EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on International Trade NUMBER 036 1st SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, November 7, 2006 Le mardi 7 novembre 2006 Standing Committee on International Trade CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE November 7, 2006 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 036 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 036 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 036 (Version officielle) 36 07 11 2006 2006/11/07 09:05:00 House of Commons Comité permanent du commerce international Standing Committee on International Trade CIIT Chair Mr. Leon Benoit 39 1

(0905) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC)) : Good morning, everyone. We're here this morning, honourable members, to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 . As members are aware, the committee adopted a motion at its meeting of October 31, 2006, to limit the amount of time allotted for the consideration of this bill. Pursuant to the third paragraph of the motion we will first vote on all of the clauses that do not have any proposed amendments.

These clauses are 7, 8, 9, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35 to 39, 42 to 47, 51, 52, 53, 58 to 63, 71, 74, 79, 80, 85, 90, 91, 92, 97, 101, 102, 103, 110, 112, 115 to 119, and 121 to 125. On the other clauses of the bill for which we have received amendments, each member may speak once to each amendment for no more than three minutes. Since subamendments are amendments to amendments, each member may also speak once to each subamendment for three minutes. After all of the amendments to a clause have been adopted, each member may speak once to the clause, amended or not, for a total of three minutes.

Should there be any motions moved related to this bill, each member may only speak once for three minutes. Motions not related to the bill cannot be moved. The motion states that the committee must finish consideration of the bill before the end of the day, and the end of the day is midnight. Therefore, should we get toward the end of the day, I will use my discretion on how long I believe it'll take to vote on the remaining amendments. We'll start doing that at the time that seems appropriate to ensure that we are finished by midnight, should we be approaching midnight.

I remind all members that 12 noon would work fine too. Let's start with the procedure. We're going— Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : I would like to move that the BC First Nations Forestry Council be invited to testify before this committee. I will speak to the motion. As you know, Mr. Chair, this week the BC First Nations Forestry Council, which is an organization sanctioned by the B.C.

First Nations Leadership Council, representing virtually all B.C. first nations, heard that the Standing Committee on International Trade was moving forward to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 . The Chair : Mr. Julian, I would argue that this motion is out of order, based on the motion that was passed at the last meeting. We'll go now to the clauses that we determined would be voted on. We'll do that first and vote on all clauses that don't have amendments. Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, there is absolutely no doubt that we have the ability to move motions here.

You're right that we have the handcuff of the three-minute limit, but we do have the right to move motions. This motion is perfectly in order. Could you please consult the head table? The Chair : I have ruled this out of order. In the motion we passed we said, “That clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 be completed before considering any other committee business”. This is other committee business, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : But this is a hearing on Bill C-24. The Chair : No, we are dealing with clause-by-clause, Mr. Julian, and I will proceed. Please. Let's retain order here. (0910)

(0913) The Chair: Mr. Julian, you may be allowed to bring this motion at the end of the meeting, but the motion we passed at the last meeting clearly says that we'll deal first of all with all of the clauses that have no amendments. It also says “That the clause by clause consideration for Bill C-24 be completed before considering any other committee business”. After that, you may bring your motion. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, it is very clear that the motion that we adopted does not preclude motions being raised at the beginning of this meeting, and this is directly related to Bill C-24 .

The First Nations Leadership Council has directly requested to appear before the committee on Bill C-24. The Chair : Mr. Julian, I've made my ruling on this. You know there are options available to you, but I will proceed. I believe my ruling is the appropriate one. Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I do challenge your decision, and I would request a recorded vote. The Chair : It will be a recorded vote. There is no debate on this. I believe the wording is that the ruling of the chair be sustained.

If you vote in favour of this, it means you're supporting the decision of the chair. (Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)

(0915) The Chair : As agreed, we will now go directly to the clauses with no amendments. Could we go to a vote on that, to the clauses with no amendments? Mr. Julian has requested recorded division on all clauses, so we will do that. (Clauses 7, 8, 9, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 71, 74, 79, 80, 85, 90, 91, 92, 97, 101, 102, 103, 110, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, and 125 agreed to on division: yeas 10; nays 1) The Chair : Mr. Cannan. Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In continuing to try to streamline the process and for the logical flow of debate, I'd like to propose the following motion: That the amendments pertaining to the Atlantic exemption be considered as a group, to be debated and voted on individually and in the correct order. These amendments are as follows: 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. The Chair : Any problem with that? Is that supported? As I understand it, Mr. Cannan, you're saying that we will still debate them one by one and vote on them one by one. We'll just deal with them, starting now, in that order. Mr.

Ron Cannan : It makes more sense to do them in sequential order. The Chair : Yes, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : I'd like to see a written copy of that motion, please. It should be circulated to all members of the committee before we vote on it. The Chair : Yes, we have that. Of course, as you understand, it was read into the record so that it would be in both official languages, through the interpreters. The members provide that as a courtesy. Mr. Cannan, do you want to speak to that up front? Mr. Ron Cannan : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned, it makes sense to have a sequential amendment order that groups all of the Atlantic amendments together. It just helps, I think, to have a sequential debate. It's a better use of our time and it makes more sense. The Chair : Have copies now been distributed? Okay. Let's begin with the first amendment on that list, amendment 5. Yes, Mr. Menzies. Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC) : Are we ready to table this amendment, then? Is that the point? The Chair : Yes, we're on amendment 5 now, so someone— Mr. Ted Menzies : Since Mr.

Casey has been called away, I would ask for the indulgence of the committee, Mr. Chair, to move forward with that, if I can. I would like to explain--because I have the floor at this time--the reason for this. The Chair : Did we not vote on...? Oh, my apologies. I was jumping ahead, Mr. Menzies. We have to pass the motion. Mr. Ted Menzies : And I was so excited. I thought we were actually moving ahead with this. The Chair : Mr. Cannan has spoken to the motion. Everyone has it in front of them now. Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to speak against this latest

chapter in railroading. Mr. Chair, what we saw last Thursday and what we're seeing today is the railroading through of legislation that has profound consequences for the softwood industry and for softwood communities across the country. We're looking at a situation in which, on October 13, we won the victory in the Court of International Trade. As of last Friday, Mr. Chair, what we've seen is that Customs and Border Protection is now paying out 100% dollars to the companies that have not signed on to the government's botched arrangement.

So we have companies that have arranged through EDC and are actually having deductions made from their moneys that they shouldn't have to have made because we won October 13 and because there are 100% dollars coming back. We don't have to give away $1 billion. We don't have to impose these handcuffs on our softwood industry. We have to go very carefully in considering Bill C-24 clause by clause. We've had only one day of witnesses, Mr. Chair.

Again, we've had the refusal on behalf of this committee to hear witnesses, even though we've had witnesses from across the country indicating very clearly that they want to be heard by this committee. It is incumbent upon us to be very careful and to be very responsible when we are moving to consider the clause-by-clause amendments. Mr. Chair, what we have here before us is something that would put us out of sequence. The Atlantic exemption is something the NDP fought for.

I was very happy to see the comments by Monsieur LeBlanc in today's newspaper, talking about the fact that the NDP's work last Thursday helped contribute to pushing the government to repair at least that portion of Bill C-24 . The normal process of clause-by-clause amendment, as you well know, Mr. Chair, is sequential. It is done that way, sequentially, so that, assuming the drafting has been done right, we can work through the bill clause by clause, moving from one clause to the next one that is related. By doing this, we are throwing that sequence out.

We are throwing out the sequence that has been established by the bill. I believe it is going to lead to further confusion, Mr. Chair, as we continue on into the evening and the early morning hours tomorrow and as folks get tired. Definitively, this is not the way to approach legislation, especially legislation that has such a profound consequence on the lives of Canadians in softwood communities across the country. If we're going out of sequence, what we're essentially doing is throwing a monkey wrench into our own functioning as a committee.

We then come back to what is out of sequence, and I can predict right now, Mr. Chair, that we're going to have difficulties. People are going to be unaware of where we are. There's not going to be the consideration that needs to be taken. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(0920) The Chair : Time's up, Mr. Julian. That's three minutes and ten seconds. Thank you. Mr. Cannan, do you want to go ahead now? Mr. Ron Cannan : Call the question. The Chair : We have to vote, of course. Monsieur Cardin. [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ensure that officials will be providing important clarifications with respect to all of the amendments listed here, because some points deal with exactly the same clauses. Changes have been made by officials from time to time, as well as by the government and the various parties.

As well, I did not think that you were going to ask us to vote on all of these as a package. With many of these clauses, we need to be able to make a choice. It is important that officials provide clarification regarding certain amendments, so that we can see the differences between them and can then make an enlightened decision. I hope that in such cases, we will be given more than three minutes. [ English ] The Chair : Monsieur Cardin, in fact, what the motion says is that we will still deal with these amendments one at a time.

We'll still have the debate on each of these amendments, and we'll vote on them separately. It's just that we will do them in this order rather than going through the amendments in the order they're presented. It's just an order change; that's all it is. The debate will still take place on each amendment, and we'll vote separately on each amendment, I assure you. Is there any other debate? No? Then let's go to the recorded division on this motion. (Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(0925) The Chair : Mr. Cannan, I jumped the gun before, but you can go ahead. Mr. Menzies, okay. (On clause 10-- Charge imposed ) Mr. Ted Menzies : Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I started to say, Mr. Casey was going to put forward this amendment. Unfortunately, he's not able to be here today and he asked if I would present it on his behalf. I hope, with the indulgence of the committee, I'm allowed to do that. It's very specifically just a clarification of the wording. Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, what is Mr. Menzies referring to? Mr.

Ted Menzies : It's amendment 5 to clause 10, the first one on the motion we just passed. The current version of the bill fails to reflect— The Chair : Sorry, I thought you were finished, Mr. Julian. My apologies. Mr. Ted Menzies : Are we ever going to get this done? The Chair : Let Mr. Julian make his point of order. Mr. Peter Julian : We're going to amendments on clause 5, not on clause 10. The Chair : On amendment 5, which is an amendment to clause 10.... You have the sheet there and these are the amendments. The motion said we will deal with those amendments in the order listed, starting with amendment 5. Mr.

Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I'm not sure all of us— The Chair : The amendment numbers are on the bottom of the page. It's actually the page number. You're correct, Mr. LeBlanc. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, the amendment number I have is amendment 9. There's some real confusion. If Mr. Menzies is referring to amendment 5, I have amendment 9, and I'm not sure what the other parties have. The amendments should be based on the clauses and the amendments would move to clause 5, not to amendment 5, which is numbered differently. [ Translation ] It's because... [ English ] You have a different numbering system, Ted.

The Chair : I understand what you're saying, Mr. Julian. Technically, on page 5 it is amendment CPC-1. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, that's not the motion we adopted. The motion we adopted is based on clauses, which means we are moving to clause 5. The Chair : I understand what you're saying, Mr. Julian. Could we make a quick correction to the motion to refer to it as the amendment on page numbers, and then...the page numbers as mentioned? Monsieur Cardin. [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Cardin : Mr. Chairman, here we have the list of clauses to be covered.

Normally, if we were following the list of amendments, we would now be at page 3, clause 5, and therefore, BQ-1. It's important that we be told which clause we're looking at, the page number, and who has moved the amendment in each case. We will come to the motion that has been tabled once we are on clause 10. That is the first one of the series. We will cover them all, but for the time being, it would be advisable not to cause too much confusion. We are now on clause 5, which is on page 3 of the amendment booklet. This is the first BQ amendment.

When we arrive at clause 10, CPC-1, which is on page 5, we will consider all similar amendments together. (0930) [ English ] The Chair : Monsieur Cardin, Mr. Julian's point was that technically the amendment on page 5--and page 5 is what's referred to in the motion--is actually amendment CPC-1, so for easier reference, perhaps we could just modify the motion to say “the amendments on page” and then “5”, “6”, “9”, “10”, and so on. It makes it easier to deal with them that way, because we've been referring to them all the way through so far based on their page numbers. That was the intent of the motion, clearly.

For clarification, the number at the bottom of the page is a page number. The amendment, technically, is CPC-1. We have been referring to the page number of the amendment as we have been working through them, so can we just understand that's what we're referring to in the motion--the amendment on page 5, page 6, page 9, and so on? Mr. Cannan is next. Mr. Ron Cannan : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify.

I did check with the legislative clerk before I presented the motion, and those were the conditions and the understanding--that the page and the amendment were one and the same, so if you want to put a friendly amendment instead of the amendments on pages 5, 6, and 9, that would be fine. The Chair : Mr. Cannan, excuse me. There's no need for an amendment here. We understand what is intended. The clerk has indicated that is the case as well, so let's just go ahead with it. Go ahead, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, this is not the way to proceed--based on page numbers.

We've been proceeding clause by clause. I think the assumption around the table was that the amendments were being based on clause-by-clause consideration, which would mean— [ Translation ] that the next one would be the amendment to clause 5 which is being proposed by the Bloc Québécois. Now we are not proceeding clause-by-clause, but rather, based on page number.

We are addressing several amendments at the same time that relate to the same page, rather than actual clauses, which are actually clearer and easier to follow, while at the same time providing for a certain amount of transparency. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian, you've made your point. We are going to proceed based on the clauses on these pages. Let's proceed, please, starting with the amendment on page 5, which is technically CPC-1. Mr. Ted Menzies : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will proceed.

The current vision of the bill fails to reflect the total exclusion for Atlantic Canada and for two other categories under

section 1 of

article X of the softwood lumber agreement. The problem with the current language is that it would make everyone subject to the export charge, with various carve-outs later in the bill. This is directly contrary to the total exclusions laid out in

section 1 of

article X of this softwood lumber agreement.

Section 1 of

article X of the softwood lumber agreement states that the export measures shall not apply to exports from, number one, Atlantic Canada, referred to under the agreement as “the Maritimes”; number two, exports from the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut; and number three, excluded companies listed in annex 10 of the agreement. This amendment corrects this problem and clarifies that the legislation aligns precisely with the agreement by stating that the export charge cannot apply to the exclusions provided for in the softwood lumber agreement. This amendment is essential.

It preserves the total exclusion for Atlantic Canada that dates back to 1986. We agree to the other amendments provided that the amendment to

section 1 of

article X is enacted. Mr. Peter Julian : I have a point of order. Mr. Ted Menzies : Thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me finish that statement, finally. The Chair : Mr. Menzies, I— Mr. Julian, go ahead with your point of order. Mr. Peter Julian : We are considering clause 5 and we have Mr. Menzies speaking to clause 10. That is, to say the least, confusing. We adopted a motion that proceeds by order of amendment by clause, so I would ask that you direct Mr. Menzies to speak to clause 5, not to clause 10. The Chair : Mr. Menzies, here's the situation, and it's an error on my part.

This motion has been passed, but what the motion doesn't do is state where we start, so we will have to debate. We'll go through the clauses until clause 10, at which time we can take all of these together as proposed here. It doesn't change an awful lot, except that we'll deal with the clauses up to clause 10. At that time this motion comes into effect, and we will deal with those all together. It's not a big deal, but Mr. Julian and Mr. Cardin are correct on this. I just didn't understand what was being said, Mr. Menzies. I apologize for that. We will go ahead to clause 5, as has been indicated here. Mr.

Julian and Monsieur Cardin, I didn't understand what you were saying. I had it explained, and you're correct. Ms. Guergis is next. (On clause 5-- Time of export )

(0935) Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) : I would like to start off by saying that I support this Bloc amendment, Mr. Chair. The Chair : The Bloc will move their amendment. We're on clause 5. The Bloc amendment is on page 3. Go ahead, Monsieur Cardin. [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Cardin : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you can see, clause 5 deals with the time of export. In terms of quotas, we all know that they are calculated on a monthly basis. When the softwood product is loaded onto a truck, it automatically leaves to be exported. In that case, the date corresponds.

However, when the product is shipped by rail, it may be loaded on to a railcar that stays in the yard for quite some time. In that case, the date may be carried forward several days and end up in the following month. Because of the time that can elapse before the product is actually exported, a significant imbalance could affect the way quotas are managed. As a result, we would like the export date to be the date when the product is loaded onto the railcar, and not the date the car is assembled to form part of a train. [ English ] The Chair : Merci, Monsieur Cardin. Ms. Guergis, then Mr. Julian. Ms.

Helena Guergis : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to say that we support this amendment. It clarifies the timing under which a shipment sent by rail is deemed to be exported and will provide increased certainty for the lumber companies. We, on the government side, support this amendment. The Chair : Thank you, Ms. Guergis. Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : I have a subamendment to offer, but before I do that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask our panel what they believe the impact of this particular amendment would be. The Chair : Go ahead. Their time would technically be included when we're having— Mr.

Peter Julian : No, it isn't. Sorry, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Gentlemen, please keep in mind that your time will be included in the three minutes of debate. Mr. Peter Julian : I have a point of order, Mr. Chair— The Chair : On a point of order, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Questions and clarifications are not included, very clearly, in last Thursday's draconian motion. So no, that is not the case. Questions of the panel are separate from the actual speaking time. That's obviously an omission of Mr. Menzies, but that's the reality.

If you check with the head table, I'm sure they will reinforce my contention that the question time is separate from the intervention time on amendments.

(0940) The Chair : Mr. Julian, I appreciate your input into this, but in fact in any committee I have been with, the questioning time of a member includes the answer from the witnesses, and that's the way this has been interpreted. Let's go ahead, please, gentlemen, If on certain issues we feel more time is needed for the officials, the committee can agree to it at that point in time. Mr. Peter Julian : What you're saying, then, is that it is a disadvantage for members to ask questions of the panel. You're saying that because of the three-minute rule, essentially— The Chair : That's debate. Gentlemen— Mr.

Peter Julian : No, it is not, because it raises the question of whether or not we should have the panellists here throughout the day. The Chair : We'll go ahead with the answer from the officials now. Go ahead, please, Mr. Seebach. Mr. Dennis Seebach (Director, Administration and Technology Services, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) : Thank you, Chair. The bill is based upon the shipment being deemed exported on the date of shipment, and what we're trying to provide to the exporters is certainty as to when they can count their shipments in quota situations and paying the export charge.

This amendment would create greater certainty for the exporter so that when it was released to the railway company, the transport agency, it would provide for greater certainty so the exporter would know at that time what his export charge would be or how his shipment would count against his quota limit. The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I'd like to offer the following subamendment. [ Translation ] In the French version, it says: “contient est placé sur le chemin de fer pour être rattaché au train en vue de son”.

I am proposing the following sub-amendment which would read: “the railcar that contains it was released to the railway for assembly to”. When you're ready, I will give my rationale. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian, do you have it in writing? Mr. Peter Julian : No, but I could certainly write it out for you, Mr. Chair. It would be my pleasure. The Chair : Go ahead, Mr. Julian. If you would do that, it would be helpful, or you could explain it again. [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian : The wording is “the railcar that contains it was released to the railway for assembly to”. I can provide that the clerk. Mr.

Chairman, Mr. Cardin is absolutely right: in the vast majority of cases, the railways are responsible when there is a significant delay between the time the product should be exported and the time when it actually crosses the border. However, the railways are not entirely to blame for that type of problem. Occasionally truck drivers also experience delays. There may have to be a change of driver because of unexpected situations. For example, a truck may remain on the Canadian side of the border for a certain amount of time, however brief that may be, before crossing. And the kind of dynamic Mr.

Cardin has explained can also apply to road transport. I think it's important to consider this for cases where truckers may be forced to park along the side of the road at night, for example, in order to change the cab or wait for a new driver to arrive, before being able to take our high quality Canadian softwood lumber over the Canada-U.S. border. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [ English ] The Chair : Your time is up. Thank you very much for that subamendment. Is there any other debate on the subamendment? We'll read the subamendment. Monsieur Cardin. [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Cardin : Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. [ English ] The Chair : I will read the subamendment first, if you'd like, Mr. Cardin. [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Cardin : No, that won't be necessary. In subclause 5(1), it talks about the conveyance, and I imagine that could include trucks. It reads: the time at which an exported softwood lumber product is considered to be exported is the time at which the product was last loaded aboard a conveyance for export. So, if a trucker stops for a few moments by the side of the road, that is not the time at which the product was last loaded. And I would emphasize that point.

We are asking that subclause 5(2) specifically include the railways. So, I don't see the relevance of the sub-amendment. (0945) [ English ] The Chair : Okay. We'll go to the vote, but we will read the motion. Could the clerk read the motion? It is in French. Mr. Marc Toupin (Procedural Clerk) : The motion is on clause 5. I'll start reading it in French, starting at line 3, on page 4.

It would read as follows: [ Translation ] “is considered to be exported is the time at which the railcar that contains it was placed on the track or next to the road to be assembled to form part of a train or a truck for export.” [ English ] The Chair : Thank you. We'll now go to the recorded vote on the subamendment. (Subamendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1) The Chair : We will now go to the recorded vote on the amendment. Yes, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : On the amendment itself, we haven't had a chance. I've spoken to the subamendment and I would now like to speak to the amendment. The Chair : Mr.

Julian, yes, you did in fact speak to it. Mr. Peter Julian : No, I have not, Mr. Chair. The Chair : You spoke to it before you moved your subamendment. Mr. Peter Julian : No, I did not. The Chair : Part of your time was taken by the witnesses. Mr. Peter Julian : That was about a minute, Mr. Chair. The Chair : You completed your three minutes, Mr. Julian. We will now go to the recorded vote on the amendment. Mr. Peter Julian : I have a point of order. The Chair : On a point of order, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : You have introduced a completely new rule of procedure that was not adopted last Thursday.

We adopted rules of procedure last Thursday. We've had the guests here to help us along and to facilitate this. You are now penalizing any member who asks a question of the panel. It is not going to lead to better legislation. It is going to lead, I would submit, to worse legislation. The Chair : Mr. Julian, those are the rules. Let's go ahead with this. It's routine at committees. Mr. Peter Julian : I challenge your decision. The Chair : For any committee I've ever been at, the answers of the witnesses are considered to be part of the time of the questioner. It's routine, Mr. Julian. Mr.

Peter Julian : It's not routine on clause-by-clause. The Chair : Mr. Julian has challenged the decision of the chair. The motion that we vote on is not debatable, but it will be to sustain the ruling of the chair. (Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 10; nays 1) The Chair : We'll go to the recorded vote on the amendment. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0) The Chair : We now go to clause 5 as amended. Is there any discussion? Yes, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. On clause 5, we have improved it to a certain extent, but certainly not to the point that I would see complete approval.

We still have the problem of some obscurity and lack of clarity around clause 5 itself in the case where we have products that are exported by truck. Mr. Cardin was very eloquent in defending subclause 5(1), although I think it's important to say there's some ambiguity around subclause 5(1). We could certainly try to clarify it in discussions with our panel here, but unfortunately, you've ruled that we can't use the panel to ask questions, without taking away from the 180 minutes.

(0950) The Chair : Mr. Julian, in fact, that's not what I said at all. I said normal procedure will apply, which is that the responses from the witnesses will be included in the time for the member. It's standard procedure, Mr. Julian. Do not misconstrue what I've said. I hope that clarifies what I said. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, on clause-by-clause, witness time--when you have a panel that represents the government--is not deducted from the time that is actually allotted to members to speak to clauses and amendments.

So we have a situation here where you have, just the same, penalized members for going to the panel for clarification on issues. The Chair : Mr. Julian, this is not relevant to the debate on clause 5. Get to the debate or we'll go straight to the question. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I am speaking to clause 5; I'm speaking to the somewhat ambiguous subclause 5(1). I'm speaking very deliberately to that. But at the same time, I regret your ruling and I feel it is unfortunate. The Chair : Okay, there is a relevance issue. Let's go to the vote on clause 5. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair : You can make a point of order, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, you're running rampant over the rules of order here. When you have a three-minute time limit, the issue of repetition or relevance is not something that can be imposed. In the same way, with the House of Commons, when we have imposed time limits, the issue of relevance and repetition cannot be used as a tool of censorship, and that is indeed what you are doing. You are censoring the speech of the members around this table. We have an imposed time limit of three minutes.

You have handcuffed members even more by now saying that if we refer to the guests, that time will be deducted. You cannot start to impose censorship over what members are saying in relation to any clause. The Chair : Excuse me, Mr. Julian. You're starting to repeat yourself in your point of order. I'm going to end that if you're not going to get to some new material. Let's move on with this. Mr. Peter Julian : So if we go to clause 5, Mr.

Chair, we have subclause 5(1), which says that: For the purposes of this Act, the time at which an exported softwood lumber product is considered to be exported is the time at which the product was last loaded aboard a conveyance for export. The issue here--in subclause 5(1)--is the fact that the conveyance is not defined. And the conveyance, if it is indeed a truck wagon as opposed to a truck cab, would be subject to two different

interpretations. That is something that I think we would need to clarify with our panel--had we the opportunity to do so. I think that ambiguity is something that lessens the strength of clause 5, and despite the fact that we now have an amendment brought in by Mr. Cardin, [ Translation ] which, it should be said, does help to explain subclause 5(2), we are left with a situation that is ambiguous. Subclause 5(2) says:

(2) However, if the softwood lumber product is exported by rail [...] [ English ] The Chair : Okay, Mr. Julian, your time is up, and I did deduct time for the point of order. Your time is up. Thank you. We'll go now to the recorded division on clause 5 as amended. (Clause 5 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1) (On clause 6-- Arm's length ) The Chair : We now go to clause 6. First is an NDP motion. Mr. Julian, go ahead.

(0955) Mr. Peter Julian : I would like to move, for the rules of order, that questions asked of the panel that is here today not be deducted from the time allocated to amendments. That's a motion that's-- The Chair : No, Mr. Julian, I have ruled on this. I believe you've gone to a vote on the ruling already. It was upheld by the committee. Let's move ahead. You're taking your time now; the clock is going. You have an amendment you would like to move, NDP-3. If you would like to do that, go ahead, Mr. Julian. If you don't want to, that's fine, we can move on to the next one. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Chair, I'd be delighted to move the amendment, believe me. I'm not delighted with the rules of order that you're imposing on us, to say the least. The Chair : It's the will of the committee, Mr. Julian, and you understand that very clearly. Mr. Peter Julian : I disagree profoundly, Mr. Chair, and will be expressing that throughout the day. This is no little clause, when we talk about clause 6, because in effect this is a clause that fundamentally changes how we talk about arm's-length dealing.

As a result, I would like to move that the committee limit of three minutes for debate on this clause be waived for clause 6. That's a motion that is in order, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Of course, Mr. Julian, you've moved your amendment already. You can't make a subamendment to your own amendment. Mr. Peter Julian : I did not move the amendment, Mr. Chair. If you check the blues, I did not move the amendment. I did speak to the importance of clause 6, which was a

preamble for the motion. The Chair : Mr. Julian, if you're not speaking to your amendment, then we'll get on to someone who— Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, the motion to waive the three-minute time limit is perfectly in order, as the head table knows. The Chair : Mr. Julian, what exactly is your motion? Please simply state that again. Mr. Peter Julian : That for the consideration of clause 6, we waive the three-minute time limit. The Chair : Let's handle this. Is there unanimous consent to do this? Mr. Peter Julian : No, no, Mr. Chair, it's a motion.

The Chair : Then the ruling of the chair is that in fact there is no unanimous consent. Let's go on. It would require unanimous consent, I believe, to have— Mr. Peter Julian : It does not require unanimous consent. The Chair : Do you want to move your motion, Mr. Julian? We're getting on to that now. Mr. Peter Julian : It is a motion de fond . It has been submitted. It is now time to debate that motion. The motion is, for the requirements and discussion around clause 6, to waive the three-minute time limit. It is a perfectly valid motion, as the head table can attest. The Chair : No, Mr. Julian.

In fact, the committee has ruled on this issue. We have limited debate to three minutes. If the committee wishes to extend, I believe it would require unanimous consent. Certainly, that was not the intent of the committee. Mr. Julian, you are now either going to move your motion or we'll go to the vote on clause 6. It's entirely up to you. The clock is ticking here. Mr. Peter Julian : The head table can rule that this motion is in order, and you know that this motion is in order.

So rather than spending this time with verbal jousting, why don't you simply allow me to then speak to the motion to waive that time limit, the three minutes, for the consideration of clause 6?

(1000) The Chair : Are you finished your discussion on the amendment, Mr. Julian? Mr. Peter Julian : I have not moved the amendment yet, Mr. Chair. I have moved the motion. I am asking for the head table— The Chair : Mr. Julian, you are testing the patience of the chair. You will move your amendment and debate it or we will assume that you do not wish to move that amendment. One or the other. The time is ticking here, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, the head table should be providing a ruling on this. The Chair : Mr.

Julian, as I've said, in terms of the issue of your motion, there are two ways that that motion can carry forward. The committee has made its intentions very clear here—three minutes' debate on a motion. There are two ways: unanimous consent or the committee can rescind. There is no indication that either is going to happen. So, please, Mr. Julian, go to your amendment or we will vote on the motion and you will not have spoken to your amendment. Are you going to move your amendment, NDP-3? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I request unanimous consent then. The Chair : Is there unanimous consent? A voice: No.

The Chair : There isn't unanimous consent. Please get on with it, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Clause 6 is extremely important. That's why more than three minutes are required to discuss how in this act the current clause is defined. In the current clause 6 it says: 6.

(1) For the purposes of this Act, (

a) related persons are deemed not to deal with each other at arm's length; and (

b) it is a question of fact whether persons not related to each other were, at any particular time, dealing with each other at arm’s length. The difficulty here is that we are fundamentally changing the relationship of arm's length, what Canada has always defended as-- The Chair : Have you moved your amendment? Mr. Peter Julian : I am moving the amendment and I am speaking to it. The Chair : Thank you. That was just for clarification. Please continue. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your clarifying with me.

Traditionally, Canada has defended the idea of arm's length being defined, even in the case of related persons when they deal with each other, as if they were at arm's length; in other words, when two parties have treated each other as if they were unrelated. That is essentially the issue here. When two parties, even if they are related to each other, deem to deal with each other as if they were unrelated, that should be how we define the question of related or unrelated persons for the purposes of clause 6. To take the American

interpretation-- The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Julian, your time is up. Is there any other debate on the motion? Ms. Guergis. Ms. Helena Guergis : Thank you, Mr. Chair. The government side does not support this amendment. I consider it to be a “waste of our time” amendment. It is a question of fact as to whether unrelated persons are dealing at arm's length with each other. Because the existing provision is mirrored in other tax statutes, this would be a significant change in policy, creating an adverse impact. “Related person” is the concept of tax law. The Chair : Monsieur Cardin. [ Translation ] Mr.

Serge Cardin : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to commend Mr. Julian for his efforts. He gets a score of 8. On the other hand, I find he always uses a negative formulation. We are just changing words. Rather than saying they are related persons when they are, we're saying they are not related when they are operating at arms' length. I hope all the NDP's amendments are not drafted like that, because it may be a long day if they are. (1005) [ English ] The Chair : Merci, Monsieur Cardin. (Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1) The Chair : Now we'll go to clause 6. Mr. Julian. Mr.

Peter Julian : I just have had very clear confirmation, Mr. Chair, of why this process is not working. We've had two interventions, from the Conservative Party and from the Bloc, who seemingly are completely unaware of the capitulation that is made by referring to clause 6 in this manner. What we are doing is saying that regardless of whether or not they treat each other at arm's length, the related persons are deemed not to deal with each other at arm's length.

This is something that has been a major issue in British Columbia, and yet we've had an amendment that was important and endorsed by many of the lumber industry in British Columbia, because of their concerns that this definition is the United States' definition of arm's-length transaction rather than the Canadian definition, thrown aside without any due consideration. We've been dealing for five and a half hours with this bill. This is the first major case where we have a major capitulation that the government is refusing to bend on. It is a definition that has consequences, Mr.

Chair—enormous consequences, because what we're doing is throwing away our legal victories. We fought for this principle at the WTO; we fought for it at NAFTA. Now, in subclauses 6(1) and 6(2), what we are doing, essentially, is throwing away those legal victories. Mr.

Chair, there is no more potent and visible example of why this process of ramrodding through this entire bill in the course of a day does not make sense than this one in clause 6, where, after years of legal victory at the WTO—and the Liberals should know this, because they were in government at the time—and at NAFTA, we are simply, in the course of a few minutes, throwing all that away and putting into legislation a definition that now confirms what the coalition has been saying all along about Canadian companies: that it doesn't matter if you've been treating that related person at arm's length; what it means now is, according to the Canadian government, full capitulation—we'll simply take the American definition.

This has consequences not only for this bill. It's not at all clear whether this bill will even go through, as the deal falls apart. Only 25% of the companies have signed on. That tells you something, Mr. Chair: this badly botched bill is going down. But if we adopt this in legislation, you can bet your bottom dollar, Mr. Chair, the coalition will be coming back and pointing to this—this work done at 10:20 in the morning on a Tuesday, as we ramrod through Bill C-24 —and they'll be pointing to it as an example that Canada accepts the American definition of what constitutes arm's-length transaction.

So here we have parties all uniting to sell out Canada's interest-- The Chair : Mr. Julian, time is up. Thank you. Mr. Peter Julian : It is shameful, Mr. Chair. It is shameful. The Chair : We now go to the recorded division on clause 6. We're voting on the clause, which wasn't amended. [ Translation ] The Clerk : There is a point of order. [ English ] The Chair : Monsieur Cardin has a point of order. [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Cardin : I would like to put a question to the witnesses regarding clause 6. Even though I made that joke earlier, based on the information I have been given, even though Mr.

Julian's rationale is correct, it would be inconsistent with the Agreement. Are you able to confirm or deny that? [ English ] The Chair : Gentlemen, who will answer that question? Ms. McMahon, go ahead.

(1010) Mrs. Mary McMahon (Senior Counsel, Legal Services Branch, Canada Revenue Agency) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. For tax purposes, the determination of whether in a particular transaction the parties are dealing at arm's length is a factual decision that's made on the basis of the circumstances at issue. One of the criteria that might be looked at is whether the parties are related to one another, but there are others. This amendment would have the wrong result, because it would deem persons who are unrelated to each other not to be dealing at arm's length.

They may, however, in fact be acting in collusion to provide an inappropriate tax result, so we do not want to have a provision that would deem them to be dealing at arm's length. The Chair : Is that okay, Monsieur Cardin? Is there anybody else on that? I don't mean to pass people over.

Let's go to a recorded division on clause 6. (Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1) The Chair : Clauses 7, 8, and 9 have carried already, so we now go to clause 10. (On clause 10— Charge imposed ) The Chair: Here is where we can start the process that was agreed to earlier in terms of discussing the amendments, including the one on page 5, dealing with clause 10. That's the first of that group. We will now deal with that group in the order agreed upon earlier. Mr. Menzies, please go ahead with CPC-1, which is to clause 10, on page 5. Mr. Ted Menzies : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can repeat the explanation if that's necessary, but it is already read into the record. As stated before, the reason is that Mr. Casey was putting this forward simply as a point of clarification. It's to bring the language in the enabling legislation into line with the actual softwood lumber agreement itself. It's very simple and not controversial at all, in Mr. Casey's estimation. I would concur with that, so I would like to move the adoption of this amendment, if I could, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Menzies. Monsieur LeBlanc. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Menzies has correctly described the Maritime Lumber Bureau's concern with respect to this clause. They simply want to make sure the language of the legislation correctly reflects the language of the agreement. You will note that the Maritime Lumber Bureau's amendment uses exactly the same wording as the first Liberal amendment, L-1. Obviously, if this amendment to clause 10 is passed—and we certainly support it in its entirety—then L-1 would be withdrawn because it is identical to CPC-1 by Mr. Casey. The Chair : Mr. Menzies. Mr. Ted Menzies : Speaking on behalf of Mr.

Casey, I'm sure we would accept that, as both are representing Maritime lumber interests. The Chair : Very good. Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, we're speaking to CPC-1 on page 5, which changes subclause 10(1). What Mr. Menzies' introduction was referring to wasn't clear. Since he had spoken some time before, it is important to clarify that. He is speaking to the amendment that says “Subject to the exclusions provided for in subsection 10.1(1), every person who exports a soft-”.... Is that the amendment he is speaking to? The Chair : It is indeed. And your time has been running for 30 seconds, Mr.

Julian. Go ahead. Mr. Peter Julian : I'm aware of that, Mr. Chair. I like to clarify these things, even if you do punish members who ask questions of the panel or who ask questions of you for clarification. This is legislation that has enormous consequences. We've seen that in clause 6. I think it is to the shame of the committee that 11 of the 12 members did not understand what they were voting on, that essentially what we were doing is taking the legal victories that we had and turning them around into legal language that is actually a net loss for Canada. When we go to clause 10, Mr.

Chair, the NDP has been supporting for some time the Maritime exclusion. We were surprised and dismayed that in the drafting of this bill, as with the other errors that we have already seen in clause 6, an egregious error, clause 10 was very clearly a massive drafting error. There is no doubt about that, in the same way the softwood sellout was done rapidly and poorly and resulted in strong capitulation. We see in Bill C-24 that the drafting was done so rapidly that the Maritime exclusion became a nil-level exemption.

It was something that could have come back later on, because it was included within the text of Bill C-24. And because of the vagueness of the language, it could come back to bite the Maritime lumber industry significantly. So, Mr. Chair, there is no doubt that this needs to be substantially amended; it needs to be fixed. The problem we're having as a committee, Mr. Chair, is that this is only one of a whole host of problems that exist and that the members of the lumber community want to see addressed. The problem is, Mr. Chair, as a committee we're not hearing from any of those.

We've had one day of witnesses, and once those witnesses started to raise these serious concerns, the committee shut down any possibility of having other interventions. Again this morning, with the first nations, shut them down. We don't want to hear from them. The Maritime lumber exclusion is only one of a host of problems with Bill C-24.

(1015) The Chair : Mr. Julian, your time is up. Is there any other debate on this amendment? We will go to the recorded division on this amendment. It is amendment CPC-1, on page 5 of our amendment booklet. I call the question. Ms. Helena Guergis: I abstain. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair : Okay, Mr. Julian. The Liberal amendment has been withdrawn. Amendment NDP-4, which is on page 7 of our amendment booklet...would you like to move that, Mr. Julian, or do you want to skip over it? Mr. Julian, you are correct.

We'll come back to your amendment when we're through the grouping here. So we will now go to the amendment on page 6. Yes, Mr. Julian, on a point of order. Mr. Peter Julian : We may have our differences sometimes, but you were bang on in calling amendment NDP-4, because that is the next amendment that is up. We then move from there to Mr. Casey's and Mr. LeBlanc's amendments, but NDP-4 is the next amendment up. You're absolutely right. The Chair : Mr. Julian, because the Liberal amendment was withdrawn, we actually are on your motion now following the order. You are on your toes, Mr. Julian, so please continue.

Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of your rulings, you are on your toes as well today, though I would appreciate a little more respect for the time allocation. Coming back to this in clause 10, it is an amendment of the initial date that is contained within the softwood agreement and in Bill C-24 . What we have right now, Mr. Chair, is a date set at September 30, 2006. There is no doubt that this date has to be changed. What is the logical date that would need to be put in that is not going to be harmful to softwood communities across the country? Mr.

Chair, what has indeed happened, as we saw with the incredible confusion around mid-October, is that the AD and CV duties continued to be collected at the border in the United States past the “put into effect” date of the softwood lumber agreement. Even though we have not adopted this legislation, it's important for folks to note that this government has just rammed in a deal, even though it's unravelling as we speak. The reality is that this was imposed when the date for the actual putting into effect of the agreement came.

There were two duties being levied, and depending on whom you speak to, that continued for a number of days. As you know, we raised these questions at the committee hearings when the government officials were here, to find out exactly what the last date was that the illegal AD and CV duties were collected. We do not know at this point when those double duty collections actually ended, Mr. Chair.

Because of that, and because of the incredible strain that softwood companies have been under, what we need to do is set a date that actually respects their ability to work through the process, their ability as companies to try to right the wrongs of this egregiously bad agreement. The date that makes sense is the end of October. To this day, we don't know exactly when the AD and CV duty collection ended. We do know when the duty collection started for these self-imposed penalties that are actually higher than the illegal American tariffs. We went from a 10.8% tariff to a 15% tariff overnight, Mr.

Chair, and we saw what the results of that were: thousands of lost jobs. (1020) [ Translation ] In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean regions, and on the North Shore, some 1,700 jobs have been lost in one week alone. Across the country, 4,000 jobs have been lost since this Agreement came into effect. This disastrous result is due to the badly botched... [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian, your time is up. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on NDP-4, which is on page 7 of the package? Ms. Guergis. Ms. Helena Guergis : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We do not support this amendment.

Canada and the United States agreed to change the effective date of the softwood lumber agreement from October 1 to October 12. It is therefore necessary to make several amendments to Bill C-24 to ensure that Canada meets its obligations to collect the charge as of October 12. The proposed amendment would establish November 1 as the effective date when Canada would begin collection of the charge. The government's motion would establish the correct date of October 12. So we do not support this amendment. The Chair : We'll go to the recorded division on NDP-4. Mr. Temelkovski. Mr.

Lui Temelkovski : Is that a subamendment that Madame Guergis just...? The Chair : No, she was just speaking against Mr. Julian's amendment. Mr. Lui Temelkovski : Give us some clarity on the dates, please. The Chair : Who would like to do that? Mr. Seebach. Mr. Dennis Seebach : Thank you, Chair. As has been noted at these committee hearings before, the Government of the United States issued a notice to cease collecting the AD and CV duties at the end of October 11. On October 12, there were no CV and AD duties.

We do have information from our counterparts at United States Customs and Border Protection that on the morning of October 12, a number of duties were collected. They've been isolated and they will be returned 100% to those exporters. It was a matter of timing and getting the notice out to all the border points across the Canada–U.S. border late on October 11, and there were a few mistakes made in the morning of October 12. Our information is that it was the only morning that this instance happened, and those moneys will be returned to the exporters 100%.

(1025) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Seebach. Go ahead, Mr. Temelkovski. You have time. Mr. Lui Temelkovski : If we change this from September 30 to October 31, how will that affect it? Mr. Dennis Seebach : Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would impact it by bringing the entry into force date to November 1, and it would mean that from October 12 to October 31, no export charges would be collected. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Temelkovski.

We will now go to the vote on NDP amendment 4, which is on page 7 of the amendment booklet--a recorded division. (Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1) The Chair : Now we go to government amendment 1, which is on page 8 of the amendment booklet. Go ahead, Ms. Guergis. Ms. Helena Guergis : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course, the government and we on this side support this amendment. It is one of several amendments required to implement the revised effective date for the Canada-United States softwood lumber agreement on October 12. The original effective date for entry into force was October 1.

The extension from the October 1 date was due to the complexities on both sides of the border, in particular with regard to determination of litigation and requests from Canadian industry for more time to complete the legal documentation. The Chair : Thank you, Ms. Guergis. Is there any other discussion on this motion? Go ahead, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Because of the vagueness of how this is worded, I'd like to offer a subamendment, that it be “October 11, 2006, at midnight”. I'll speak to the subamendment. The Chair : Let's just get the amendment again, Mr. Julian. Please repeat it. Mr.

Peter Julian : It is two words: “at midnight”. The Chair : You want to add “at midnight” after the year. Okay. Go ahead and speak to your subamendment, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've had the vagueness around this whole issue of the actual [ Translation ] implementation of the Agreement. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that duties have been collected on Canadian softwood lumber that crossed the boarder after October 2. According to certain rumours, depending on whom you speak to, it was October 13 or 14. In any case, the problem clearly lasted for several days.

Double payments were made, meaning that, once again, softwood lumber companies were penalized. That was not the most effective way to proceed. They have been penalized by this Agreement and they continue to be penalized. They would have been penalized had they agreed to sign the Export Development Canada documents, because we now see that 75 per cent of companies did not sign them and will be receiving... [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian, would you speak to your subamendment, please? [ Translation ] M.

Peter Julian : They are also penalized because of a lack of rigour as regards implementation of the Softwood Lumber Agreement. Because people are still paying double taxation, it will take some time before we know who paid twice — in other words, who paid Canadian tariffs levied against softwood companies and who paid U.S. tariffs, even though they were illegal. So, a specific time will have to be set in order to know to what extent companies were hit with this double taxation. Mr. Chairman, I believe it will take months to make sense of all the problems that have arisen since the Agreement came into effect.

We can't just say it's one day later or one day earlier. A company that delivered its exports at 11:59 p.m. on October 11 and paid twice could say to the government... (1030) [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian, your time is up. Does anybody else want to speak on Mr. Julian's subamendment? We go to the recorded division on Mr. Julian's subamendment. (Subamendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1) The Chair : Now we'll go to the recorded division on the government amendment. Mr. Julian, you have up to three minutes. You don't have to use all the time on the government amendment. Mr.

Peter Julian : I appreciate these little gifts of five and six seconds you're giving me as well, Mr. Chair, despite the closure, although overall, with the five or six seconds and with what you've taken away for asking committee witnesses, I still come out behind. Mr. Chair, this is a pretty fundamental issue. We have companies that paid twice. We don't know how many. We don't know for how many days. We don't know, when we look at the Washington border crossings, the Minnesota border crossings, and the New York State border crossings, to what extent and where those double payments were made.

But if we set it at October 11 and we don't have a precise hour--which will add further legal difficulties, there's no doubt about that--what we are doing is imposing that double tax in a way that is not to the benefit or the advantage of all the companies that have suffered from this botched agreement and this botched bill. We know that companies paid twice. We know that. We don't have the final comprehensive list, because the government didn't have its act together and didn't do the kind of tracking it should have done as this agreement was forced into place. Mr.

Chair, the end result is that companies paid twice. By saying that the duty payments are in effect as of October 11, we are enshrining that double payment for those companies in what I think is an extremely irresponsible way. Mr. Chair, we're forcing them to pay twice. They paid the 10.8% illegal American tariff that was removed by the Court of International Trade as of October 13, and we've seen, as I mentioned last Friday, that Customs and Border Protection is now paying out 100% dollars to Canadian companies that have not filed with the government.

So we have the companies that stayed away from the government now getting those 100% dollars, and we have the companies that signed onto EDC having a double tax, which actually means that they'll be getting about 67¢ back. It's absolutely bizarre and irresponsible, Mr. Chair. Now on top of that double tax that we're imposing through clause 18, we're also looking to impose a double charge: the illegal American tariffs and the 15% self-imposed Conservative capitulation tariffs. We're looking at egregiously poor treatment of softwood companies. October 11 cannot be the date.

I cannot speak in favour of this, because it is absolutely irresponsible. It was irresponsible of the government to impose this. It's irresponsible of the government to set this date.

(1035) The Chair : Mr. Julian, your time is up. Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this government amendment 1, which is on page 8? We'll go to recorded division on government amendment 1. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair : Thank you. We now go to the clause. Does clause 10 as amended carry? Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Actually, the biggest part of the change to clause 10 has yet to be considered by this committee. The Chair : Mr. Julian, I appreciate your leading to a clarification.

That will be clause 10.1, which is considered to be a new clause, so we will vote on clause 10 now. If you follow the agenda, Mr. Julian, you'll see that. Let's go to the recorded division on clause 10 as amended. Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Mr. Julian, you have to vote first. You can't bring a point of order. We're on the recorded division on clause 10 as amended. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, what you have done is added a new section-- The Chair : No, Mr. Julian, you cannot go to anything else until you vote on this. Are you abstaining? Mr.

Peter Julian : No, I will not abstain. But, Mr. Chair, with respect, what we have done is changed these rules of order, the rules of procedure-- The Chair : Mr. Julian, with all due respect, we cannot entertain debate or a point or order or anything until you vote. The rest have voted on this clause as amended, and either you vote, Mr. Julian, or abstain--it's up to you. Mr. Peter Julian : I'm on a point of order, Mr. Chair, in terms of consideration of clause 10. The Chair : You can't be, Mr. Julian. As you know, procedure does not allow for a point of order to be entertained during a recorded vote. Mr.

Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, with due respect, when you've changed the agenda around, as we did in the morning, and now we've changed the consideration of clause 10, we cannot vote on clause 10 having not considered the new clause 10.1; we cannot do that procedurally. (Clause 10 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair : Now, Mr. Julian, we could not discuss that during the vote. The vote is now-- Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, you cannot go over clause 10 and go back to a new clause 10.1. The Chair : Clause 10.1 is actually the next clause. We are creating, should this pass, a new clause.

If you look on the top of page 9, Mr. Julian, legislative counsel--unless you're questioning legislative counsel--have referred to this as a new clause. We have now passed clause 10. It relates to clause 10, but it is a new clause, and that's where.... Now we are going to new clause 10.1. Yes, a point of order, Monsieur LeBlanc. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc : Mr. Chairman, just to be helpful, since we have passed clause 10, under the agenda that Mr. Julian has referred to, consequently we would be on new clause 10.1, which is created by CPC-2, or L-2; they're identical. I would invite you, Mr.

Chairman, to ask somebody to move those amendments.

(1040) The Chair : Except the issue is that we had agreed earlier...we passed a motion that we would go from clause 10 to clause 11--pardon me, the amendments on page 11; let's be clear on that. Yes. Mr. Ted Menzies : If I might, Mr. Chairman, part of that motion said the amendments pertaining to the Atlantic exemption be considered as a group. The Chair : Oh, that actually is correct. So we do then go to 10.1 now. Mr. Ted Menzies : Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Well, thank you. Mr. Ted Menzies : Once again, I'm glad to help. Once again in the absence of Mr.

Casey, and in the spirit of helping a colleague in putting this forward in his place--just to be clear, we are on new clause 10.1 on page 9 of our booklet, so everyone knows exactly where we are. This would be classified as CPC-2. The amendment clarifies precisely the exclusions that were set forth in

article X.1 of the agreement. The Chair : Mr. Menzies, are you going to move the motion? Mr. Ted Menzies : I would like to move the motion. Would you prefer that I move it before I read it? The Chair : Yes, part of moving it wouldn't be reading it. Mr. Ted Menzies : I move the motion. The Chair : Proceed. Mr. Ted Menzies : Shall I read it, or since time is of the essence, should we-- The Chair : Everyone has it in front of them. That's fine. You don't have to read it. Go ahead. Mr. Ted Menzies : Okay, so moved. Thank you. The Chair : Your debate on it, then. Mr. Ted Menzies : I would just like to suggest that this clarifies precisely the exclusions that were set forth in

article X, paragraph 1 of the agreement. Subclause 10.1(1) specifically sets forth the three categories that were excluded from export charges under the softwood lumber agreement. Subclause 10.1(2) defines deemed exports from Atlantic Canada and is moved from subclause 14(2). Subclause 10.1(3) defines deemed exports from the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, and is moved from subclause 15(2). This

section would even be better if the words “Despite

section 10” in the first line of this amendment were deleted. The Chair : Mr. Menzies, you can't amend your own motion; someone else would have to. Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) : I'd be happy to. The Chair : Okay, Brian Jean has moved that it's amended. Just explain the amendment, Mr. Jean, or— Mr. Ted Menzies : If I might explain, this was handed to me by Mr. Casey, and probably I went too far in my explanation of this amendment. I would like to pass the floor over to Mr. LeBlanc to comment on this. The Chair : Okay. Mr. Jean, are you willing to withdraw that? Mr. Brian Jean : Yes.

The Chair : Okay, thank you. Mr. LeBlanc. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc : Mr. Chairman, thank you again, and thank you, Mr. Menzies, for moving that new clause 10.1. Again, this is identical to Liberal amendment 2. Therefore, if this is accepted, obviously Liberal amendment 2 would be withdrawn because it's identical. We would have no problem with supporting Conservative Party of Canada amendment 2. If we want to move directly to that without a subamendment, we would be ready to do so. The Chair : Monsieur Cardin. [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Cardin : Mr. Chairman, we have here amendments CPC-2, L-2 and G-2.

I would like to know the differences between CPC-2 and L-2, as compared to G-2. There don't seem to be many. If there are, however, I would like to know what that implies. Which amendment is best? If we had to choose between the Conservative one and the Liberal one, I suppose we'd have to go with the government one. Madam Parliamentary Secretary, I would like some clarification from the witnesses. (1045) [ English ] The Chair : We'll go to you, Mr.

Julian, but I want to point out before I do that there is a line conflict with CPC-2, which is on page 9 of our amendment booklet, and G-2, which is on pages 12 and 13 of our amendment booklet, just so you're aware of those line conflicts as we debate and vote on this particular issue. Ms. Helena Guergis : Mr. Chair. The Chair : Yes, Ms. Guergis. Ms. Helena Guergis : Mr. Chair, I just want to say that if this amendment passes, the government one will no longer be necessary. The Chair : That clarification is very helpful: G-2 will be withdrawn if CPC-2 passes. Mr.

Julian, you can speak now on CPC-2, which is on page 9 of the amendment booklet. Mr. Peter Julian : Is Mr. Jean withdrawing his subamendment? The Chair : He did, yes. Mr. Peter Julian : I would like to move that subamendment, so I will now speak to the subamendment. The Chair : Perhaps you would explain exactly what subamendment you are putting in place. Mr. Peter Julian : We would remove, at the start, “Despite

section 10”. We thus would say: The following exports of softwood lumber products are excluded from the charge referred to in that section: I will speak to the subamendment. The Chair : Speak to the subamendment, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The problem we're having here is that we're complicating even further clause 10. As we initially talked about, clause 10 was botched in the drafting. We had very clearly, from the text of the softwood lumber agreement, an exclusion of the Maritimes from the provisions of the softwood lumber agreement. That's something that is historical.

That's something that has been established over time. And I think it's fair to say that this is something that all four parties around this table have supported. So having that exemption from the historical litigation that has occurred around softwood lumber over the last few years, and that was only resolved on October 13 with our final victory in the Court of International Trade, that has now led to U.S.

Customs and Border Protection starting to pay back 100% dollars to the companies, which renders Bill C-24 [ Translation ] obsolete, most definitely. [ English ] The historical Maritimes exclusion was not moved from the softwood lumber agreement to Bill C-24 . Now we have a situation where we're endeavouring to fix this.

In a sense, with the wording of both CPC-2 and L-2, which we support in their essentials, we're still in a situation where we're referring back to the clause 10 we have crafted--which is, to say the least, somewhat contradictory in terms of what we have, or what we would be adding, in new clause 10.1. Effectively we're endeavouring to build into that a clause that refers to the specific maritime exclusion--Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador--and also exports from the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut Territory. It's very clear, Mr.

Chair, that this is something that would need to be clarified as well in terms of subamendments. By referring to clause 10 here, I think we would muddy the waters even further. In endeavouring to fix that particular clause by referring back to clause 10--we're now creating new clause 10.1--what we are doing is putting into place a series of building blocks of confusion, a labyrinth. If we are creating new clause 10.1, it stands on its own to refer to the exports of softwood lumber products excluded from the charge, specifically the four Atlantic Canadian provinces and our three northern territories. As Mr.

Jean mentioned when he moved the subamendment, as was right for him to do, by having that wording in there--Mr. Menzies referred to this as well--what we're doing is adding further confusion to the overall thrust of clause 10 and new clause 10.1 and how they interact. I'm concerned about that confusion. I'm concerned about--

(1050) The Chair : Mr. Julian, your time is up. We'll go to Mr. LeBlanc on the NDP subamendment. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc : Mr. Chairman, I hope this doesn't become a pattern, but I agree entirely with Mr. Julian's subamendment. As Mr. Menzies explained at the table...and Mr. Jean was ready to move. So we would certainly support the subamendment, which we believe strengthens new clause 10.1. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair : Anyone else on the subamendment?

Then let's go to a recorded division on the NDP subamendment. (Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair : Now we will go to the vote on the amendment as amended. Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : I'd like to offer a subamendment, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned in our discussion of the previous subamendment on clause 10, to clarify the exclusionary aspects of clause 10.1, we would add to clause 10.1(1) the words “the provinces of” to “Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and Labrador” in paragraph 10.1(1)(a), and the words “the” and “Territory” to “Yukon” and the word “Territory” to “Nunavut” in paragraph 10.1(1)(b). The Chair : Mr. Julian, we're not certain that subamendment is in order. Mr. Peter Julian : I think it is, Mr. Chair, so I'd ask the— The Chair : We need it either in writing or we need you to go through it again.

Mr. Peter Julian : It would be my pleasure to do that. Reading from amendment CPC-2, “That Bill C-24 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 5 the following new clause: 10.1(1) the following exports of softwood lumber products are excluded from the charge referred to in that section: (

a) exports from I would add the words “the provinces of” before “Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and Labrador”, and to paragraph 10.1(1)(

b) the words “the” prior to “Yukon” and “territory” after, and the word “Territory” after “Nunavut”. The Chair : Mr. Julian, are you speaking to that or have you done that? Mr. Peter Julian : I'd be pleased to, Mr. Chair. I haven't spoken to it, but I appreciate your invitation to speak to that. It's an important subamendment and I appreciate your request that I explain it further. This is an important bill, as you know, so every word is important.

Here we're trying to increase the clarity around the particular jurisdictions that are excluded from the softwood agreement and from the charges that are levied in clause 10. We've added a new clause 10.1, and essentially what we need to do is to clarify in a very specific or definitive way what exports “are excluded from”. It has to be something that holds up. As I mentioned earlier in relation to clause 6, what we do will have an impact on how the coalition approaches its next attack on Canadian lumber.

Because of that, the decisions we take today on how to word specific clauses will have an impact on how the coalition puts together its legal case. That's certainly the case for clause 6, which we have adopted. It is equally the case, I would submit, Mr. Chair, for clause 10.1 We are trying to get clause 10.1 and 10 to work. It's much like trying to shove a V8 into a smart car; it's not going to work unless we make sure the space is there to try to put in that engine in a way that makes sense.

What we have been doing here by not referring specifically to the provincial jurisdictions, but in a more general way to areas—Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, or Newfoundland and Labrador—is that we have been leaving open the possibility that the coalition could then come back at us. By referring to the provinces, we're referring to very strict legal

definitions, those that have—

(1055) The Chair : Okay, Mr. Julian, your time is up. Does anybody else want to speak to Mr. Julian's subamendment? Then we'll go to the recorded division on Mr. Julian's subamendment. (Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3) The Chair : I just want to make a comment here. Mr. Julian, if I see subamendments such as the one that you just proposed, which I believe is frivolous, I will rule that way in the future, and I won't allow it to go ahead. That is just a caution, Mr. Julian. We have to deal with some substance here at this committee. Let's now go to the amendment CPC-2 as amended. Go ahead, please, Mr.

Julian, talking to the amendment CPC-2. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm offering another subamendment to the amendment CPC-2. That is in subclause (3): An exported softwood lumber product is deemed to be exported from Yukon, --we should have had more clarity on that, but-- the Northwest Territories or Nunavut if the product underwent its primary processing in one of those territories from softwood sawlogs originating in one of those territories or the state of Alaska.

The Chair : Mr. Julian, I didn't catch the subamendment there. Where was the subamendment? Mr. Peter Julian : It was “or the state of Alaska”. The Chair : The state of Alaska was inserted where, Mr. Julian, just for clarity? Mr. Peter Julian : It was at the end of subclause (3). The Chair : It was after “territories”. Mr. Julian, was it “or the state of Alaska”, or “and the state of Alaska”? Mr. Peter Julian : It was “or the state of Alaska”. The Chair : We need clarification from the witnesses here on that proposed subamendment as to whether you believe it is within the scope of the bill. Mr.

Michael Solursh (Counsel, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) : No, it's not. There is no exclusion provided under the softwood lumber agreement for exports from the state of Alaska. It's solely for the Atlantic provinces, Northwest Territories, Yukon, Nunavut, and excluded companies. That's it. The state of Maine is also on that list.

(1100) The Chair : And the state of Maine. Mr. Julian, your subamendment is out of order. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, with respect, it is not. The Chair : There is no need to vote on that; it's out of order. Let's go ahead with the vote. A point of order, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, it is very much in order. This is something that has substance, and despite your comments about frivolousness, we added over 100 amendments because we take this bill very seriously indeed.

I resent those comments, and I resent your trying to censor what are essentially important aspects to improve this badly botched bill. I challenge your decision, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Mr. Julian, your subamendment is out of order because it's beyond the scope of this bill. We can't go back and renegotiate the softwood lumber deal. We talked about that upfront, I believe. Let's just move on. Mr. Peter Julian : A point of order. I challenge your decision, Mr. Chair.

The Chair : We'll go to a recorded division to sustain the decision of the chair. (Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 10, nays 1) The Chair : The decision of the chair is upheld. Mr. Peter Julian : We will now go to the amendment, with the addition of the subamendment. The Chair : That is correct, Mr. Julian. If you'd like to speak to it, you get three minutes. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. This is something that, in this corner of the committee room, I certainly will be supporting. This is an important fix for what was an egregious error in the drafting of this legislation.

The maritime exclusion is something the NDP has fought for and supported historically. I think it's fair to say that through all of the litigation cases, there has been a certain level of unanimity around the issue of ensuring that maritime lumber is excluded. We have a situation where the wording of this particular clause of the bill is even more important, because the coalition in the United States has signalled that they'll be taking the money that the Canadian government will be giving them, half a billion dollars, and they will be renewing litigation attacks on Canada.

They wouldn't have been able to do that without the half a billion dollars because they were at the end of their ability to fund more legal challenges. But now they have a fresh infusion of cash, half a billion dollars taken right now from Canadian taxpayers. Because of the fact that only 25% of industry has signed on to the EDC deal, the reality is that the moneys the companies are getting paid to them directly now, 100% dollars, are not deducted through U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Those cheques are already starting to go out; the meeting was last Friday, as you know, Mr. Chair.

Thank goodness we didn't ram through this bill on Thursday, because now we know that the cheques have been going out as of Friday, 100% dollars going out to softwood companies because we won on October 13. So now we have a situation in which this badly botched softwood sellout and this badly botched bill are going to complicate the lives of softwood companies considerably. We have to make sure the wording is exact and resist that legal challenge that will come from the coalition. We know that challenge will come. They have half a billion dollars in Canadian funds with which to make it.

So although it has not been improved to the extent that I would feel comfortable, the wording here is certainly better than the initial crafting of the bill that came out. That crafting changed the maritime exclusion to an exemption payment of nil. We had to address that as a committee. We've certainly made some steps—important steps, I think—with both Mr. Casey's and Mr. LeBlanc's amendments that were brought forward. I don't think the government's amendments were as helpful.

But with the addition of that clause 10.1, we certainly will have better protection for maritime lumber, though it's fair to say it's not the complete protection that we need.

(1105) The Chair : Your time is up. We will now go to the vote on CPC-2, as amended, with a recorded division. Ms. Helena Guergis: I abstain. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair : We go to the vote now on clause 10.1. Yes, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to now speak on the new clause 10.1. I think it is still the same confusing way of putting into place the numbering system for these new clauses.

Though I disagree with the way the clause and numbering system is being put together, I do support the principle of what we are adopting. I wanted to speak more specifically about northern areas, particularly the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. I must say that despite the fact that we have improved this aspect of Bill C-24 to a certain extent, we still have a way to go, Mr. Chair. What we have is a situation with the softwood industry that is incipient, to say the least. The Chair : Mr. Julian, I'm going to interrupt you. This is a bit of a different situation.

Because clause 10.1 is a new clause, and we passed the amendment, we are in fact finished with it. We do not actually go to a debate or a vote on clause 10.1. In fact, it would cause problems if we did that, Mr. Julian. We're moving on now. You have a point of order, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, on a point of order, in this case you would have actually been better letting me finish, I think. Here we have an agenda that you told me about when we talked about clause 10, moved immediately to consideration of clause 10. You said that we must follow the agenda as set out in last Thursday's meeting.

Despite the fact that Mr. Menzies' motion ripped apart any possibility of a really effective move to clause-by-clause throughout the bill, we're in a situation now where, if we follow the agenda, we will be moving from the amendments to debate on whether clause 10.1 should carry. Indeed, as you know, Mr. Chair, what you are endeavouring to do is exactly the opposite. We've had one process for clause 10, and we are now going to a completely different process for new clause 10.1. What gives, Mr. Chair? What is the agenda?

How are we trying to move through this extremely complex bill that needs to be improved because it was badly botched in the drafting? There's no doubt, Mr. Chair, that we have work to do on every single clause, but if we change our rules of procedure and how we function in every clause, then what we're going to end up with is just a lot more points of order than the serious kind of consideration that needs to take place on this bill. We moved through clause 10 having discussion on the amendments, and then we moved to debate on whether clause 10 should carry.

We are now--and this is why I'm raising my point of order--moving to clause 10.1, a new clause. According to what is written very specifically in the agenda, we are moving to, “Shall new clause 10.1 carry?” Well, we are doing that without debate. Now, either we are adhering to this agenda that we set up, despite what Mr. Menzies did to rip apart that agenda, or we're not. But we can't have different rules of order and different rules of procedure for each of the clauses as we work through this process. That is my point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We are now going to the amendment on page 22. We can't vote-- Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I have raised a point of order. Could we have a ruling from the head table, please? The Chair : Mr. Julian, in fact.... A ruling on what, Mr. Julian?

(1110) Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, you are changing the agenda. You went through a process on clause 10, and now you are taking what is clearly before us, which is consideration of new clause 10.1, and you're refusing debate. There is debate. There is an alteration; there is a ripping up of the agenda. The Chair : Mr. Julian, I will clarify it for you. The clarification is that we agreed--we passed a motion earlier--to modify the agenda, so now the new agenda is modified. I am in fact sticking to the agenda. Don't interrupt me, please, Mr. Julian. I am speaking now. Mr.

Peter Julian : I'd like a ruling on the point of order, please. The Chair : Mr. Julian, I've already done that. The chair makes these decisions. I get guidance from the people at the table. I have done that, in fact. We are going-- Mr. Peter Julian: [ Inaudible--Editor ] The Chair: Mr. Julian, I will have your microphone cut off if you're not going to respect some order at this committee. We're going ahead now with the amendment on page 22. That is amendment CPC-3. It's Mr. Casey's. Just for clarification, we're not going to go to the vote on the clauses that these amendments affect until later.

We're going to deal with the amendments. We'll go through them--pages 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26--then we'll go back and proceed from the clause that we last had a vote on. Ms. Guergis. Ms. Helena Guergis : Can you clarify for me, Mr. Chair, that the three minutes will be the entire debate, because they're all being debated at once? Is that how it works? The Chair : No, we're not debating them at once, but we are debating them together, in order, starting on page 22. Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we adopted a motion that said we were going to clauses 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11. We are now on clause 11.

The Chair : We were not talking about clauses, Mr. Julian. We were referring to amendments on those pages. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, this is what we adopted. We had that debate two hours ago. As far as I can see, though, we're not obeying any of these agendas. We haven't had a vote on new clause 10.1, we haven't had discussion on new clause 10.1, and we're not even moving to clause 11. [ Translation ] It's total confusion, Mr. Chairman. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian, if you will look at pages 11, 12, and 13, because of the vote on new clause 10.1, those are no longer.... Mr.

Julian, again, maybe the problem is that the motion referred to the page numbers that the amendments are on. We're dealing with those amendments in the order of page number. We're now on page 22, which is CPC-3, which is Mr. Casey's amendment. Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, we are moving to clause 11. That is what we adopted. We had discussion, there was intense confusion around it, and we have subsequently moved to clause-by-clause. The Chair : Mr. Julian, we're no longer discussing this. In fact, we did pass this motion— Mr. Peter Julian : And the motion says we're on clause 11.

The Chair : —and we're going now to page 22. Ms. Guergis, go ahead, please. Ms. Helena Guergis : Mr. Chair, I just wanted to start off by saying that I understand, looking at— Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I challenge your decision. We have a logical sequence. The Chair : We'll go to a recorded vote on the motion. The motion—I should know this by now—says that we sustain the ruling of the chair. It will be a recorded division. (Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 8; nays 1) (On clause 14— Export from Atlantic provinces ) The Chair : Ms. Guergis, please continue.

(1115) Ms. Helena Guergis : Thank you very much. I'm taking a look at both Mr. Casey's and Mr. LeBlanc's amendments, on pages 22 and 23. I do see that they are almost exactly the same, and I'd like to applaud both members for the great work they have done here. But I do have a little concern here. I notice that there might be just a slip of the words. A couple of words seem to be wrong here. I'm looking at the top of Mr.

Casey's, which says: If, during a particular calendar quarter, exports of softwood lumber products from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and Labrador The word “or” is correct, but when I come down to the very bottom of it, at the third line from the bottom, it says “and”. I think someone should be proposing a subamendment to change that to “or”. I see Mr. LeBlanc seems to be in favour of that. I'm looking at his as well, and he has “and” in his two positions. They should read “or” as well.

So I just wanted to express my concerns, but I also wanted to comment that the amendment we put forward on the government side with respect to clause 14 will be withdrawn if this were to pass. The Chair : Thank you, Ms. Guergis. Mr. LeBlanc. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc : Mr. Chairman, I agree with the parliamentary secretary. Mr. Casey and I both seem to have had a little difficulty with respect to this amendment. It should read “or”. Therefore, I would suggest a subamendment to CPC-3, which we're looking at now on page 22.

The third line from the bottom that begins “and Newfoundland and Labrador” should be changed to “or Newfoundland and Labrador”, to be consistent, as the parliamentary secretary said, with the fourth line at the top of that same page. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair : Mr. Julian, on the subamendment. Mr. Peter Julian : I'm just shaking my head, Mr. Chair, about how this is being done. What we have is a badly botched clause 10, which we endeavoured to fix by adding new clause 10.1, which we have not debated as a new clause.

We are now moving to clause 14, and we have amendments that need to be fixed because right now, currently, the way this particular amendment is worded, you would have to have a softwood log product that has been processed in all four provinces before we'd be able to actually have the exclusion that was originally included within the softwood lumber agreement. This is not a way to make legislation in any way. [ Translation ] Mr. Chairman, we can see here that our decisions are making the situation even more confused. That means we are likely to make mistakes that will have serious consequences in the coming years.

With respect to the sub-amendment, if we keep the current wording, the Coalition would most certainly conclude that the four provinces as a whole are not affected. It is impossible, indeed, unthinkable to subject the product to four different steps, in this case, in the four Atlantic provinces. That definitely has to be clarified, to ensure that primary processing occurs in one of the four Atlantic provinces. Mention is also made of the State of Maine, something that is very important to the north, as I mentioned earlier.

The fact is that if we continue to draft wording on the back of a napkin, we will end up making mistakes and people will be harshly criticized subsequently, Mr. Chairman. The wording must be clarified to say that this does not apply to the four provinces as a whole. We need to ensure that a product from Northern New Brunswick or Nova Scotia is subject to the provisions that exclude the Maritimes. So, it is very important to pass this sub-amendment. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian, your time is up. Does anybody else want to speak on the subamendment?

Then we'll go to the recorded division on the Liberal subamendment (Subamendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

(1120) The Chair : We'll now go to the vote on CPC-3 as amended. Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : I propose a subamendment to subclause 14(1). The last three lines would read: shall pay a charge calculated by applying $100 per thousand board feet of exported lumber products to that person's excess shipments. The Chair : That would change the number from $200 to $100 per thousand. Mr. Peter Julian : Yes. The Chair : Can we have comments from the witnesses as to whether that would change the agreement itself? Mr. Michael Solursh : Yes, it would change the agreement.

The agreement provides for a $200 charge on exports in the Atlantic provinces that exceed production in inventory. It's specified in

article XVII of the agreement. To remain consistent with the agreement, it should be a $200 charge, not a $100 charge. The Chair : Yes, it is out of order, Mr. Julian, in fact. I've come to that conclusion. Mr. Peter Julian : I'd like the witness to reference on what page of the agreement it is, for our.... The Chair : A minute left. Mr. Michael Solursh : I don't have the pages listed here, but it's

article XVII, “Anti-Circumvention”, paragraph 5(a). The Chair : Mr. Julian, your time is up. I would like clarification from the witnesses as to whether these changes would change the amount of money that would be paid out by government.

(1125) Mr. Michael Solursh : In order not to circumvent the agreement, it has to be a $200 charge, not a $100 charge. The Chair : I was asking about whether that could require more expenditure on the part of government. If so, that would mean, of course, that the subamendment is out of order. Mr. Michael Solursh : I can't answer if it would require more expenditure. But obviously it would require expenditure because it would lead to a potential dispute. To defend disputes would require government expenditure if we are defending a charge. So in that respect, it would increase expenditure. The Chair : All right.

A minute, Mr. Julian, please. Okay, Mr. Julian, your subamendment is in order and you have spoken to it. Let's go to the.... Yes, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : This is absurd. The subamendment is in order and you're saying I can't speak to it. The Chair : You already have, to some extent. Mr. Peter Julian : I haven't spoken to it. What we've had is clarification from the panel. We know now that this is in order. As a result of that, I would like to speak to it now that it has been found to be in order, and I thank you for that. I think this gets to the crux of what we are doing here today, Mr.

Chair, which is to try to endeavour to lessen the series of penalties that are imposed upon Canadian softwood producers right across the board: eighteen months in prison for countermanding in any way Bill C-24 ; exceptional powers to go in and interfere with directors of companies and to interfere with trust funds they may have set up at any time in their lives. These are all issues that are front and centre in how we approach Bill C-24.

Now we have a situation where in the agreement itself we have simply, and I'll state it for the record: “Canada shall retroactively” impose on the entities or entities responsible for any excess shipments from the Maritimes a charge equal to “$C X, where X is determined according to the following formula”. The formula-- The Chair : Okay, Mr. Julian, your time is up. Did anybody else want to speak on that? We will now go to the recorded division on Mr. Julian's subamendment. (Subamendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1) Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, are we now on consideration of the amendment itself?

The Chair : That is correct. I was coming to that, Mr. Julian. I am running the meeting. We are now going to the amendment as amended. We will go to the vote on that. Go ahead, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad to actually have the opportunity to speak to the clause 14 amendments--CPC-3--with the subamendments that we have adopted from Mr. LeBlanc. That is helpful, because from the way the amendment was originally crafted, what we ended up with was a situation in which primary processing had to happen in four provinces before the calculation could be made.

It was obviously not in the interests of the maritime lumber industry. The subamendment that we have adopted helps to clarify exactly what the primary processing has to be, but we still end up with this punitive charge on maritime lumber. It is an extremely tight margin for maritime lumber. In the case that you have an aggregate of total production in a calendar quarter such that total inventory is exceeded, we have this excessive punitive charge that is levied against maritime lumber. I don't see how any representative from the Maritimes could vote for it. We have to reduce that charge.

It's very clearly a formula that's set out in the agreement, but the percentage numbers are set out as an appendix--not in the agreement itself, where there is simply provision for a formula. That's an important thing to note, Mr. Chair. We have to approach this whole issue very carefully to ensure that we're not penalizing the maritime lumber industry in the way that we're penalizing the industry elsewhere in the country. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Chair; this is a punitive bill. This is a bill that bullies and cajoles the lumber industry across the country.

It's important to note that only 25% of the industry has actually signed on to EDC; 75% said no way, including Canfor Corporation. Canfor Corporation has not signed on to the EDC process. That must raise serious questions, Mr. Chair, when you have 75% of the industry not going through EDC to get their 67-cent dollars, when they can go directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and get, as we saw last Friday, 100% dollars because of the win on October 13 in the Court of International Trade. That win has forced the hand of Customs and Border Protection, and now those moneys are starting to flow.

Those first cheques from Customs and Border Protection are going directly to the softwood companies. We're penalizing them in a wide variety of ways. Why would we penalize the maritime lumber industry for moving just notionally above what their actual aggregate sum of total production and total inventory is? We're putting handcuffs on them. Why? We won in the Court of International Trade. There's no reason to do this when we have, as we know, a Court of International Trade ruling that says all of the unliquidated entries must be liquidated, which is what U.S.

Customs and Border Protection is doing--making those payments directly now, in 100% dollars. We're putting a straitjacket on the maritime lumber industry, imposing a punitive charge that is completely inappropriate. It's hard to say what we should do now, Mr. Chair. We have a situation in which we have an amendment that penalizes severely the maritime lumber industry. It shouldn't. It doesn't have to. We have the court judgment--

(1130) The Chair : Mr. Julian, you're out of time. We will now stand that amendment as amended for now. We now go to number 26, which is out of order. The motion is to withdraw, which is out of order. You vote down the clause if you'd like to remove the clause. Now we can go back to the vote, then, on our amendment. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : With respect, I do not know how you are proceeding. You are not obeying the rules of procedure that were distributed last Thursday. You are not obeying the resolution that was adopted this morning. I do not understand how you are proceeding.

If you are proceeding according to your own logic, could we have a paper that indicates how you are choosing to proceed, because you are off on both of them? The Chair : I'll explain once again, Mr. Julian, which I've done, but I will do it again. We have completed the debate on page 22. On the amendments I've been speaking about, pages 23, 24, and 25 have been withdrawn or dealt with in one fashion or another. Page 26 is out of order, Mr. Julian. We are now going to the vote on the amendment, as amended, on page 22. Mr. Peter Julian : I did not hear Mr. LeBlanc withdraw his amendment, and I did not hear Ms.

Guergis. The Chair : He did, Mr. Julian. He in fact did that explicitly. We have done this. We are now going to the recorded division on amendment CPC-3, as amended. Ms. Helena Guergis: I abstain. (Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

(1135) The Chair : Yes, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : As it's 11:35, I'd like to move an adjournment. The Chair : Mr. Julian, you're putting forth a motion to adjourn. It contradicts the motion we passed at the last meeting that governs our procedure here today. Let's proceed. We are going to stand the vote on clause 14 and we're going back to page 14 of the amendments. We are now on page 14, amendment NDP-5. (Clause 14 allowed to stand) (On clause 11-- Export from a region ) The Chair: Mr. Julian, do you wish to move the amendment? Mr. Peter Julian : It's a point of order, Mr. Chair.

When you say we're standing the vote, you are also standing debate. The Chair : Yes. Mr. Peter Julian : We adopted a motion this morning that it would be debated and voted on individually. What that means is you are standing debate for clause 10.1 and clause 14. When we come back to those clauses, we will debate those clauses and we will then go to a vote on those clauses. The Chair : Yes, Mr. Julian, that is in fact correct, just on the clause, because we haven't had the debate on the clause. When I call for the vote, Mr. Julian can choose to debate it for three minutes.

That is just on the clause--clause 14, I believe it is. Mr. Julian, do you wish to move NDP amendment 5, which is on page 14 of the package dealing with clause 11? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, since we are jumping all over the place, I hope you will provide me with some consideration to zip through these many amendments and these many clauses. The Chair : Mr. Julian, the clock is ticking. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I asked for consideration to find my place and I was awaiting you, in a very polite, respectful way. I will start now.

(1140) The Chair : I've just started the clock. Mr. Peter Julian : On Bill C-24 , clause 11, what we have is a series of rates and punitive charges that are applied to softwood companies. On October 13, the United States Court of International Trade ruled on the softwood dispute. It was something, of course, Mr. Chair, that the Canadian government endeavoured to prevent, unbelievably. It endeavoured to intervene in a court of law to stop Canada from winning.

Here is the judgment that was delivered on October 13 by Justice Restani, Justice Barzilay, and Justice Eaton in the Court of International Trade in New York City. Accordingly, all of Plaintiffs’ --that's Canadians-- unliquidated entries, including those entered before, on, and after November 4, 2004, must be liquidated in accordance with the final negative decision of the NAFTA panel. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Mr. Chair, what we have is a final victory in the Court of International Trade. It is an enforceable decision, and we have seen, Mr. Chair, that U.S.

Customs and Border Protection are now paying out 100% dollars to Canadian softwood companies. We have the judgment that completely obliterates any need, if ever there was one, to capitulate as we did this summer in the softwood lumber agreement, reflected in Bill C-24 . We have a legal case that is binding and is allowing those moneys to come back into Canada now, and what we are considering here is the imposition of punitive taxes. It's absolutely unbelievable, Mr.

Chair, that we would impose on our softwood industry punitive tariffs when we know that we have won in the Court of International Trade and we know that Customs and Border Protection in the United States, despite the government's pretensions that it would take two years to make those payments, is actually making the payments now. It started last Friday. Those first cheques went out. Why are we penalizing our softwood industry? Why are we insisting that somehow they have to pay these punitive self-imposed tariffs when we know very well that we do not have to do this? We have seen massive job losses, Mr.

Chair, in the last few weeks--nearly 4,000 jobs have been lost across this country--because these punitive tariffs mean lost jobs. This was a badly botched negotiation. It was unnecessary. We won in a court despite the fact that the Canadian government intervened to stop us from getting the remedy. We have no reason to impose this penalty and we should act accordingly. The Chair : Your time is up on this. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on Mr. Julian's amendment, that is, NDP-5? Ms. Guergis. Ms. Helena Guergis : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to label this amendment as a “waste of our time” amendment. This actually goes against the core of the agreement. We do not support it. It would eliminate the export charge, which of course is one of Canada's obligations under the agreement. If the officials have anything to add to that, they can. The Chair : No, it doesn't look like they do. Let's go to the recorded division then on Mr. Julian's amendment, NDP-5, on page 14 of the amendment booklet. (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair : Mr. Julian's amendment NDP-5 is defeated. We now go to NDP-6, on page 15. Go ahead, Mr.

Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So we won. We won on October 13. We do not need to impose these penalties. We do not need to give away a billion dollars, and this is where I would disagree with the parliamentary secretary. The Chair : We're dealing with the motion. Have you moved your motion? Go ahead and do that, please. Mr. Peter Julian : I move NDP-6. The Chair : Good. Go ahead.

(1145) Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you for clarifying that. This is an issue of the giveaway that does not need to happen. It is a giveaway that, because of the government's botching of this particular agreement, taxpayers will have to pick up. Essentially we have a situation in which only 25% of companies have signed on to this badly botched deal. It's incredible, Mr. Chair. And yet we are penalizing them for reference prices. We are penalizing them at the border. We are imposing export taxes that mean lost jobs and value-added production, not in Canada but in the United States.

Every single clause here, as it stands, means lost jobs: in northern British Columbia; in the interior and on the coast of B.C.; in northern Alberta; in northern Saskatchewan; as we've seen with the closures that have occurred already, in northern Manitoba, where I'll be going next week to speak to softwood workers; in northern Ontario, where I was last week speaking to softwood workers in softwood communities, as well as to the mayor of Thunder Bay, about the implications of this atrociously bad bill, the result of an incredibly botched negotiation. [ Translation ] People in Northern Quebec, the Abitibi, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and on the North Shore have lost jobs because of this Agreement.

The Government of Quebec cannot intervene. If it did, anti-circumvention provisions would mean that it would be sued by the Coalition. Here we have an amendment that would allow us to reduce all the costs, the tariffs that are being levied against our softwood lumber industry. If members vote in favour of this amendment, we will save the jobs that we are currently losing in Northern Quebec, in Ontario and British Columbia, as well as across the Prairies — in Saskatchewan. for example. Job losses due to this Agreement are considerable. Mr.

Chairman, we have a responsibility to take action and put an end to the government's irresponsible behaviour. It seeks to impose a tariff on our own industry which is worse than the illegal tariff. That one was 10.8 per cent. Now we're talking about a 15 per cent tariff. It's absolutely disgusting. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian, your time is up. Would anybody else like to speak to NDP amendment 6? Yes, Mr. Breitkreuz. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) : Mr. Chair, I have to correct one of the inaccuracies here, a blatant error on the part of the previous speaker,Mr. Julian.

In the northern part of my riding, the mill has in fact now been purchased by another company because they see the opportunities. So I think you should keep up to speed on what's happening in the industry. They see the new opportunities, and what you have just said is totally inaccurate. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Thank you. We will now go to the vote, to the recorded division on NDP-6, page 15 of the amendment package. (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair : Okay, now we'll go to the vote on clause 11. Mr. Peter Julian : A point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Yes, Mr. Julian. Mr.

Peter Julian : We have put aside votes and debate on 10.1 and on clause 14. Now we are coming back to clause 11, and instead of standing the debate and adoption of the clause-- The Chair : Mr. Julian, I'll clarify what you just said. We did in fact vote on clause 10.1. In fact, we have the recorded division on clause 10.1. Mr. Peter Julian : No, the recorded division was on clause 10. The Chair : Mr. Julian, as I explained before, we do not vote on clause 10.1, because the full content of clause 10.1 was the amendment, as amended. That is correct, and we have done that, Mr. Julian.

We're going to vote on clause 14 when we arrive at that point. We're doing them in order. We are now going to the recorded division on clause 11. Do you want to debate clause 11, or should we go directly to the recorded division, Mr. Julian?

(1150) Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have not had the debate and adoption of clause 10.1. We did that on clause 10. We have not had the debate and adoption of clause 14 either. The Chair : Mr. Julian, I've explained that. if you want to challenge the chair, let's get it over with and let's move on. We have done it. Mr. Peter Julian : I am suggesting, Mr. Chair, that we have to be consistent about how we're approaching these amendments. The Chair : On the advice of the clerks, Mr. Julian, we have been and that is done with. We are now going to a recorded division on clause 11. Mr.

Peter Julian : This is absolutely absurd. This is a travesty, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Mr. Julian, if you wish to vote, vote now. If you want to bring a point of order afterwards, we'll do that. We cannot have a discussion or a point of order during a vote. Now, please vote. Mr. Peter Julian : The vote was called when I had clearly signalled that I wanted to intervene on clause 11. You cannot continue to bulldoze your way through this bill. (Clause 11 agreed to [See (Minutes of Proceedings) ] (On clause 12--

Definitions ) The Chair : We are now going to clause 12 and Bloc amendment BQ-2 on page 16. Mr. Peter Julian : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could the head table please tell us exactly how many clauses have not received final debate and a final vote at this point? The Chair : Mr. Julian, we've done that. All clauses have been voted on up to clause 12. We're now dealing with clause 12. There is an amendment to clause 12 that is a Bloc amendment. If Mr. Cardin would like, he can move the Bloc amendment to clause 12, which is BQ-2, on page 16 of the amendment booklet. [ Translation ] Mr.

Serge Cardin : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you can see, this isn't particularly complicated. We are simply trying to ensure that the French and English versions match, so that the text is easier to understand. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Monsieur Cardin. Monsieur LeBlanc. [ Translation ] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc : Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with Mr. Cardin. This amendment does bring the English version in line with the French version. We intend to support amendment BQ-2. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : I would like to move a subamendment, Mr.

Chair, that the words read “incurred in the placement aboard any conveyance”, and I will speak to that. The Chair : Go ahead, please. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Referring to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary --which, they state, is the “world's most trusted” dictionary--the word “any” as a pronoun is defined thus: used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many. That's the first definition given. The second definition is this: whichever of a specified class might be chosen. And then the adverb is defined this way: at all; in some degree.

Again, what we have here in this particular clause is loose language, language that doesn't get the job done. As we've seen with the Maritimes exclusion, and certainly as we've seen with the definition of “related persons”, the changing of one word can make an enormous difference in what the legal outcomes are. For this particular bill, the decision to not make the language as tight as it needs to be puts us in a situation whereby, again, we could be looking at provoking litigation. As Mr. Pearson said very clearly last Tuesday, the lack of clarity and the loose language is going to provoke litigation.

And as he testified, the litigation would commence almost immediately. Mr. Chair, we're in a situation whereby if we choose the wrong word, we are not helping our cause. We've done it now in a number of other clauses. In this particular case, I'm offering the subamendment “any” because of the definition offered by the Oxford dictionary--namely, “one or some of a thing or number of things”. So when we're talking about conveyances here, I don't believe it's appropriate to refer to it as “the” conveyance or “a” conveyance. Rather, it should be “any” conveyance, since that better reflects the language that's needed--

(1155) The Chair : Okay, Mr. Julian, your time is up. Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak to Mr. Julian's subamendment? Monsieur Laforest. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain) : I just wanted to say that this sub-amendment is inconsistent with the amendment the Bloc Québécois has already proposed, which in fact clarified matters. I think this one only complicates matters even more. I intend to vote against it.

The Chair : Thank you. [ English ] Let's go to a recorded division on the NDP subamendment to the Bloc amendment. (Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1) The Chair : We will now go to the Bloc amendment.... Mr. Julian--surprise--go ahead. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this. Although Monsieur Cardin has quite rightly said this amendment improves the language in English, it is important to note that we could have improved it even more.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “the” as: denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge; the definite

article used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique; with a unit of time, the present; and the informal is used instead of a possessive. It's used with a surname in its plural form to refer to a family or a married couple. It's used to point forward to a following qualifying or defining clause or phrase. They note in the Oxford English Dictionary that chiefly with rulers and family members with the same name it's used after a name to qualify it. It's used to make a generalized reference rather than identifying a particular instance.

Pronounced stressing is used to indicate that someone or something is the best known or most important of that name or type. It's used adverbially with comparatives to indicate how one amount or a degree of something varies in relation to another. Usually “all the” is used to emphasize the amount or degree to which something is affected. If we go back to the definite

article denoting one or more people or things, as I mentioned, I would disagree that even though “the” is certainly better than the initial language used, it's certainly not as good as the subamendment we had offered on “any”. As a result of that, Mr. Chair, I think it's important to say this is a slight movement along a continuum that we have to pay more attention to. Every word in this agreement, every word in this bill, has implications down the road for us.

As with giving away $1 billion, as with penalizing and destroying thousands of softwood jobs—4,000 since the agreement was rammed into place—if it's not a clear sign that this is a bad deal and a bad bill, I don't know what is. Because every word has importance and every word can potentially be used by the coalition to justify litigation against us in the future, we have to make sure every word counts. I believe that “any” was certainly an improvement on the definitive

article “the”.

(1200) The Chair : Mr. Julian, your time is up. Is there any other debate on amendment BQ-2 on page 16 of the amendment package? We'll then go to the recorded division. (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair : We now go to amendment L-3, on page 17 of the package. Mr. LeBlanc. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am moving amendment L-3. Mr. Chairman, as colleagues will know, and we've talked about this at a number of our hearings, this deals with the independent lumber remanufacturers, companies that are in every part of the country, in Atlantic Canada and across the country.

Some of the larger ones, for example, are in western Canada and Alberta. They buy lumber on the open market and remanufacture the lumber to add value to it. So they have a unique circumstance with respect to exporting to the United States because they do not themselves harvest lumber or operate sawmills. They are independent, meaning they remanufacture, add value and create jobs to lumber that is sold on an open market. The intent of amendment L-3 is simply to...we view it as a way to provide a definition of “independent remanufacturer” in the legislation.

The bill does not itself define what is an “independent remanufacturer”. In the softwood lumber agreement, however, Canada and the United States have agreed to a definition. So we simply wanted to add the definition of what is an independent remanufacturer, as contained in the agreement, into the legislation. For example, I know the parliamentary secretary will be happy that the date, October 11, 2006, has been inserted as the effective date, to be consistent again with the agreement. With respect to “associated p