International Trade Committee on July 13th, 2006

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

This is on the amendment, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It's on the motion as amended. We've already voted on the amendment.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. Is there anything else?

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to move now to motion number two, which was distributed:

The Standing Committee on International Trade, noting that actions of the Government of Canada have delayed legal proceedings that would otherwise bring to swift conclusion the countervailing duty order on softwood lumber from Canada, recommends that the Government of Canada rescind forthwith its suspension of April 27, 2006 and the Extraordinary Challenge Committee proceeding initiated by the United States that same day, so that the NAFTA Panel decision of March 17, 2006, finding Canadian softwood lumber not to be subsidized, may be confirmed; the countervailing duty order against softwood lumber from Canada will be terminated; and the United States will cease to collect illegally some $40 million/month in cash deposits from Canadian industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, that motion is not in order unless the committee agrees unanimously to hear it. It's not in order. The 48 hours notice required is not there, and this motion does not deal with the business of today, which is the softwood lumber agreement.

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

Indeed, it does, Mr. Chair, because the countervailing duty orders and the ECC challenge are contained within at least three articles of the softwood lumber agreement, among the 80 pages. Since every member of the committee has read this agreement, they would be aware of that, as well as annex 10bis. The countervailing duty orders and the NAFTA challenge are all within this agreement. So indeed, Mr. Chair, the motion is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Let's have the discussion on the motion. I want to hear some discussion to determine whether this is in order. Let's have a look at the motion. The motion is right here--to discuss the softwood lumber agreement....

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

I have read the motion, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead and speak to it, Mr. Julian. It will help me make a ruling on this.

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

Essentially, Mr. Chair, as I know you're aware, the ECC, the extraordinary challenge committee, was suspended at the end of April. This particular ECC hearing is non-appealable and would force the removal of these illegal countervailing tariffs, almost all of the tariffs that are imposed on our softwood lumber. It's contained within the agreement in a number of different areas.

The issue, Mr. Chair, really is that we need to make sure that alternatives are looked at, and one of the clear alternatives that provides us with more leverage.... Whether you agree with this agreement and that further negotiation is required, as some members of the industry say, or whether you believe the agreement itself is not even good enough to adopt, in either case, Canada's leverage needs to be increased. That issue can come to a conclusion through that final ECC challenge.

That is non-appealable, Mr. Chair, as I'm sure you're aware. What that does is take off the bulk of the tariffs--almost all of them that are currently being levied against softwood lumber. And given that, I move this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, I'd like you to relate this motion directly to the agreement so we can be certain that it actually is in order, and I haven't seen you do that yet. I'd like you to do that as directly as you can, please.

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

Well, Mr. Chair, within the agreement in article III we talk about the revocation of anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, which are directly related to the ECC challenge. When I go to article XIV--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

In my judgment, reading this motion, that does not have the motion meet the criteria of the motion this meeting is dealing with.

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

It is directly related to the business we are engaged in, Mr. Chair. We are talking about the softwood lumber agreement. The softwood lumber agreement does refer, in several different aspects, from article III to article XIV.2 to article XXI to annex 10bis, where the actual case itself is listed as one of those.... Annex 10.... Excuse me a moment. It's a very lengthy document, as I know you are aware, Mr. Chair.

The termination of litigation agreements--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, I am aware of what you're saying, and so far you haven't convinced me this is in order, but continue, please.

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

Well, that's a decision of the committee, of course, Mr. Chair, as you know. However....

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Let Mr. Julian try to make his connection here.

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

My point is that since there are references to the countervailing duty cases and there are references to the ECC challenge and NAFTA throughout the softwood lumber agreement, it is indeed in order for this committee to provide direction to the government on what the next step should be.

Now, I agree with your interpretation that since there is no specific reference to loan guarantees within the softwood lumber agreement, your point--though I accept it with regret--is well taken that a notice of motion is required. But in the case of motion number two, it is very clear that the softwood lumber agreement that was initialed on July 1 refers specifically to the countervailing duty orders and specifically to the litigation that has been undertaken since then. As a result, it is in order to consider this now. And I intend to bring back motion number one on the loan guarantees at the next meeting of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, I'll hear some more discussion on this. So far I don't believe that this motion does meet the requirement of not needing 48 hours notice.

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I would absolutely agree, Mr. Chair, and I don't think it's appropriate to be challenging your decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Menzies, I don't believe he has challenged my decision. I want to hear just a little bit more.

Mr. LeBlanc, would you like to make some comments on this specifically, on this motion two? If I'm missing something that makes the connection that would eliminate the need for a 48-hour notice of motion, then please help me with that.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I would submit, respectfully, that motion number two is in order. On motion number one, I agree with Mr. Julian: with regret, perhaps, your decision applies more appropriately to motion number one.

On motion number two, I think it's unreasonably strict to interpret the special order calling this meeting to discuss the softwood lumber agreement. I would submit to you that you're being unreasonably strict in interpreting the softwood lumber agreement to not include essential elements of that agreement, like ending litigation, suspending litigation. The whole discussion around whether the softwood lumber agreement in fact would survive is whether or not different companies would, as per the agreement, suspend their litigation rights.

So in my view it's very much in order. By reference, I think you could rule that the softwood lumber agreement includes a discussion of litigation rights and rights that had been gained or preserved by the government and by parties in that litigation. I think you're taking too narrow a view in reading the softwood lumber agreement to exclude, with respect, the discussion of litigation, as motion number two contemplates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I just want to explain. And of course the committee is free to challenge the chair if it wants. I want to just explain why I believe this motion isn't in order without 48 hours notice unless the committee agrees to hear it. That is, if we start allowing any motion that is loosely connected with the subject matter of the committee meeting, then the 48 hours notice is really a moot requirement; it will never apply, because you can always find a loose connection.

I don't believe that the connection is direct enough to allow this motion to come forth without 48 hours notice, and I haven't been convinced otherwise. Do you understand why I believe it's important to make this decision and to stick to what I think was the intent of the rules laid out by this committee when we started to operate?

Is there any other discussion on that? No? Then I rule that motion is not in order without 48 hours notice, which has not been provided.

Is there any other business before the committee?

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether this motion requires notice or not, but I'm hoping that colleagues would agree that one of the things we could ask the researchers and the clerk to look at.... I think the two meetings at the end of July and the third week of August will be instructive. I think we should also, as a committee, consider whether we want to go to Washington to meet with some members of the United States Congress. It's obvious that the role of our counterpart legislators in the Congress and the Senate has been instrumental in this whole discussion on softwood lumber over the decades, and other colleagues who have been on the committee longer than I have and have followed these issues probably know more than I do.

All I would suggest, Mr. Chair, is that the clerk perhaps look at the possibility, perhaps in early September, of meeting for a day and a half in Washington, and prepare some options for discussion. The committee could look at this informally, for 15 minutes at the end of July or even on August 21. Just ask the clerk to examine what the options would be for this committee to go to Washington for maybe a one-day meeting or a day and a half at the most, and try to meet some key members of the United States Congress in the House of Representatives and the Senate who have been instrumental in this whole discussion of softwood lumber in the United States.

As I say, I'm not making a motion that the committee travel. I'm simply asking if you, Mr. Chairman, would agree to ask the clerk to look at some options of how this could be done, and then we as a committee can discuss it further at the end of July or even the middle of August.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Even if there is no motion, Monsieur LeBlanc, I really need to get a sense from the committee whether this is something the committee wants to pursue. I can't do it just on the suggestion of one member. There is no motion, but very quickly we can have a bit of informal discussion.

Mr. Paquette.