Bill C-24 (Historical)

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006

An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence

The purpose of this enactment is to implement some of Canada’s obligations under the Softwood Lumber Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, by imposing a charge on exports of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States and by amending certain Acts, including the Export and Import Permits Act. The charge on exports will take effect on October 12, 2006 and will be payable by exporters of softwood lumber products. The enactment also authorizes certain payments to be made.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't think 60 seconds for our softwood industry is asking too much. Obviously the government would disagree with me on that, but that will be something that softwood communities will be able to judge in the next few months.

Currently within Bill C-24, among the many onerous provisions that we are railroading through, ramrodding through without scant consideration, we are asking companies to keep records for six years. For these companies that already have the administrative burdens, already have the punitive taxes, the double taxation that has been adopted in clause 18, despite warnings, very clear warnings to the committee, the punitive taxes that they're paying at the border, and the fact that a whole host of amendments that would have improved this legislation have been refused, we have here a situation where we're requiring these companies to keep six years of records. This amendment I've moved, amendment NDP-31, would ask that the records be retained for half that period.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

First off, Mr. Chair, I'd like to see that motion in writing. Secondly, this very clearly overrides the powers that were given to this committee when Bill C-24 was assigned to it.

There were very clearly no rules enforcing the limited period of time, a few scant seconds, in order to cast the vote. I'm assuming that this means--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, Mr. Chair, but if you would give me a moment's consideration....

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm moving amendment NDP-20.

As we're going through at this breakneck pace of sixty seconds a clause, we're forgetting what's actually happening to the softwood companies out there. Currently under this legislation, in a case where there's a discrepancy of less than $2, the amount owing by the person is deemed to be nil. We are suggesting that amount should be raised to $100.

The obligations of this bill are incredibly heavy and onerous on softwood companies. The punitive actions—18 months in prison if you don't obey the law under Bill C-24—are completely irresponsible. It is a draconian bill by any stretch of the imagination. Very clearly, the only two people we called on to be witnesses outside of the government attested to that, and then we shut down debate. We shut down hearings. We shut down any possibility of folks actually getting to comment on this bill. We need to have it raised to $100--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, your comments, with respect, are completely inappropriate. Sixty seconds is not an adequate time, regardless, when we're dealing with the complexity of a bill such as Bill C-24. Under no circumstances is sixty seconds adequate, and you know that as well as I do.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it's not particularly clear, since we are told that it has to go to the Minister of National Revenue.

But in the Bill, it doesn't say “the Minister of National Revenue”; it says “file with the Minister”, and nothing more. As a general rule, Bill C-24 refers to the Minister of International Trade, whereas here, it just says “the Minister”.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Well, I'm speaking against this subamendment, Mr. Chair.

Here, again, we have the punitive aspects of Bill C-24. We're taking sixty seconds for each of the 110 clauses that are in this bill. It's absolutely absurd. And now we have this subamendment that would essentially allow the Minister of International Trade to forward information to the Ministry of Revenue. We're talking about companies that have already been penalized and beaten up year after year. We now come to the point where this very punitive, draconian, dictatorial, mean-spirited regime is imposed on them, and what we are doing is forwarding information between the Ministry of International Trade and the Ministry of Revenue. It does not make sense, particularly given the punitive measures that we'll be going through later on this evening, punitive measures, case after case--18 months in jail for people who are just trying to run a softwood business. It's absolutely absurd.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we go on this hell-bent, sixty-second-a-clause, rapid run through Bill C-24, never before seen in parliamentary history, we have to realize that each of these clauses has substantive import and importance to the softwood companies that are going to have to deal with each of these clauses that are being run through at unprecedented breakneck speed.

I've offered a subamendment to ensure that ministerial information or information going to the minister is kept confidential. The type of reporting is extremely onerous. Many people testified this summer that the administrative burden around Bill C-24 was absolutely appalling. Not only was it not viable for a business, but the administrative weight caused additional charges. So they have to know that the information is kept confidential--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, despite the ramrodding through of this legislation, each clause in Bill C-24 has an impact on softwood companies, on mom-and-pop operations right across the country. We're not making it easy for them to make any sort of viable business. We know that the softwood sellout itself is not commercially viable. There is a whole host of clauses that are retroactive to these companies, and as every single witness who appeared before this summer who actually is involved in the industry said, it is not commercially viable when things are retroactive. We have to make things simpler and easier for the softwood companies, and one of the ways to do that is to ensure that they get effective and adequate notice from the minister. That can only happen by registered mail. Notify a person in writing, how? Drop a letter in the mail and assume that it gets to somebody? With registered mail, we know that the party involved has received the notice from the minister. And we have to make it easier for the softwood companies.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through this comical circus it is actually supposed to be called due clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24, and we haven't had that. What we've had is a bit of a kangaroo court, ramming through amendments that are going to hurt lumber remanufacturers in British Columbia and the softwood industry, particularly those companies that were so cash short they had to sign up to the EDC. That's only 25% of the companies, but nonetheless they're important.

Here we have a situation in clause 24 where the minister notifies of cancellation, but without any real substantial direction. In our amendment we're saying it has to happen by registered mail. Essentially we are saying that this egregiously bad bill, which is being rammed through at lightning speed without due consideration, has to be changed.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

This is absolutely incredible. I thought I'd seen it all, but I haven't. I've seen a government that is hell-bent on driving the softwood industry right over the cliff, without any attention to any of the details. There's the poor drafting of Bill C-24, and there is the shutting off of television cameras so the public can't be aware of what this government is doing, with the assistance of two opposition parties. That's something I can certainly understand, because if the public knew what this government was doing, there'd be an even greater cost, in British Columbia particularly.

What we have is a bad bill that is being made worse by the lack of attention to detail by members of this committee, who are ramming through amendments that make it even worse than it was before.

For Bill C-24, clause 24, amendment NDP-17, which I move, we add that “registered mail” should be added to the cancellation and effective dates so they're not simply set by fiat of the minister; they are set by registered mail.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much. We're on the same wavelength now, Mr. Chair. I hope that continues.

This amendment amends Bill C-24 in clause 18 by adding after line 12 on page 14 the following:

It does not include the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006.

As we heard from Elliot Feldman in the one day of testimony this committee held.... Even though literally a dozen organizations from across the country indicated they wanted to testify in this committee, all of them were refused. The only two who were able to appear were Mr. Pearson and Mr. Feldman.

Mr. Feldman made it very clear that due to poor drafting in this bill we end up including end-match lumber, not excluding it. What we end up doing--in the same way as with the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers and the issue of tenure that we have just stomped all over in a most irresponsible way; in the same way that we have repudiated the traditional Canadian interpretation of what constitutes related or unrelated persons, which has crucial consequences after going through many WTO and NAFTA rulings--is saying that what the Americans decide is okay with us.

So the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006, effectively includes in this agreement end-match lumber. No one who is paying their due diligence to this bill would include end-match lumber when the traditional position of Canada and the provinces has been to exclude end-match lumber.

What are we doing with this? Are we simply throwing caution to the wind and adopting these motions holus-bolus without proper thought to the consequences? Are we actually taking that little bit of testimony we agreed to hear from Mr. Feldman, who said to be careful and don't include end-match lumber, that that would be irresponsible...? He suggested in his testimony that we include an amendment that says very specifically it does not include the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006. This is something that members on all four corners of the table should support, because it just makes sense. It ensures that end-match lumber is not included--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I very eagerly would like to debate it, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.

I'll be sitting in from time to time, Mr. Chairman, so thank you for recognizing me in this clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-24.

I should point out, Mr. Chairman, it's unique--to me--to have time limits of three minutes put on motions, amendments, subamendments. We are probably setting history, to some degree, in having such a narrow limitation and opportunity to debate motions that can be, I'm sure we would all agree, complex in their nature.

The second thing that's novel, by way of introduction of my remarks on government amendment G-5, is that we're in a televised room but the television cameras don't seem to be following the debate.

Can I ask, from a point of clarification, if this meeting is televised or if it isn't, Mr. Chairman?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This gets back to the complete lack of clarity as we ram through, clause by clause, hell-bent, no matter what the consequences are. We've just given up on independent lumber remanufacturers by giving up on tenure. We have given up on the traditional Canadian support of the definition of who are related or unrelated persons. Here in this particular clause, though we support very much the intent of the Maritime lumber exemption, it is very clear that the wording needs to be tightened.

We had a subamendment offered that would help to address to a certain extent the issue of what indeed constitutes effective wording for Maritime lumber exports. We have New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or Newfoundland and Labrador. The original wording was that you had to have primary processing in all four of those provinces in order to qualify under the Maritime exclusion. Very clearly, Mr. Chair, we're seeing a bill that needed to be changed, with problems that were very significant.

Though I'm happy we are addressing one small part of what is a pretty irresponsible piece of legislation, the reality is that the decisions we're making in all of these other clauses have the same kind of impact we're seeing in clause 14 and in clause 10.

Why would we endeavour to fix clause 10 and clause 14 and not endeavour to fix errors that are even greater in other parts?

When the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association ask to come before committee, they are refused; when they ask that tenure be considered on a B.C. basis, and not as defined in Ottawa, we refuse that; this committee just rams through essentially amendments that are appallingly irresponsible as far as the lumber remanufacturers are concerned.

We have here in clause 14 some improvements, some redress. But I cannot stress enough to members of this committee, Mr. Chair, that we as a committee have to realize that the errors that are in the maritime lumber exemption, which should have been an exclusion, are errors that are repeated elsewhere in this particular bill, and they're even worse in other sectors.

We address it part of the way by addressing the subamendment that was adopted earlier, but by no means do we address the entire issue of the mistakes, if you like, or errors in drafting that took place with Bill C-24. It was done far too rapidly. It needed to be addressed, as parliamentarians should be addressing—

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As folks read these transcripts, which will be distributed across the country, particularly to lumber remanufacturers in British Columbia and elsewhere, it will be interesting for them to note that we have two arguments here. One argument is the NDP argument, based on what's actually in the agreement, what's actually in Bill C-24, and the egregious errors made in the drafting of the bill. The other argument, that comes from the government, is completely personal. Rather than defending any aspects of the deal, I guess because it's indefensible, they simply go for personal attacks.

That's very interesting, Mr. Chair, but it begs the question: are they well informed about what they are adopting?

Mr. Harris made a comment about companies awaiting their money. There are two problems with that. Number one, as of last Monday the taxpayers were picking up the tab of $950 million. Tembec received $242 million of that. This is through the EDC, so it's the taxpayers picking up the tab. The companies have received their money through the EDC process.

Last Friday, Mr. Chair, we actually had a situation where customs and border protection in the United States started to make the payments that came from--and I'll cite this--the New York City decision, October 13, at the Court of International Trade, that:

...all of Plaintiffs' 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.

So Judge Restani, Judge Barzilay, and Judge Eaton said Canada won. We're entitled to all the money back.

What is the debate around Bill C-24 right now? What is the debate around clause 13, where we tried to limit the punishment, the self-imposed punishment, this government is imposing on our softwood industry despite the ruling of October 13? What's at stake?

What is at stake is about $1 billion and thousands of softwood jobs. We've lost 4,000 already, and we apprehend further losses of jobs, because this agreement is not, as every witness throughout the summer has attested, commercially viable.

Companies were bludgeoned into accepting a deal. They expressed their opinion by having only 25% support for the EDC program. If that does not show a lack of confidence by the industry in this government, I don't know what does. I mean, 75% said no to EDC; 75% did not sign up for the EDC process. Why? Quite simply, they are getting 100% of their money back through customs and border protection. If you're getting 100% dollars, why would you go through this bad bill and get 67¢ back--with the double tax here, which we'll be talking about later, maybe this evening--through this process? The folks in the softwood industry have said no, and they've said no very clearly.

The smoke and mirrors from the government does not--

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you.

This is a subamendment to this clause that, as a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in clause 16 be amended by replacing line 8 on page 12.

Okay, sorry, I need to back up here. This was just handed to me as a wonderful amendment to that. We will start it over again.

The amendment, with reference number 2438017, is to be further amended by replacing lines 1 to 10 of the proposed amendment with the following, “who is certified under section 25, in accordance with the procedure established under schedule 1”, and schedule 1 is the actual wording from the agreement that has already been tabled.

I'll try to stick to the amendment. As a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in clause 16 is to be amended by replacing line 8 on page 12 with the following, “name is set out in schedule 2 is exempt from”.

Also as a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in clause 16 is to be amended by replacing line 14 on page 12 with the following, “regulation, amend schedule 2 by adding”.

Also, as a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in the schedule is to be amended by replacing line 1 on page 100 with the following, “Schedule 2”.

As a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 is to be amended by adding the following, “Schedule 1” at line 27 on page 99.