it's going to happen in all kinds of different areas and committees are going to end up doing what—no bad words intended for the bureaucrats—the bureaucrats want rather than what we should be doing as politicians. I wouldn't support this amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: I appreciate your concern, Mr. Speller, and I think what Mr. Penson is trying to do is to make sure, as I said before, that we do not have a situation such as the one that occurred with the Gerber and Heinz baby food companies, that the public interest is held in the highest esteem, and that we make sure the bill is working with respect to the public interest. This thing can be looked at very briefly and if there is no problem at all it won't take much time at the committee.

But I think Charlie wanted to make sure that this was in here so that there were not situations occurring in the public that may not be evident to us, where there are unfair situations taking place with the respect to companies and they are producing a problem with respect to the public—and in this case, some very tragic situations with respect to some babies that couldn't consume one of those products.

The Chairman: Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think there's a false premise in some of the comment that was made in support of this amendment.

• 0925

It seems to me that the Heinz/Gerber situation was enacted because of unfair dumping. It was a ruling against Gerber. Gerber had the right to appeal. There is no clear evidence in my mind that at any time there has been overpricing by Heinz. That's not at question. I listened to the hearings. I don't think there was clear evidence of overpricing. As a result, to my mind, some of the things being said in support of this are inaccurate.

Mr. Keith Martin: It drove Gerber out of the country. As a result, we had a monopoly by Heinz, and for those babies that couldn't consume Heinz products, it left those mothers with a very difficult—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Gerber tried to drive Heinz out by dumping in this country, and I think we have to protect our own as well.

Mr. Keith Martin: Did you?

But that's why we are here: to take a look and make sure that this part isn't going to be in the legislation.

The Chairman: Okay. Let's clear away the merits of that specific case. The question is the merits of this proposition and whether we want in future to sort of have this automatically reviewed by the committee. I think we've heard from everybody who had some observations. Why don't I put it to the question?

Some hon. members: Carried.

Some hon. members: Not carried.

The Chairman: The amendment?

Mr. Keith Martin: My amendment.

The Chairman: I said, shall the amendment carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: God, we need more Gerber in here than—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 27 agreed to)

[Translation]

(Clauses 28 through 43 carry)

(Clause 44)

The Chairman: We're now going to clause 44.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Before addressing clause 44, Mr. Chairman, I have a personal comment for the officials. I don't like the word “bureaucrate” used in the interpretation made from English to French; I find it slightly pejorative. I prefer “fonctionnaire” to “bureaucrate”.

So, for the “fonctionnaires” here, clause 44, on page 33, at paragraph 3.1, reads:

(3.1) The Deputy Minister may not disclose information under subsection (3) if the Deputy Minister is satisfied that the disclosure might result in material harm—

We thought we might define “material harm” as meaning “harm that is more than negligible and that is not immaterial or trifling”. In your opinion, would it be desirable or would one even wish to define the expression “material harm” in this legislation? Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Saroli.

Mr. Pat Saroli: Yes. Thank you.

I responded to a similar question last week on the definition of “material injury”, and I think I would be inclined to respond in the same manner here. Quite frankly, I don't think trying to define a concept like “material harm” with a string of adjectives adds anything, and it actually could be detrimental because there are so many variations in a case. It really depends on a case-by-case basis as to what would be material harm, and I think that by defining you might actually be unnecessarily constraining yourself so that you cannot take account of situations as they arise.

I might also remind the committee that one of the general themes that emerged from the subcommittee's report in recommendations 4 and 5 was greater transparency in the process, and to the extent to which this definition would, over time, be given a very narrow interpretation, we might actually be working against those two recommendations in the subcommittee's report.

So I guess I would fall back on the answer I gave last week to Mr. Sauvageau. The definition should be allowed to evolve in jurisprudence on a case-by-case basis so that we're not constrained if those variations and permutations arise that don't fit neatly within the definition.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Now for a second question, Mr. Chairman. Is “material harm” the proper expression to translate “dommage sensible”?

The Chairman: I think they use the same terminology in the WTO documents. Don't they? It might be an inexact terminology as to the terms used—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]— but in the legal field, it seems to me that the term that has always been used by the WTO.

• 0930

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you for this reminder.

[English]

The Chairman: The World Trade Organization, or, as I recall, the code, specifically refers to “dommage sensible” as the translation of “material injury”, does it not?

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: I believe that, in fact, there is a confusion in terms here. Here, if I am reading the right clause, it's a matter of communicating information. The deputy minister may not disclose information if the disclosure might result in material harm to the business. The English expression “material harm” is correct. It's not the same thing as “material injury”. Nor is there anything about damages such as loss of profits or jobs, etc. It has to do with the prejudice caused to a person because of information being divulged. Maybe that's where the confusion stems from.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You doubt the translation is exact for—

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: No, it is a correct one because the context is different.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine, thank you.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Can you assure us that this is the same terminology as is used in the WTO's subsidies code and other world organizations?

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: Here, it's a matter of protecting confidential information that might be communicated and it's a matter of the prejudice that it may cause. This is not covered as such in international agreements.

The Chairman: In international organizations, they talk about “material injury”. What is the French translation for that?

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: I think it's “dommage sensible” right now.

The Chairman: So the term “dommage sensible” would serve to translate both “material harm” and “material injury”. However, if you want to make a distinction in English, it would be best to make one in French also.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: It's just that the context is different here. Here, we're talking about protecting information—

The Chairman: But, Mr. Le Blanc, if the expression “material injury” is translated here by “dommage sensible” in French, why would the expression “material harm” also come out as “dommage sensible”? Why, if there's a difference in English, isn't there one in French?

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: Maybe there is one in French, but I don't have the text. It's easy, you can find it in clause 42 in the Act where they talk about the impact on the business. It's in clause 42 of the legislation.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Of the legislation, but not as amended. What paragraph is that in?

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: In our legislation it's defined as "material harm— to domestic industry".

The Chairman: What clause is that?

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's taken from the WTO Subsidies Code.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: I think that's it.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But in the other case, maybe different terminology should be found because it's not the same concept and the terminology is different in English.

• 0935

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: Except that in this context, it's not a matter of material harm to domestic industry but rather:

material harm to the business or affairs of the person who designated the information as confidential—

It's more a matter of communications, in other words communicating information that could cause harm to the business in question. The context is totally different from the impact on a domestic industry.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Now, I understand that and maybe that's what justifies, both in French and in English, using different terms so as not to create any confusion on the concept of damages, because these are damages of a different nature.

The Chairman: As you were saying, the adjective “sensible” should render the meaning of “material” and qualify the word “dommage”.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Maybe we should consult the legal experts. The expression “dommage matériel” might be more appropriate. It would be a literal translation, but maybe it would be more appropriate.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: I understand the point of view you're expressing and it is valid. But in this context, I don't think there's any confusion possible. We're not talking about material harm to a domestic industry as defined in the legislation when you're in an investigation context.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Now, I understand that, but I would suggest that we try to find an expression translating this distinction that you make in English, and that it also be spelled out in French.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Finestone.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, why don't you pass—

The Chairman: I suggest we stand that down to the end of the bill. Maybe we can get through the rest and come back quickly to see if we can resolve that problem. We'll leave it to our experts, perhaps, to discuss it. What we need is

[Translation]

a French-speaking legal expert. We have a francophone legal expert here and that's Mr. Turp. Just the same as I who have taught international trade law at the Université de Montréal.

[English]

So we'll leave clause 44 for the moment.

Again, with unanimous consent, would clauses 45 through to 50 carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that the expression “dommage sensible” is also found in other clauses of the bill. A new definition should be applicable to the other clauses also.

The Chairman: Agreed. But if I get the gist of this, in this bill the expression “dommage sensible” is used elsewhere to translate the English expression “material injury” and not just the expression “material harm”. That's where the problem lies. A different term is being used in this documentary context which is not applicable to the “material injury” context that applies to damages caused to the business of Canadian producers.

[English]

(Clause 44 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: But leaving that aside for the moment, shall clauses 45 through 50 carry unanimously?

(Clauses 45 to 50 agreed to)

(On clause 51)

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, I have a question and I'm afraid Mr. Saroli will start his answer with “I answered this during the last meeting” but I still want to get some clarification, if you don't mind.

In clause 51.1 that we're moving be added to page 36, we're not talking about the retroactive imposition of fees, but rather a prospective one. I put the question and I'd like to get clarification. I'd like to get your opinion on the amendment to 51.1 which would read as follows:

98(1) Within three months after the coming into force of this section, the Governor in Council shall make regulations amending the sections of this Act so that, in addition to the prospective method for the imposition of duty, a retroactive method is used for this purpose—

As an exception, wouldn't it be useful to be able to use the retroactive method? If you don't start with “I answered that question during our last meeting”, I would be much happier.

• 0940

[English]

Mr. Pat Saroli: If I understand the question, let me draw your attention to recommendation number 10 of the subcommittee's report, which said quite distinctly that “the Subcommittees recommend no change from the prospective method of duty assessment”. So I don't know if I understand the proposal, if that would square with the recommendation which emerged from this committee in the report.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I know that very well. I saw recommendation 10 of the report, but I'm asking you if we couldn't improve this report as this is the reason for this morning's discussion. I was wondering if, contrary to recommendation 10 of the report, exceptionally speaking and in particular circumstances, it might be desirable—that's the question I have for you and I still don't have an answer—for the Governor in Council to be able to use a retroactive method to impose fees, on top of the prospective method.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: In my opinion, that is not desirable because it would have implications both at the administrative and political levels. The committee would be in favour of a system which, while protecting Canadian industry that is affected by imports causing prejudice, would not add a supplementary burden as would be the case if there were to be retroactive fees. That's the position we're taking for the general policy aspect.

As for the administrative side, Mr. Wayne Neamtz, from Revenue Canada, might like to have a word and tell you what he thinks.

[English]

Mr. Wayne Neamtz (Assistant Director, Policy and Administration, Department of Finance): Thank you.

As I understand it, it would appear that you would favour the prospective system in most situations, which is what we have today, but there are provisions in the act already, in section 59, which allow the deputy minister to retroactively assess anti-dumping duties or countervailing duties at his discretion where circumstances warrant. One of these circumstances, for example, would be where an exporter does not inform Revenue Canada of significant changes in prices and costs.

When we conduct our reviews of normal values in the margin of dumping, we issue prospective values that would provide certainty for the importers and the exporters. However, at that time we do ask—in writing—exporters to tell us when market conditions change in their home markets. If they don't tell us, we do reserve the right to retroactively assess duties. It's done very rarely because we believe that certainty is important, but we have done it in the past.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I get your answer, you'd be in favour of an amendment that would allow the implementation of a retroactive method. Are you saying we could apply a retroactive or retrospective method?

[English]

Mr. Wayne Neamtz: Ordinarily, Revenue Canada conducts an annual review of the values, the margin of dumping that is applied to imports. This is an administrative procedure; it's not laid out in the law itself.

At the end of those reviews, we advise the exporters of the normal value of their exports to Canada, and we use those values to assess duties on imports for perhaps one year subsequent to that event.

It's almost a good faith issuance of the normal values. They will stay in place as long as the deputy minister believes they still reflect the domestic selling prices or the cost in the exporter's market.

What we ask the exporters to do, though, is to tell us when there are changes. That would allow the deputy minister to revise the normal values. If the deputy minister is not informed of changes and they are significant, he does reserve the right to retroactively recalculate the duties that would be owing. This would be done as part of an ordinary verification visit to the exporter.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: To avoid any kind of confusion, I'd like to clarify something. When they determine their values, they always do it prospectively.

• 0945

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Marvellous.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: But in the context, it means that, from time to time, they will be reviewing those values to determine whether they still reflect what's happening on the market. If, during these periodic reviews, they see that an exporter forgot to inform them about important dangers that have a major impact on markets, they can take that into account and tell the exporter that he should have informed them and that rights will apply as of the moment when the review started.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: This is in exceptional circumstances and in the context of the administration of normal values under the Act.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: But the new values they're going to establish are always prospective. This approach remains the same.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Agreed.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, what happens in the case of an error of judgment, a mistake in the market, a mistake in the typed format? I'm thinking of a particular case, so that brings the question to mind. The deputy minister and all the administrators are not infallible in what they undertake and in what they do, and errors are committed.

The Chairman: Right.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So what is there in this law that allows for rectification of an error undertaken when they define a sweater as a shirt or a shirt as a sweater and then can't get it rectified and there are financial repercussions?

The Chairman: We'll let the experts answer that, but I think if you defined a shirt as a sweater it would probably be an error of law and it would be reviewable in Federal Court. If you described a sweater as having short sleeves as opposed to long sleeves, then you're into an interpretation judgment, or if it's a wool sweater as opposed to a cotton sweater or something like that, the Federal Court would leave it up to the tribunal.

Maybe, Mr. Saroli, you could get totally into the area in which NAFTA tribunals and the Federal Court—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I just want to know about any retroactive right—

Mr. Pat Saroli: The short answer is yes, there is. Let me just make reference to two points. First of all, there is express provision for the correction of arithmetical errors that might arise in calculation; those can be revisited. There is also a provision for appeal. I believe it's section 61 of the act, if I'm not mistaken, which allows for appeals to the CITT, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, with respect to any of the variables in the equation, be it export price, normal value or description of goods. So there is provision in legislation right now—

An hon. member: For appeals.

Mr. Pat Saroli: —for appeals to the tribunal. It's in section 61.

The Chairman: Okay. Are we happy?

(Clause 51 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Again, I would ask whether clauses 52 through to clause 65 will carry, with unanimous consent?

(Clauses 52 to 65 agreed to)

The Chairman: Did you say “on division”, Monsieur Sauvageau?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Only for clause 51.

The Chairman: Agreed, you would prefer clause 51 to carry on division.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: For the time being.

The Chairman: Agreed. If you're happy, so am I. Agreed.

[English]

Let's return to clause 44. I think Mr. Speller has a good suggestion. We have two possibilities.

[Translation]

Mr. Turp, you're conscious of the fact that under the old legislation the terms “dommage” as well as “préjudice” were the ones used. So, “préjudice sensible” and “dommage sensible” were used more or less interchangeably.

Here, if we were to use the term “préjudice” instead of “dommage” and if we were to translate “material harm” using “préjudice sensible” that would perhaps allow us to at least establish a distinction with the legislation that uses “dommage sensible” to translate “material injury”.

• 0950

Mr. Daniel Turp: What do they use in the subsidies code?

The Chairman: If memory serves, the subsidies code uses the expression “material injury” in English and “dommage sensible” in French. So it's the idea of “material injury”. Here, the legislation uses “material harm”. Of course, according to the usual translation principle, if the legislature has chosen a different term, it's because a different consequence is being looked for. If there's a different consequence in English, it would be best to have a different consequence in French also, don't you think? That is a basic principle.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's it.

The Chairman: And it's also mine. Si I would suggest, if it were my decision to make, that the term “dommage” be replaced, in the French version, by the term “préjudice” to indicate that a slightly different concept has been adopted. Mr. Speller seemed to suggest that we set this debate aside for the time being and come back to it during the third reading to leave the experts the time they need to see whether it poses any kind of legal problem.

[English]

Mr. Bob Speller: We're just saying that you know when you're changing words here and there in a bill the public servants like to make sure everything's just right. Why don't we take a look at it? If we think we can change it, we'll come back and change it at third reading. If not, we'll give you time to put in an amendment to change it. Okay? I think it would be better rather than doing it here on the spot. D'accord?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Agreed. It's an honourable compromise.

[English]

The Chairman: At report stage.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's probably from case law and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal took into account the language that was used before.

The Chairman: But if I get this right, what we have here isn't “material injury” in the sense of a prejudice caused to Canadian producers, but rather a “préjudice sensible” to be caused because of documents being divulged. It's a totally different context from the international code context; so we won't find any answer there if we consult it.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Is this a new provision?

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: I couldn't say. Is this a new provision?

[English]

A voice: That's a new word, new concept.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: In that case, there won't be any problem if the terminology is changed.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: I've just had the suggestion that the expression “un tort sensible” would be a very good reflection of the meaning we're looking for.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's not very respectful of the spirit of the French language. It sounds like “tort”. The word “préjudice” is more acceptable, in my opinion.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: We could look at that word.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: “Tort sensible” or “tort” is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: I'd like to emphasize that the context means that we know what we're talking about. There is no confusion in this context.

The Chairman: Should we accept Mr. Speller's suggestion?

Mr. Gilles Le Blanc: That's probably the best solution.

The Chairman: We will carry the wording we have here, in this committee, but everyone understands that we'll be debating this again in the third reading and maybe even at report stage. Thank you very much.

[English]

Shall clause 44 carry?

(Clause 44 agreed to on division)

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: On division.

[English]

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

[English]

There were no amendments, so we don't need a report.

Thank you very much, members. That's been very helpful.

Before everybody leaves, may I just talk very briefly about our upcoming agenda, particularly the nuclear report?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Can our bureaucrats leave?

The Chairman: Yes, our witnesses, nos fonctionnaires, can leave.

Thank you very much for your help.

Very quickly, members, we're not sitting on Thursday of this week.

An hon. member: Good.

The Chairman: This is a moment, I know, of great sadness to everyone around the table.

• 0955

And then, of course, we have the break. So immediately after the break, on Tuesday, November 17, then, morning and afternoon, and on Thursday, we're going to see if we can get our nuclear report done, if we can work in a concentrated way on it. We started out with pretty good co-operation. I think if we work hard we can do it.

Thank you, by the way, to everybody who proposed amendments. We'll have a look at it and get back to you with it, hopefully considering everybody's point of view. I really hope we can get it through.

Let me remind you about the WTO, just as a scheduling problem. The WTO will hold its meeting in October, I think—right, Bob?—in the United States. If they announce the kickoff of another Uruguay round or a general round, the cabinet will want to give instructions or have a good understanding about that process in early September.

That means if we're going to do a serious WTO report we're going to have to report by the spring. We would like to get the minister—and the minister is willing to talk to the committee, as I understand it from the parliamentary secretary—and some departmental officials in before Christmas.

So I'm just saying that we have to get our nuclear report done because we have serious other issues. The WTO is only one of many other issues, but we have to get going on it. Let's kick it off before Christmas. Please, let's just bear that in mind when we're looking at the nuclear study. I really hope we can finish it by the end of November.

We already have a tentative date. Mr. Marchi has already agreed to come before the committee on Wednesday, December 2. Let's hope we've done the nuclear report by then.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Turp—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: On that, I would like to say, at the outset, that there's a provision for ten and a half hours of discussion. I think that's reasonable. However, what concerns me is the writing of the report because if we want to meet the November 30 deadline, we only have six days. There are only six days to write the report. So wouldn't it be possible to use another date, another three-hour period before November 24?

An Hon. Member: Why?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Because if we want proper conditions to do the writing, if you really want to reach a consensus, and that won't be easy in any case, you have to provide for some time after November 19. If there is still work to be done as a committee of the whole on November 24, it will be very difficult to meet the November 30 deadline.

The Chairman: Agreed. We've hired a special writer for this work. I suggest he start his work as soon as we have accepted a certain change. Everyone will accept that the whole thing has already started and that the translation and writing happened simultaneously with our committee work.

We'll try to meet our deadline, but even if we slip into December a little for producing the report, it would be a good thing for us to have at least finished with our work before the end of November.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Can I make a suggestion? Thursday, November 19, in the afternoon, is it totally excluded that our committee could sit? I know it's a Thursday afternoon. It would give us another hour and a half.

The Chairman: Yes, agreed.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We could finish examining the report on November 19.

The Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Daniel Turp: If ever there were still problems, we'd still have November 24, but if there are no problems, then we could write the report between November 19 and 30.

The Chairman: Agreed. We can always sit nights, if necessary. I quite agree with you that we can always use the Thursday afternoon. We'll make a reservation for that day. If necessary, we can go until midnight.

An Hon. Member: Whoa! Whoa!

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We have no problem with that.

The Chairman: We'll treat that as a threat, honourable doctor.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, don't hit me with the hammer right away. I have a question.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: On December 2, we'll be examining Canada's objectives in the area of international trade and the WTO. You mentioned a report for September. If I understood this correctly, this work is for the whole committee.

The Chairman: Yes, exactly. Exactly.

• 1000

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You're completely right—

The Chairman: If I understood this correctly, the Subcommittee on International Trade will be taking care of the matter of—

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: —the Free Trade Zone of the Americas and the Committee of the Whole will be looking at the WTO discussions. Marvellous.

The Chairman: Before leaving, would you mind adopting the budget that's being moved?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Travelling: zero.

The Chairman: We need money to print the report.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, there's a problem. There's no money for travelling.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, contract consulting— No travel here— Contract consulting is explained by the fact that we're going to need experts for both the WTO and the FTAA. We should get them in. And we will have witnesses. We will have witnesses for the three committees because we have the two subcommittees as well as ourselves. So this is the budget and, members, I hope you will agree to pass this budget because there is going to be a scramble for cash and we want to get it in.

Ms. Jean Augustine: No communications?

The Chairman: Communications? Do you mean for the nuclear report in particular or for the WTO?

Ms. Jean Augustine: Are we looking at it?

The Chairman: We haven't been, but we can consider that later. What are your thoughts, Ms. Augustine?

Ms. Jean Augustine: It's just that you have zero there.

The Chairman: Yes. That's a good point, because, if I recall, when we did our big hearings on the foreign policy review we spent a lot of money on advertising. If we're doing WTO hearings, maybe we should advertise.

Mr. Bob Speller: Are we going to do them all here?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Could we put it at $5,000?

An hon. member: The Internet?

The Chairman: Do you think it would be worth putting in $5,000?

Ms. Jean Augustine: I think we should put in something, even if we don't use it.

The Chairman: Okay.

Coffee is paid for by the Board of Internal Economy.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: Starbucks?

The Chairman: Mr. Boudria brews it himself in his office.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could you tell us why there's no money under the “travel” heading?

The Chairman: For the time being, we need to adopt a special budget for travel. So we're keeping that for our experts who will prepare a specific work program. As soon as we have it, we'll be suggesting a trip. For the WTO, travelling is not necessary for the time being. For the time being, we have no idea what it will be.

What I'd like to get is the budget we have in front of us. I'd like it to be approved so that I can give it to the Liaison Committee for its approval.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, before carrying this— Wait, Daniel.

Mr. Daniel Turp: This conversation bothers me a bit.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me, members, can we just not whisper?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As for expenses, I know there was exhaustive pan-Canadian consultation done by Mr. Speller during the summer on the free trade agreement and its consequences with the European countries. Are we going to be getting news of that soon? We'd like to know if that entailed any costs or expenditures or if it will mean any for the committee. Finally, are we going to get an answer to the questions we've put? I can see we have the WTO and the Americas Free Trade Zone in there, but there's nothing about the free trade agreement of Europe. I know that there has been a huge consultation. So I'd like to know what costs that entailed, if any.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you have a comment on that, Mr. Speller?

Mr. Bob Speller: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. The minister comes here on December 2 and 3 and he will outline for you all that we've been doing.

The Chairman: But we also will have specific answers to questions that were asked, which are going to be coming from the department as well, in written form, I think.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: About the contracts, I think that these are contracts only on the two studies, both the Americas free trade zone and the WTO.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: And what about the Caucasus?

• 1005

The Chairman: For the time being, we'll start with that, we have nothing for the Caucasus.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Because this budget goes all the way to March 31, 1999.

The Chairman: Yes, but exclusively for the WTO and for the trade things. For the Caucasus, we thought that maybe Gerry and James would be enough as far as experts go. For the trade things, we need an expert like Gil Winham, whom we had last time. I think that Mr. Winham was very useful during the writing of the report the last time, isn't that so, Mr. Speller? We need someone like him.

We are not saying we'll never add any, but we'll at least have that. It's a basic budget and we'll be adding whatever is necessary for travel, for other experts and so forth.

[English]

Mr. Bob Speller: I'd like to see us do the WTO in the spring, for instance, but I would think that would be under a whole different budget.

The Chairman: Yes. It would have to be a different budget.

Mr. Bob Speller: I would think it would be important for—

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: A square one budget. Mr. Chairman, I think we have the evidence that it's very litigious. I would suggest a working group, tonight, to discuss the— No, it's not true.

Mr. Daniel Turp: So we do have the possibility of a supplementary budget for 31 March 1999.

The Chairman: Absolutely, we'll need one, but we at least need something as a base, a starting point.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could I ask you something? I don't know who you thought of hiring both for the free trade zone and the World Trade Organization. I, for one, would like you to call on a Quebec researcher or academic. In the past, I think you've mainly had Ontario researchers. They're very qualified, but I think it would be equitable for us to call on Mr. Bernier or—

The Chairman: Listen, we've always tried to have the best. If we could get Mr. Bernier, I would have no objection. We mainly have to find someone as qualified as he. I don't know if you have any other suggestions, but if we could get him, that would be superb.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'm not questioning Mr. Winham's competence, but there's a matter of equity.

The Chairman: I think we had asked Mr. Bernier when we hired Mr. Winham. Isn't that the case?

[English]

Mr. Bob Speller: We got Mr. Christopher Maule for the MAI and I thought he was very good.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Bob Speller: Remember Mr. Maule?

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: For the meeting of December 2, could you prepare us something a couple of days in advance so we can prepare a meeting with Mr. Marchi on the state of the discussions and negotiations?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, sure, we can have a discussion on this, but you want to get going, so can we have members vote in favour of the budget, then, and then we can have a discussion about these other issues?

Ms. Jean Augustine: With the addition of $5,000.

The Chairman: Yes, $5,000. Thank you very much for that suggestion.

Those in favour of the budget?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Fine. Let's continue.

Excuse me for interrupting, but voilà.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speller's meeting is to prepare the December 2 meeting with Minister Marchi. Might it be possible to have some sort of file, before the meeting is held, on the matter of the multilateral trade negotiations that are going to start next year?

[English]

Mr. Bob Speller: Beforehand. You'd have it your hands before.

The Chairman: Is that all right?

Okay. We're adjourned until Tuesday, November 17 at 9 a.m. Bring your nuclear hats.