Evidence of meeting #33 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was companies.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I know you're close together there, but could I encourage both of you to actually go through the chair?
The information will be provided to the committee, not to Mr. Julian. If you go through the chair, it makes it a little easier to handle that.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The reference would be helpful in a case where the act isn't the size of a telephone book. The exact wording would be helpful.
10:25 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Policy Directorate, Canada Revenue Agency
We can certainly provide you with the actual provisions that concur with section 89 of this act.
10:25 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Policy Directorate, Canada Revenue Agency
You're welcome.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
For the time being, I would like to deal with section 999 and section 111 that Mr. André has referred to.
In both cases, those provisions will allow the minister to make decisions without consulting the provinces. It is then clear to me that this aspect of the bill should be improved, because there is no obligation to consult Quebec, British Columbia and other provinces.
Please tell me if I am mistaken.
I'd like to come back to the lumber remanufacturers.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, what clause in the agreement is Mr. Julian referring to?
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm referring to subclause 99(1), on the actual payments and administrative charges that the minister can decide upon on his own.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I referenced the same clause that Mr. André referenced. It will be in the blues.
Coming back to lumber remanufacturers, there is no definition of “lumber remanufacturer” in the act. In fact, when we talk about the issue of related parties that is in clause 6, we've had a custom—and Canada has actually fought for this under the WTO and NAFTA—that related persons are deemed as unrelated when they treat each other as if they are unrelated. In this clause, for the purpose of this act, we have a specific definition that is certainly not in Canada's interests: that “related persons are deemed not to deal with each other at arm’s length” regardless of whether or not they have traditionally treated each other as if they were unrelated. So I'd like you to comment on that.
Also, under clause 25, there's no appeal process for lumber remanufacturers. What would be the appeal process if the minister decided to punish many of the lumber remanufacturers that have opposed this deal? What is their process of appeal if the minister does not accept their application?
I would like to go as well—
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Could you allow the witnesses to respond to one at a time? It makes it a lot easier for everybody involved.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Certainly, Mr. Chair. I'll leave those questions and come back.
10:30 a.m.
Counsel, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
If I may, Mr. Chairman, with respect to clause 99 and the absence of a requirement to consult, my colleagues have indicated that consultations are ongoing with the provinces with respect to several matters, including allocation eligibility criteria and eventual payments. Those consultations with the provinces will continue for some time. The regulations to establish the basis for those payments have not been drafted, and they won't be drafted until the federal government has had an opportunity to complete its consultations with the provinces.
The payments would not be made, in any event, until the conclusion of at least the first year under the agreement. There may be other arrangements. I haven't been part of discussions as to whether there might be payments made more frequently than annually. If one were to take the example of arrangements that were made under the 1996 softwood lumber agreement and the 1986 MOU between Canada and the United States, Canada made obligations to make payments to the provinces in a similar way.
In 1996 there was no legislation establishing that requirement. However, it was done in an orderly fashion in consultation with the provinces. In respect of the 1996 agreement, this was accomplished. Since there wasn't legislation, it was done by way of contribution agreements between the federal government and the four covered provinces.
Under the legislation that implemented the 1986 MOU between Canada and the United States, there was a requirement that was very similar to the arrangement under clause 99. That arrangement was actually implemented in consultation with the provinces. The provinces expect that. Officials in the departments that will be implementing the legislation are fully prepared and on track to do that consultation, regardless of the fact that the clause is silent on any such requirement.
So all that to say that despite the silence with respect to requiring consultation, it is a part of the practice. It has been under two previous agreements, and it will be under the proposed legislation.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I don't really have anything more to add. We've had an extensive discussion.
I guess the only point I would reiterate is that we have not received any concerns from provinces regarding the lack of that reference. I think that's primarily because we're already consulting. We're very much into the process that people want to ensure is going on with an amendment. I don't think I can add anything more to that one.
If I may move then to the lumber remanufacturer question and definition, I will ask my colleagues to address that question.
10:35 a.m.
Manager, Softwood Lumber, Canada Revenue Agency
Thank you very much.
First of all, you were discussing the definition for “related persons” as it pertains to remanufacturers. That definition is not applicable.
As I mentioned earlier, we administer the provisions of annex 7C of the agreement. To be deemed a certified independent remanufacturer, those criteria reference an “associated person”, not a “related person”. The associated person is defined in the agreement; it's not in the legislation.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I do, Mr. Chair. I don't want to monopolize the time, but if the rest of the committee is willing to allow me to ask a few more questions, I will.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I'm a brief visitor to this committee, but on other committees I've been on.... Let me put it this way: Is it the practice of this committee that if there are no questions from other parties in the allotted time that the unused time would go to whichever party wanted to continue asking? Is that the practice of the committee?
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Absolutely, and it has been on every committee I've been on, where if you continue to go around and if parties choose not to be involved, then the parties that want to can continue until the time is up or something else stops the process.