[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, March 3, 1997
.1537 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. Members, I think we can fairly rapidly proceed through consideration of this bill, which is on the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement.
First I would like to draw to everyone's attention that the side letters that were referred to in the testimony and particularly discussed by Mr. Christie when he was with us last time have been distributed to all members of the committee. The government had undertook to make that letter available. You will recall it deals with any potential agreement with MERCOSUR involving grains or other agricultural products. That letter is now officially before the committee.
I would now like to turn to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill pursuant to Standing Order 75(1). Consideration of the preamble and clause 1 is postponed until we have considered the other provisions of the bill.
In order to facilitate things, I'm going to move, as we did the last time we had a bill that was largely non-controversial, clauses by groups. If at any time somebody has a problem, stop me. At the moment I understand there are proposed amendments to clauses 51 and 89, but I do not understand there to be any other proposals.
Clauses 2 to 50 inclusive agreed to
[Translation]
Clause 51
The Chairman: The Parliamentary Secretary.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-81 in clause 51 be amended by replacing lines 24 to 31 on page 32 with the following:
- (i) effective on January 1, 1998, to 83.4% of the rate set out in the column ``Chile Tariff'',
- (ii) effective on January 1, 1999, to 66.7% of the rate set out in the column ``Chile Tariff'',
- (iii) effective on January 1, 2000, to 50% of the rate set out in the column
It's a technical amendment. The numbers were not very correct and this just corrects the numbers.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We are simply changing the figures.
[English]
It's just to change the numbers to conform to the agreement in the agreement itself.
Mr. MacDonald: That's right.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): You want the figures to match those in the agreement. Why did subparagraph 25.4(3)(b) (i) of clause 51 of the bill mention the figure 71.4%? Where did the erroneous figures and the accurate figures come from?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps the officials could answer where the erroneous figures came from.
The Chairman: It's a little like the old story of the admiral and the young naval officer: from where was he getting the storms and all the equipment in the exam? Where did you get the first figures and where do you get these to change them?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Carrière (Director, Tariffs and Market Access Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): An error was made in drafting the bill. A mistake was made in calculating the reduction for the MFN weight for these products only. In fact, the tariff reduction category was a "B-". If we did not correct the bill, we would be giving Chilean products a greater advantage than one negotiated in the agreement. This was simply a mistake made in calculating the rates.
Mr. Sauvageau: If, once the bill is passed, we realize that other little mistakes of this type have occurred, could we correct them while the agreement is being implemented, or would it be just too bad?
Mr. Carrière: It is always possible to put forward motions to correct mistakes of this type.
Mr. Sauvageau: Fine. Thank you.
The Chairman: Are you satisfied with this?
Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): We have to be absolutely sure that all we are doing here is making the act match the agreement.
Mr. Carrière: That is correct.
Mr. Dupuy: Thank you.
[English]
Amendment agreed to
Clause 51 as amended agreed to
Clauses 52 to 88 inclusive agreed to
On clause 89
Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): I move that clause 89 of Bill C-81 be amended by replacing lines 23 to 28 on page 63 with the following:
- or class of goods from the application of this Act.
- (2) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, make
regulations exempting any goods or class of goods of Chile from the application of this Act or
any of its provisions. The exemption may be in respect of the dumping of those goods or that
class.
- (3) Regulations made under subsection (2)
Mr. Chair, that goes to the question we had about some of the concerns of the steel industry and the agricultural industry that this proposed act would apply to other countries. In my amendment we just made sure that it applies to Chile; that it applies to this bill.
The officials may want to interpret that.
The Chairman: My understanding, then, is that the original proposed section 14 stays as it was in the original bill. Instead of modifying that, you've added a proposed subsection to deal with this issue of restricting this new form of authority to Chile itself.
Mr. Speller: That's right, and under proposed subsection (3) regulations are made under proposed subsection (2). It just confirms the change.
The Chairman: Is there any reason why you left other NAFTA members out of there, Mexico and the United States, or is it just that at this time, because of this being the Chile bill, this is restricted to Chile?
Mr. Speller: That's right.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Would you like to make a comment, Mr. Sauvageau?
Mr. Sauvageau: Yes. My question is to the departmental officials. Perhaps I'm having difficulty because of my lack of experience or for other reasons, but I thought that last week, on the strength of a legal opinion, we were told that it would be out of order to put forward an amendment to clause 89. We were given a document in English which stated that clause 89 had to remain in its present form, and that we could not change the substance of the Special Import Measures Act. Subsequently, we received a text regarding whether or not an amendment to clause 89 would be in order. I would like to know why an amendment ruled out of order according to a legal opinion two weeks ago is now considered in order. Why was the amendment not necessary two weeks ago and why is it necessary now? Can you shed some light on this for me?
The Chairman: I apologize, I may have not said what I intended to. At the end of our last meeting, I said that the motion was in order.
Mr. Sauvageau: But what about the opinion?
The Chairman: What was out of order? At the time, we did not have a motion before us, and I remember saying clearly that the motion made by the Subcommittee on the SIMA to change the scope of the Act to have it applied to Chile only and perhaps to other members of NAFTA would be in order.
Mr. Sauvageau: Do you have a copy of the letter that the department gave us?
The Chairman: Yes, excuse me. So this is a matter between you and the department?
Mr. Sauvageau: Yes.
The Chairman: Fine, I see.
Mr. Sauvageau: That is why I was asking my question of the department officials.
The Chairman: I apologize, I thought it was perhaps directed to me.
Mr. Sauvageau: No.
Mr. Carrière: Let me explain the amendment that has been put forward for the discussions we had last week. Last week, we proposed an amendment to that part of the wording of clause 89 which read:
- ... exempting any goods or cost of goods from any country...
- We explained that by amending clause 89 and mentioning Chile, the United States or Mexico,
we would be limiting the scope of the existing provision.
Mr. Sauvageau: You are talking about the Special Import Measures Act, Mr. Carrière. At the last meeting of the subcommittee, chaired by Mr. Dupuy, you failed to tell us - either because you were too busy or you simply forgot - about this change to the Special Import Measures Act, which is in fact relatively important.
.1550
Could you please give us a more official or a clearer explanation as to why the Subcommittee on the Special Import Measures Act was never informed about a change of this type? Did you simply forget to do so, or did you not think about it, or is it because we did not exist or what?
Mr. Carrière: This did not happen because you did not exist but simply because the work of the Subcommittee on the Special Import Act had been completed by the time we were starting to draft the proposed amendments that would implement the agreement with Chile. So it is simply a question of chronology.
We only started working on the amendments required to Canadian legislation after December 5. To my knowledge, the subcommittee had completed its work by that time. Before then, we had not begun any work on amendments to Canadian legislation.
Mr. Sauvageau: On the anti-dumping issue.
Mr. Carrière: Yes, on that issue or on any other. That was the only reason.
Mr. Sauvageau: Why does the Canadian government want to put forward a process whereby anti-dumping measures would no longer apply, specifically in the case of Chile? This is not done in the case of Mexico or the United States, but in that of New Zealand and Australia, I believe. Why has it been decided to use this approach and apply it to our international trade with Chile? Does Canada intend to include it in its future free trade agreements? What do we intend to do with respect to our main trading partner, the United States, and in the case of Mexico? Why are we suddenly hitting on this idea in 1997 in the case of Chile? Can you explain the reasoning for this?
Mr. Carrière: The idea did not occur to us in 1997. We have been trying to negotiate this with the United States since the mid-1980, and with Mexico since 1990, when we began the NAFTA negotiations.
In our negotiations with Chile, we concluded that this country was prepared to negotiate an exemption of this type, and we thought this could strengthen our position in the NAFTA negotiations with the United States and Mexico. We still think that these exemptions strengthen our political position in the context of the NAFTA negotiations with Mexico and the United States. We are holding discussions, specifically with Mexico. I must confess that, as you may know, the United States is not particularly enthusiastic about the idea of eliminating measures of this type. Nevertheless, they are part of our approach and our negotiations with the U.S. both bilaterally, and in the NAFTA context with Mexico.
Mr. Sauvageau: By mentioning Chile specifically, does this amendment not limit the scope of the provision, as we were inclined to think at our last meeting?
Mr. Carrière: No, because we have changed our approach.
Mr. Sauvageau: I see.
The Chairman: Mr. Dupuy.
Mr. Dupuy: Leaving aside the legal language which, as might be expected, is very complicated, I would like to come back to the basic principles involved here. If I understand correctly, the agreement provides that Canada's anti-dumping legislation, namely the Special Import Measures Act, will not apply as regards dumping and countervailing duties in the case of products from Chile. I that so?
Mr. Carrière: Not exactly. The exemption is limited to anti-dumping measures. Countervailing duties will continue to apply between Canada and Chile. The exemption covers only the anti-dumping measures for the products for which the tariffs were eliminated in both countries or after the sixth year of the coming into force of the agreement.
.1555
Countervailing duties continue to apply, because they are supposed to offset government actions, while dumping is a private practice which is generally made possible by tariff protection. When tariffs are eliminated, the main reasons for dumping are eliminated.
Mr. Dupuy: Could you then explain to me why the original version of clause 89 referred both to the dumping or subsidizing of those goods, while the amendment being proposed now no longer refers to subsidizing?
Mr. Carrière: Section 14 of the Special Import Measures Act is very broad in scope; it applies to all the provisions contained in the Special Import Measures Act. We removed this provision and stated that this type of product could come from a particular country. Given the confusion caused by this approach, we made some changes. Subsection 1 of section 14 remains unchanged, but we propose to add a second subsection, stating that the exemption may be made only in the case of anti-dumping measures for products from Chile, and will be based on regulations that will be proclaimed at a later date, given that the exemption is valid only if the tariffs are eliminated in both countries.
Mr. Dupuy: So your amendment does not cover proposed subclause 14(1)?
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Carrière could perhaps read us new clause 89 as amended.
The Chairman: If I understand correctly, Mr. Speller has moved that the words "from any country" be removed from subsection 14(1).
Mr. Carrière: No, the proposed amendment replaces the contents of clause 89. It would remove the underlined words that appear in subsection 14(1) as it appears in the bill. We are not amending subsection 14(1) of the Special Import Measures Act. We withdrew the proposed amendment to subsection one. All the amendment does now is to add two subsections to section 14.
The Chairman: Your proposal is to amend proposed subsection 14(1) to make it identical to the wording of section 14 at the moment. Consequently, the proposal is to eliminate all the words in lines 23 to 27 on page 63 and to keep only the following words "or class of goods from the application of this Act".
.1600
Mr. Dupuy: I would simply like to add to what the chairman just said. You just told me that subsection 14(1) remains unchanged, whereas your proposed amendment states that it will be changed beginning at line 23. Line 23 is within the part that you said you did not want to change. So, as I understand it, there is a contradiction here.
The Chairman: No. Do you have the bill, Mr. Daley? Perhaps Mr. Carrière could confirm what I am saying. You drafted the amendments to the bill so that this subsection would read exactly as it does at the moment. Is that not correct? By doing that, Mr. Dupuy, we end up with the same wording as in the original Act. The same result could have been achieved by doing nothing to section 14. Thus, subsection 14(1) stays the same, if I understand correctly, and we simply add subsections (2) and (3).
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, just for clarity, because some of our members here are trying to grapple with this....
Mr. Carrière, this is confusing to anybody sitting around the table. What we're effectively doing is un-amending proposed subsection 14(1). Is that what we're doing? Is that a fair way to put it? So effectively the underlined portions in the bill on page 63 are no longer amended. When you look at proposed subsection 14(1), that comes out of the Special Import Measures Act. We're amending it to put in ``from any country'' on line 26 and on line 27 we were amending ``or any of its provisions''; we were adding that to it. We are now not doing that. Instead we're putting in the amendment, which is proposed subclause (2). Then the subsequent amendment renumbers the following proposed section. Is that all we're doing?
Mr. Dan Daley (Associate General Counsel, Trade Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Mr. MacDonald, what would have been proposed subsection 14(1).... You are correct, Mr. MacDonald.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Why are the words "dumping or subsidizing" underlined in French? I know Mr. Dupuy asked this question, but I did not find the answer clear. Your amendment states: "the application of this Act or any of its provisions. The exemption may be in respect of the dumping of those goods or that class." Why did you insert the words "or subsidizing" first, and then remove them?
Mr. Carrière: You know that in the English version we are talking about line 23, and in the French version, line 26. We are removing the amendment that was originally proposed.
.1605
In the original version of clause 89, the problem involved adding the words "provenant de tel pays" in French and the words "from any country" in English. We have removed these words so the English now reads: "class of goods [...] from the application of the Act", period. In French, we have removed the words "provenant de tel pays" and we have added a period after the words "la présente loi".
Next, we are adding a new subsection (2), which maintains the authorization that existed in the original provision and adds that the exemption may be made only in the case of dumping of products from Chile, and not in the case of countervailing duties, because the countervailing duties continue to apply in the agreement.
Mr. Sauvageau: With respect to the amendment you are proposing to clause 89, the Canadian government may have made a mistake in referring to "subsidizing". They could not include that.
Mr. Carrière: It was already there.
Mr. Sauvageau: If that is the case, why is it not being put back?
Mr. Carrière: It is still there.
The Chairman: If I understand correctly, Mr. Carrière, the negotiations between Canada and Chile focused on dumping exclusively. So there was no discussion of exempting subsidized goods from the application of the Act. The reference is to dumping only, that is to private actions, and not to government actions, which is the subject of the Act.
So in its present form, the bill is more compatible with the Chili-Canada agreement than it was before.
Mr. Sauvageau: Or, to take a different approach, the way we interpreted the agreement before was not in keeping with...
The Chairman: Yes, that's true. In any case, the wording before us at the moment is better than we had before.
Mr. Dupuy: I apologize for coming back to this.
The Chairman: Our committee did so much work on Mr. Dupuy's Act.
Mr. Dupuy: I now understand that you are keeping subsection 14(1), but that you are removing the words that were underlined in the version we have before us, that is "from any country" and "or any of its provisions". Those words are disappearing, but you are keeping subsection 14(1).
Subsection 14(2) is now virtually identical to 14(1), but there are two differences. The first is that you limit the exemption to Chile and the second is that you eliminate the reference to subsidizing. My problem at the moment is the compatibility of subsections (1) and (2). Has it been drafted properly? I think the drafting is quite poor, because (1) and (2) seem difficult to reconcile. Would it not have been better to combine these two provisions into a single subsection?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Thanks, Speller. Did you write this yourself?
[Translation]
Mr. Carrière: You are right, Mr. Dupuy. The wording of the clause is not as elegant as it might be. However, our original amendment sought to clarify that the exemption for any goods or class of goods could apply to any country at all.
.1610
This was considered inappropriate. As a result, we decided to clarify the provision and make it apply to Chile only. That is why we virtually repeated the words contained in subsection (1) in subsection (2), and we clarified that it applied to Chili only in the case of dumping. So we restricted ourselves to the substance of the agreement, which may have resulted in a less elegant provision, but has kept us within the context of the agreement.
Mr. Dupuy: Where I find it a little strange - and I'm using the English version while speaking French, which complicates things - is in the last line of subsection 14(1) in English:
[English]
- The exemption may be in respect of the dumping or subsidizing of those goods or that class.
And the last sentence of your subsection (2) states:
[English]
- The exemption may be in respect of the dumping of those goods or that class.
What is the difference between these two lines and why are they both necessary? The only difference I see is that in one case you include the word "subsidizing" and in the other case you omit it. How can you explain these last two sentences in subsections (1) and (2)?
Mr. Carrière: With respect to the last sentence you just read:
[English]
- The exemption may be in respect
it has been removed from the original subsection.
Mr. Dupuy: Could you repeat that?
Mr. Carrière: It is no longer there. The amendment removes it.
Mr. Dupuy: You're removing it from 14(1)?
Mr. Carrière: Exactly.
Mr. Sauvageau: Oh well, then we have some problems.
Mr. Dupuy: You just said that everything you were removing from subsection 14(1) are the passages underlined in this text.
Mr. Carrière: No, no.
[English]
The Chairman: Show Mr. Dupuy the old proposed subsection 14(1).
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: I know that everyone thinks there's a problem here. In French, the word "subventionnement" is underlined. In the English version, the word "subsidizing" is not underlined. So, in the French version, it would simply be removed from subsection 14(1), where as in the English version, it would remain in 14(1). However, it would not appear in 14(2).
Could we stand this clause and get it redrafted in English and French? Then we could take another look at it.
[English]
The Chairman: Do we have a solution to this?
Mr. Keith Christie (Assistant Deputy Minister, Federal-Provincial Relations Secretariat, Privy Council Office): Perhaps it would help if one of us read proposed section 14 as it's currently meant to read - proposed subsections 14(1), (2), and (3) - quite carefully.
The Chairman: I think that would help. Mr. Sauvageau's suggestion was that we would have it all typewritten out and in front of us, but I think if you were to read it, it would be clear exactly...at least in my mind. You're going to go back to the original proposed subsection 14(1) and we'll have two. But perhaps it would be helpful if you read it. Let's just start with proposed subsection 14(1) as it will read in the amended version.
Mr. Daley: Mr. Chairman, subsection 14(1) would read as follows:
- (1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, make
regulations exempting any goods or class of goods from the application of this Act
Mr. Daley: Correct.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is that all right with you in French, Mr. Sauvageau?
[English]
Proposed subsection (2) then would read...?
Mr. Daley: It would read:
- (2) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, make
regulations exempting any goods or class of goods of Chile from the application of this Act or
any of its provisions. The exemption may be in respect of the dumping of those goods or that
class.
Then proposed subsection (3) would continue:
- (3) Regulations made under subsection (2) may specify the period during which the exemption
applies and make it subject to conditions.
Mr. Sauvageau: We could read it in French, if you would like, because the French version ends with the words "peut préciser la durée de".
Mr. Carrière: Yes, but you have to complete the sentence as follows: "la durée de l'exonération et l'assortir de conditions".
Mr. Sauvageau: I see.
[English]
The Chairman: That's very helpful. I think it's clear where we're going.
Amendment agreed to
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Mr. Chairman, I am just an interloper today, but as I understand the reading of proposed section 14, clause 89 is going to be exactly what is in proposed subsection 14(2). Am I to understand it is now in two places?
The Chairman: No, it isn't. Let me put it in layman's language. The original section 14 gave the cabinet the right to pass regulations to exempt certain goods coming in from the application of SIMA, the Special Import Measures Act. My understanding of the explanations we had before the committee the last time was that that might be interpreted to apply generally, so if the cabinet exempted widgets, for example, they could exempt widgets, but they could not, under the terms of the then legislation, exempt widgets coming from a specific place - or an argument might be made to that effect. I'm not saying it would necessarily be true, but this was a concern.
So to make better precision for the Chile agreement, which specifically says dumping duties are removed between the two countries - and that's one of the most unusual aspects of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement - really with the amendments we've just achieved in proposed subsection (2) we've gone back to leaving proposed subsection (1) the way it was in the original law and we've provided under proposed subsection (2) that the cabinet can exempt goods coming from Chile from the application of SIMA in respect of dumping procedures. That's really finally achieving what the agreement does. For those of us who followed it, I think we're pretty confident that's what is being done here with this.
Mr. Ringma: Will it appear, then, in proposed section 14 or in clause 89?
The Chairman: As I understand it, it will be in clause 89 of our bill, which in turn will amend section 14 of SIMA, the Special Import Measures Act.
Mr. Ringma: Thank you.
Mr. Dupuy: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but as a legal piece I think it's almost incomprehensible.
What you're doing, in effect - and I repeat, I think this is what you're doing - is you're keeping from proposed subsection 14(1) the first, second, and third lines, lines 20, 21, and 22. Then on line 23 you are striking out ``from any country''.
Mr. Daley: Yes.
Mr. Dupuy: Then you are continuing the sentence to ``from the application of this Act''. The rest you delete.
Mr. Carrière: Full stop.
Mr. Dupuy: This is by no means easy to understand by the way the amendment is worded. What you are saying in effect is that you are replacing lines 23 to 28 with ``or class of goods'', but you don't indicate clearly where your wording ``class of goods from the application of this Act'' is inserted.
.1620
The Chairman: Again, would it help if we asked them to read exactly in order proposed subsections (1), (2), and (3) the way they read?
Mr. Dupuy: I understand perfectly well now what you are trying to do, but I think the drafting of the amendments for that particular clause is flawed.
The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Following up on Mr. Dupuy's comment, would it be too much to ask our guests to redraft clause 89? Could we stand clause 89 until we have an appropriate legal drafting?
The Chairman: We could do that, except, if I understand correctly, Mr. MacDonald, we have to present the bill in its present form to Parliament tomorrow. I have to present it at 10 a.m. So we can do whatever we want, provided we are finished by 10 a.m. tomorrow.
Mr. Sauvageau: I assume we are also supposed to be presenting a good bill.
The Chairman: Yes. In any case, I do understand the difficulties raised by Mr. Dupuy and yourself, but after the reading of the clause provided by the government officials, I think it is quite acceptable.
Mr. MacDonald.
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Dupuy that the way this has been presented has been very confusing, but I thought the confusion was straightened out by the reading of the current section of the Special Import Measures Act and exactly what the impact of the proposed amendment would be. I understand from Mr. Sauvageau it would perhaps have been desirable twenty minutes ago to have had that written out, but I thought we just voted on it. I fully understand we can suspend the vote if there's any question about what we've done.
Perhaps what we need is for our counsel once again to go through what we've done here, what exactly happens to subsection 14(1) of the Special Import Measures Act, and what we are putting in by way of the amendment. That may clarify it. Quite frankly, I was confused about where things started and ended, but it cleared it up for me. So why don't we try that before we look at putting it in writing, to see if the clarity is there for all the members who have expressed some concern.
The Chairman: I'm quite happy to do that. You felt we would achieve that clarity by once again reading from....
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
The Chairman: If you could just take us through what you did....
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: In English and in French.
The Chairman: Mr. Dupuy.
Mr. Dupuy: There is another possibility. We could simply amend the amendment. Let me just tell you what you could do. If you like this approach, you could simply say:
[English]
that Bill C-81 in clause 89 be amended by striking out ``from any country'' from line 23 -
[Translation]
that is what you are doing
[English]
- and striking out all language following ``application of this Act'', from lines 24 to 26. In that way you accomplish in a precise way what you wish to accomplish.
The Chairman: What happens with proposed subsection (3) if you do that, if I may ask?
Mr. Dupuy: Then you simply say ``The following subsections are added'', and you add subsection (2).
The Chairman: I see what you mean.
Mr. Dupuy: I won't press the case unless you want it. We'll leave the ambiguous language.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could have this read and then we could have the discussion. But I understand what my colleague is saying. What we're doing is amending this bill before us. This is currently in the bill.
The Chairman: Right.
Mr. MacDonald: What Mr. Dupuy is saying is that the language has to be precise in amending this bill, which consequentially amends the Special Import Measures Act. So I think he's quite correct, the drafting has to be precise on this.
Mr. Dupuy: That's my point.
.1625
The Chairman: Perhaps, then, you could take us back and read in both the French and the English versions the way in which the act as amended will read.
[Translation]
Mr. Carrière: In French, the wording would be "l'article 14 de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit":
14(1) Sur recommandation du ministre des Finances, le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement, soustraire des marchandises ou des catégories de marchandises à l'application de la présente loi.
- Exonération de marchandises du Chili.
- Durée et conditions
The Chairman: It is good in French.
[English]
In English.
Mr. Carrière: In English:
- 14.(1) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, make
regulations exempting any goods or class of goods from the application of this Act.
- (2) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, make
regulations exempting any goods or class of goods of Chile from the application of this Act or
any of its provisions. The exemption may be in respect of the dumping of those goods or that
class.
- (3) Regulations made under subsection (2) may specify the period during which the exemption
applies and make it subject to conditions.
Clause 89 as amended agreed to
[Translation]
Clauses 90 to 95 inclusive are agreed to
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Clause 1 is agreed to
The preamble is agreed to
The title is agreed to
The Bill as amended is agreed to
[English]
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I will do that tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Thank you very much, members. We're adjourned until tomorrow morning.