Evidence of meeting #32 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 clause.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Paul Robertson  Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Ron Hagmann  Manager, Softwood Lumber, Canada Revenue Agency
John Clifford  Counsel, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Brice MacGregor  Senior Trade Policy Analyst, Sofwood Lumber, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. We're here today pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2006, to deal with Bill C-24, 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.

We have this morning, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Paul Robertson, director general, North America trade policy; Dennis Seebach, director, administration and technology services--he's not here yet, but he will be here; Brice MacGregor, senior trade policy analyst, softwood lumber; and John Clifford, counsel, trade law bureau. Thank you. And then from the Canada Revenue Agency, we have Ron Hagmann, assistant manager, softwood lumber.

Thank you all very much for being here today. I understand that you're prepared to go through the bill in a general way and to refer to certain clauses as you go along. Just go ahead and do that, and then we'll open up to questions after that.

Please proceed, Mr. Robertson.

9:10 a.m.

Paul Robertson Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to be before you today to explain the legislation. I think everyone has in front of them a deck that's been prepared identifying the major sections of the bill, which I'll go through. What I'll do is identify the page I'm on, and then when I move to the next page I'll notify the committee, so we can work in sync in that direction.

With respect to the summary of Bill C-24, the bill provides the necessary legislative authority to meet Canada's obligations under the softwood lumber agreement by imposing a charge on exports of softwood lumber to the United States, and on refunds of duty deposits paid to the United States, and by amending certain acts including the Export and Import Permits Act, the EIPA.

The charge on exports took effect on October 12, 2006. Bill C-24 allows for the implementation of the other obligations under the agreement relating to the border measures administration such as registering with the Canadian Revenue Agency, CRA, obtaining export permits issued under the authority of the EIPA--you'll recall that's the Export and Import Permits Act--and filing returns and paying certain charges.

Bill C-24 authorizes payments to the provinces, as well as payments to meet Canada's obligations under the agreement. This is directed to the payments to U.S. interest. The Minister of National Revenue is the minister responsible for the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, which we refer to as the “act”.

If we could go to page 3, it looks at the charge on softwood lumber exporters. Bill C-24 mirrors the agreement's obligations with respect to charges applicable on softwood lumber exports, options A and B. Section 11 provides for the imposition of the option A and option B charges when the reference price of lumber drops to or below the United States dollars $355 per MBF. Exports from Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the B.C. coast and the B.C. interior are subject to the border measures.

Export price and remanufacturers. Section 12 establishes the export price on which the charges will be applied and provides for a favourable first mill treatment for independent remanufacturers. That is to say no charge is payable on the value-added component of the remanufactured products. In order to benefit from the first mill treatment independent remanufacturers will be required to obtain a certification from the Canadian Revenue Agency pursuant to section 25.

Surge mechanism. Section 13 gives effect to the surge mechanism, which increases the amount of the charge payable by 50% when regions operating under option A increase exports in excess of 110% of its allocated share for a month. That is to say the trigger volume. The allocation share is based on the region's share of the United States market during 2004-05. The surge mechanism will operate retroactively, meaning that exporters will be charged the extra amount following the month in which their region surged. This surge mechanism will only apply when lumber prices fall below $355.

We will continue on with the charges on softwood lumber exports, page 4 of your presentation. With respect to the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces are excluded from the obligation to pay the export charges. Lumber producers in this region rely fairly heavily on timber from private lands and were excluded from the U.S. countervailing duty order. The exclusion applies to softwood lumber products first produced in the Atlantic provinces from logs harvested in those provinces, or in the state of Maine, that are either exported directly to the United States or shipped to non-Atlantic Canada provinces and reloaded or reprocessed and then exported to the United States.

Section 14 provides for the application of an anti-circumvention provision to ensure that only lumber from the Atlantic provinces is excluded from the export charge. Exports from the Atlantic provinces that exceed 100% of the region's quarterly softwood lumber production and inventory will be subject to a charge of Canadian dollars $200 per thousand board feet.

There are excluded companies: subject to certain conditions, 32 companies that were found by the U.S. Department of Commerce not to be subsidized are excluded from the obligation to pay the export charge. Clause 16 gives effect to these exclusions.

Next are regional and production exemptions. Consistent with the agreement, Canada and the United States are to establish within three months of the effective date a working group on regional exemptions. The working group is required to develop substantive criteria and procedures for establishing if and when a region uses market-determined timber pricing and forest management systems. Canada and the United States are also required to make best efforts to incorporate the findings of the working group into an addendum to the agreement within 18 months after the effective date of the agreement.

Clause 17 provides the authority for the Governor in Council to exempt regions from the export charges should a region satisfy the criteria developed by the regional exemptions working group. Clause 17 also provides for the exclusion of products from the application of the charge.

The agreement provides for the future consideration of exclusions for lumber produced from private land logs and U.S.-origin logs.

Next is third-country refund. The third-country adjustment mechanism included in the agreement and clause 40 of the act provides for the retroactive refund of export charges, up to the equivalent of a 5% charge, collected in any two consecutive quarters in which three conditions apply when compared with the same two quarters from the preceding year.

These conditions are that the third-country share of U.S. lumber consumption has increased by at least 20%, that the Canadian market share of U.S. lumber consumption has decreased, and that U.S. domestic producers' market share of U.S. lumber consumption has increased. This provision will not apply to any region operating under option A that has triggered the surge mechanism.

We go to page 5 of the deck, which deals with the charge applied to refunds of duty deposits.

In order to fulfill Canada's obligations to provide $1 billion U.S. to the United States and to ensure that all companies benefit equally from the agreement, clause 18 imposes a special charge on all softwood duty deposits refunded by U.S. Customs. The rate of the special charge will be calculated as a fraction, the numerator of which will be $1 billion U.S., and the denominator of which will be the total of softwood duty deposits and interest held by the U.S. as of entry into force of the agreement. The rate is approximately 18%.

The special charge will be applicable to all companies receiving the softwood lumber duty refund. However, the government intends to remit the charge to all companies who participate in the Export Development Canada deposit refund mechanism. Under that mechanism, participating companies will direct EDC to pay their portion, approximately 18% of the purchase price of their deposits, to the U.S. interests.

I will go to page 6 of the deck, which is on administration and enforcement.

Exporters, even those that are excluded from the requirement to pay the export charge, are required to register and file monthly returns with the Canada Revenue Agency. The return must be filed within 30 days following the month in which the lumber was exported.

Bill C-24 also includes provisions that are standard in modern tax legislation. They provide authority to provide refunds, collect interest on amounts not paid when required, waive or cancel interest of penalty, and keep records, and they include requirements to provide documents or information. The bill establishes offences and penalties for failure to file a return or to comply with a demand or order, for making a false or deceptive statement, for failing to pay charges, and for disclosing confidential information.

Inspections may be conducted by persons authorized by the Minister of National Revenue, and prior authorization will be required for inspection of a dwelling house. Investigations are subject to search warrant requirements. Additional clauses address information respecting non-residents.

These are standard provisions that are required to enforce any tax measure. Confidentiality of information is addressed in provisions that prohibit unauthorized disclosure and that authorize disclosure necessary for Canada to implement its obligations under the agreement.

I turn now to page 7, which are the EIPA amendments. You will recall the Export and Import Permits Act. The act is amended as follows: the export control list is amended in a manner to require export permits on the products covered by the scope of the agreement; authority is provided for the Minister of International Trade to establish a quantity that may be exported from an option B region in a month, to establish the basis for calculating export quantities, to establish by order a method for allocating export quantities, to issue export allocations and consent to transfers of allocations, to establish that an EIPA permit may have a retroactive effect, to require applicants to keep records and authorize inspections, to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting softwood saw log origin and respecting export allocations, and finally, to amend offence provisions to capture offences related to export allocations.

On page 8, you will find payments to provinces. Bill C-24 provides for payments to provinces, out of the consolidated revenue fund, of revenue collected from the export charges paid, less costs incurred by the government for administrative and legal matters related to the act and the agreement. These payments will not affect equalization payments to the provinces.

With respect to payments to accounts, clause 103 of the bill provides authority, on requisition of the Minister of International Trade, to make payments out of the consolidated revenue fund in order to meet Canada's financial obligations under the agreement.

Page 9, the second last page in your deck, is about other key provisions. With respect to regulations, the Governor in Council has authority to make regulations on issues such as the payments to provinces, allocation of quota, and other matters to carry out the purposes of the act. Clauses 107 and 108 state that certain regulations made under the act will have retroactive effect, for example, the export permit regulations.

On the issue of expiry, further authority is established for the Governor in Council to make regulations to declare that the charging provisions, clauses 10 to 15, would cease to be in force in the event that the agreement is terminated. The remaining provisions of the act would remain in effect to reserve the necessary authority, for example, to collect overdue payments, interest, penalties, and to make payments to provinces.

With respect to transition provisions, the option B border measure will not come into force until January 1, 2007, given the time required to put in place the information technology necessary to administer the quota regime and the need to consult with provinces and industry stakeholders on the rules governing the regime. During the transition period, lumber exports from all regions will be subject to the export charge under the option A border measure. Exporters of lumber from regions that choose option B but are subject to the option A export charge will receive a refund of the difference between the export charge levels for the transition period. A refund will occur if exports from these regions during the transition period do not exceed the region's volume restraint had option B been in effect.

To ensure that Canada can retroactively enforce the export charges, the majority of the provisions of the act will be deemed to have come into force on the day on which the agreement comes into force, and that is October 12, 2006.

One exception to the general coming into force rule is the provision that provides that the operation option of option B will come into force on a day fixed by the Governor in Council—that is to say, January 1, 2007. Also, because offence provisions cannot be applied retroactively, the sections of the legislation dealing with offences and punishment will only come into force upon royal assent. Even though the offence provision cannot be enforced retroactively, the obligation for exporters to pay the charge remains.

The last slide in the deck deals with what is not in Bill C-24. What is not in Bill C-24 are certain provisions of the agreement, because they do not require enactment under Canadian law. For example, the obligation to create the binational industry council, which we spoke of the last time I was here, does not require legislation. The softwood lumber committee and the technical working groups in article XIII of the agreement are purely institutional and administrative and do not require statutory authority.

Similarly, the dispute settlement provisions in article XIV can be administered without being enacted in legislation. The obligation for all litigation to be terminated, via the termination of litigation, is a precondition of entry into force and therefore does not require any legislative action.

With respect to the duty refund mechanism provided for in annex 2C of the agreement, EDC already has the statutory authority to operate such a mechanism.

Some treaty obligations and commitments, such as the information exchange requirements and anti-circumvention provisions, do not require implementation in Canadian law.

There are also certain provisions in the agreement that are U.S. obligations and logically cannot be included in the Canadian legislation. These include the revocation of the U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, the refund of duty deposits, the obligation to collect no-injury letters from the U.S. industry stakeholders, and the U.S. commitment not to initiate a new trade action.

Chair, I apologize for the rapidity with which I've gone through the major elements of the legislation, but in the time remaining, it's our intention to be answering the questions on various sections and to elaborate where members would like elaboration to be done.

Thank you very much.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you very much, Mr. Robertson.

You've summarized what is in the bill and what isn't. It's clear that we're not here today to renegotiate the softwood lumber deal. That's been done. We're here to deal with some legislation and to pass certain parts of the legislation, so let's start with questioning on that.

Mr. LeBlanc, for seven minutes.

9:25 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen.

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Robertson. I had some rather specific questions, and perhaps because one can tend to run out of time, I'll read you the questions. I'm hoping you can answer some probably quite quickly, but if we run out of time in this round, perhaps you could get back to the committee with answers to these questions in the next few days, before we would ever get to a clause-by-clause study of the bill.

The questions focus on two areas. One is obviously Atlantic Canada's exclusion, and the other one is something I have been concerned about for some time. It's the question of independent remanufacturers.

With respect to Atlantic Canada, on page 4 of your presentation you correctly talk about the exclusion of Atlantic Canada, for reasons you've properly described. However, some parts of the proposed legislation refer to an exemption or to Atlantic Canada being zero-rated. I don't have a great deal of experience at trade law, but in my view, there is a big difference between being excluded, meaning you are never in the play, or being exempted or zero-rated, which means you're in the pot, but for whatever moment at this particular time, the export tax, for example, is not being applied.

I'm concerned that the language of the proposed legislation may not in fact track the language of the softwood lumber agreement, which itself is much tighter with respect to the exclusion, in my view. So that's one issue.

With respect to independent remanufacturers, again the proposed legislation itself doesn't provide a definition for what independent remanufacturers are. Clause 2, the definitions clause, doesn't address what independent remanufacturers are. This was a significant win for Canada in the agreement. I think many people will concede that. But I think the legislation would be improved if there were a definition of what an independent remanufacturer actually is.

Clause 12 of the bill stipulates that “‘independent remanufacturer’ means a person who is certified under section 25.” Clause 25 then says that the minister may certify an operation as an independent remanufacturer, but again there is no definition. This key concept is not circumscribed in any way in either of these two clauses. Is that something that could be tightened up, in your view?

Again, clause 100 says that the Governor in Council may make regulations regarding independent remanufacturers, and it says: “The Governor in Council may make regulations...respecting any requirements or conditions that must be met...”.

The word “any” is a very broad word. It is not circumscribed in any way. I wonder if the Governor in Council is limited to the requirements and conditions, for example, of the softwood lumber agreement itself. Is it a common practice that this is circumscribed by the agreement itself, or is it in fact much broader than that?

Then, on the power of the minister in subclause 25(2) to “amend, suspend, renew, cancel or reinstate a certification”, the power again seems to be very broad. There's not even a requirement for notice to a party in question. I was struck by how broad that may be.

Finally, with respect to quota allocation, you gentlemen know better than anybody how contentious the whole issue of quota allocation can be. You properly referred to the amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act. Would the legislation be improved by prescribing limits on the minister's power with respect to quota allocation, for example, so that it must be fair, reasonable, and transparent? It seems to me that to have such a broad power to allocate quota is open to some question.

For those who will face hardship as a result of quota allocation, there seems to be no transparency. Independent remanufacturers have for a long time requested a separate carve-out, and you know the reasons why, although we don't have time to go into them. I'm worried that they could end up inadvertently getting a bit of a squeeze with respect to quota allocation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Robertson.

9:30 a.m.

Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Paul Robertson

Thank you very much, Chair.

And thank you very much for the questions, which are thoughtful and detailed.

We'll take the Atlantic Canada exclusion first. We are aware particularly of the views of the Maritime Lumber Bureau with respect to the specific wording to reflect the agreement. We are working with the Maritime Lumber Bureau, and we are moving closer to resolution of questions that you've raised--exemption versus exclusion and what that means for interpretation of the bill as it relates to the agreement, as well as the 0% duty, these types of issues.

We are in discussion with many provinces, with associations, with remanufacturers, for example the Maritime Lumber Bureau, etc., so we're aware of that. We're working with Atlantic Canada to ensure their concerns are accurately reflected in the legislation, to the extent, of course, of following Canadian domestic law and the obligations we have in that respect.

So yes, I think we can agree that for this purpose perhaps exclusion might be a better term than exemption, that the 0% duty can be referred to in a different way to provide the same effect, and that those actions and consultations are under way with the relevant association.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

But in time so that an amendment could be made at this committee if we go through clause-by-clause study, right? You are conscious of the horizon with respect to amendments?

9:35 a.m.

Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Paul Robertson

We're conscious of the timeframes that the committee has to work with.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Thank you.

9:35 a.m.

Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Paul Robertson

We're working with the MLB to agree on language that would meet their concerns.

With respect to the independent remanufacturers, the notion here is whether they have tenure rights, which is the main division between independent and not independent. I think that is clearly identified in the agreement, and we hope we've captured that as well in the legislation.

I will be asking my colleagues about the prescribed process for the determination. I don't know, Ron, if you might want to talk about that.

Perhaps I'll continue with the subject of independent remanufacturers, because you moved on to quota allocation for your basic third set of questions. We have regulation in place in the draft legislation to identify that division between independent and non-independent, to allow us to act in a manner that is consistent with the obligations of the agreement. You've raised the special interlinkages between clauses 12, 25, and 100 in terms of the relationship between each other.

I think I would start with clause 25 and what you say are rather broad powers to amend, cancel, or suspend. I think those are just to provide the necessary tools--the remedies open to the government to deal with that--in the event that you have requirements to meet and they're not met. That is why there is that broad requirement.

I would ask my colleagues Dennis or Ron to respond with respect to the remanufactured process and the requirement--being conscious of the time, because I am sure there are a lot of questions.

9:35 a.m.

Ron Hagmann Manager, Softwood Lumber, Canada Revenue Agency

We administer the provisions of annex 7C of the agreement.

We have a form for independent remanufacturers to apply. Basically, we ask the independent remanufacturers for proof that they are independent by providing certification from the province that they do not hold crown tenure rights in the province in which they have operations. As well, they have to certify that they're not associated with a person who has crown tenure rights. These forms are available on the Internet.

We've done outreach visits to industry to explain the requirements of the agreement. And we have people registered already.

9:35 a.m.

Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Paul Robertson

Perhaps I could go to the next element, which is quota allocation.

With respect to what you refer to as the broad discretion of the minister, it has to be broad, given that we're working with provinces, each of which has a different approach that it may want to impose with respect to quota allocations. However, there are general principles governing this process, some of which you've identified already, in terms of fair, reasonable, and equitable types of approaches, and those are guiding the federal government in its discussions with the provinces on allocation.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB

Is that particular aspect legislated, though, or is it simply something the courts have imposed as an administrative requirement?

9:40 a.m.

Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Paul Robertson

Do you mean in terms of fair and reasonable? I think it's a guiding principle to establish criteria for the discussion, the consultation, between the federal and the provincial governments, as it relates to quota allocations for the specific province.

But I don't know if there's anything more, John, on that.

9:40 a.m.

John Clifford Counsel, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

I have a point of clarification.

The bill would establish authority to make export allocation regulations, and those would be regulations of general application. If there were to be quota allocated in, let's say, three regions in the country, the export allocation regulations would apply to allocation decisions with respect to all of those regions. The export allocation regulations will establish the elements of an application, and the minister must take those into account in considering the decision whether to allocate or whether to consent to a transfer. Those are the generic regulations applicable to all.

As well, the minister would have authority to make orders called allocation method orders, following the model of the allocation method orders that are used to implement supply-managed agriculture import controls. Section 6.2 of the Export and Import Permits Act is actually modelled on legislation that has been in place since 1994.

Those allocation method orders will be made for individual regions. If a particular allocation method is to be established for the region, the eligibility criteria to obtain quota in that region will be established in the allocation method order.

So you have two sets of regulations governing allocations: one is generally to apply to procedure, and the other, the allocation method order, would be a substantive eligibility criterion order.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

I hope the committee doesn't mind if I'm a little bit flexible on time today. There were certainly good questions.

Monsieur Cardin is next.

9:40 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, gentlemen.

As the Chairman noted at the outset, there will be no change of heart as far as this agreement is concerned. Even if the majority of committee members do not necessarily view it at the best thing to happen this century, it must nevertheless be implemented in accordance with Canadian laws and regulations.

As I already mentioned, something is bothering me about the taxation provisions.

Is there a Canada Revenue Agency representative here? I thought I heard someone say that a CRA official was in attendance.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

That would be Mr. Hagmann.

9:40 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

In terms of the implementation of the agreement and Bill C-24, no mention was ever made of how, in the case of companies...Since 2002, in keeping with a generally accepted accounting and taxation principle, charges paid have presumably been tax deductible in the current fiscal year. Now, I would imagine that companies will be receiving a refund in one lump sum, or almost, paid over the course of the same fiscal year.

Has Revenue Canada, working with the other departments concerned, ever considered paying the refund in separate instalments or applying it to the fiscal years in which expenses were incurred, so that companies, even if they can and do defer losses, are not necessarily taxed in the same fiscal year?

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Mr. Hagmann, please go ahead.

9:40 a.m.

Manager, Softwood Lumber, Canada Revenue Agency

Ron Hagmann

Our income tax rulings section examined the provisions. Essentially we have issued technical questions and answers related to the income tax implications. Right now we're saying that the refunds would be taxable in the year received. I don't believe at this point there is any consideration of amending prior years' returns. I believe that was the question.

The refunds will be taxable in the year received, directly.

9:45 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Therefore, there could be significant implications. Why is it that when they negotiated the agreement, our representatives did not think about the costs, particularly as the agreement automatically rewards the US for imposing antidumping and countervailing duty. We reward the US by conceding $1 billion to them and indirectly, we're penalizing our industries, allowing them little flexibility and no tax breaks so that they can report this refund at some point other than in the current fiscal year.

Given that Bill C-24 amends various acts with a view to implementing the agreement, should provision be made for this kind of arrangement, or should we make allowances for a different kind of tax treatment than the one proposed by CRA?

9:45 a.m.

Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Paul Robertson

I'm not a tax expert, but I know that during the negotiations, when there was close consultation with industry, provinces, and the government in terms of what the objectives were and what we were trying to do in the negotiations, the emphasis was on resolving the issue and bringing refunds back into Canada.

During the negotiations there was no discussion that I'm aware of about how the money would be taxed once you brought it back into Canada. That was not a focus of discussion, as far as I'm aware, during the negotiation of the SLA and bringing it into force.

I think how the Canadian tax system deals with that money coming back in is a question of a taxing approach, because all companies' fiscal positions would not be the same. Some companies would have a lot of elements against which they could debit the money coming back; the extent to which each country sees its own position with respect to the tax regime is also a condition of its own tax situation, so I think it would be difficult to determine whether it benefits companies or not. Clearly your perspective is valid, I would think, for some companies that would prefer to be able to go back in a number of years to identify that as a debit.

I think that type of issue and that ruling are in the context of Canadian tax law, not in the context of the softwood lumber agreement, and we've heard from CRA how the opinion has been given with respect to the taxing of that money.

9:45 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

I'm sorry if you find that I'm belabouring this point, but the fact remains that when the agreement was negotiated, I firmly believe some thought should have been given to this aspect of the issue. Indeed, as you said, the current framework in which the Income Tax Act is applied does not lend itself to this. However, you did raise one point. Since different companies operate in different fiscal environments -- and I always come back to the Canadian government's generous gift of $1 billion to the Americans -- the normal thing to do would have been to make some interesting arrangements for companies from a taxation standpoint. After all, the legislator is the one who decided whether or not to give an advantage to an industry in order to help it out. Potentially then, a plan could have been formulated to give companies the choice of opting, or not, for a different tax treatment.

The committee is examining Bill C-24 and all of its potential, or unlikely, repercussions. If the government opted to give an advantage to the forest industry, who should be issuing directives regarding specific tax treatments?

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit

Monsieur Cardin, this is an important issue, no doubt, but I don't think it falls within the purview of this legislation. It is an important point that you're certainly free to bring up in other venues, but I don't think this legislation is the place to do it. However, your point has been made. Thank you.

Do you have any other questions?