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.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON
Would the officer or director have an ability to respond to the charges against the corporation of which he is an officer or director because he's facing libel for that action if there is a conviction by the corporation?
9:45 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Policy Directorate, Canada Revenue Agency
Absolutely. As I said in my earlier comments, when an amount is assessed against anyone, this would include an officer or director. They have a process whereby they can go through to object or respond accordingly. Everybody always has an opportunity to express that they haven't committed what is alleged to have happened: it would be the same in this case.
9:45 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Policy Directorate, Canada Revenue Agency
Under the normal general appeal provisions it would be there as well. That covers everything any time the assessment is made.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON
Could you also explain the last part of the last sentence, whether or not the person has been prosecuted or convicted?
9:45 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Policy Directorate, Canada Revenue Agency
I know you asked the question the other day, and I know my colleagues are consulting with members of the agency to give you a more comprehensive response. So I apologize if my comments are brief today, but that's certainly what we intend to do.
9:45 a.m.
Manager, Legislative Policy Directorate, Canada Revenue Agency
We'll have this for you prior to next Thursday's meeting.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Could we get that by Tuesday, so the members of the committee have time to look at it before we go through clause-by-clause?
Any other questions that have been asked, we really need them by Tuesday, so the members have enough time to look at them before clause-by-clause, which will be Thursday--and the clerk reminded me, in both official languages.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Thank you.
Mr. Robertson, I wanted to come back to the question we talked about earlier in the week with respect to some wording that needs to be improved relating to the exclusion of Atlantic Canada, as opposed to the exemption or zero rating. You indicated you were having discussions with the Maritime Lumber Bureau. As a precaution, if you're not able to arrive at an agreed-upon language, I've filed with the clerk some very small amendments the Maritime Lumber Bureau would seek to have, which would simply track the language of your agreement with the United States, which refers to “exclusions”. I'm wondering if you have any updates on the progress of those discussions and if you think you can come to a conclusion that's satisfactory to the maritime provinces.
In your earlier comments to a question from mes collègues du Bloc québécois, you said the provinces are generally satisfied with the consultations and so on. I know the four Atlantic provinces are very worried about that wording, and I think they've advised in writing they are unhappy with the particular wording. So you risk losing four out of ten provinces if you can't come to some understanding. I'm wondering if you've had any progress in the last 48 hours.
9:50 a.m.
Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
We've narrowed down the possible amendment considerably. All I can say at this point is the discussions are still ongoing. Thank you very much for informing us that you have an amendment as well, in case those negotiations don't produce the desired result.
We'll continue to work with the.... Our interlocutor is not the provinces in this instance, it's the MLB, the Maritime Lumber Bureau. All I can say is we'll continue to discuss these issues. If we continue to discuss, we haven't gotten a conclusion, but we're all working in good faith to try to replicate the language as much as possible, taking into account the overall legislative structure in which it has to be embedded.
The discussions are certainly continuing. We're not abandoning them at all. The differences are narrowing to specific elements, which I'm sure your amendment has looked after too. One way or the other, we'll get this issue resolved over the coming days.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Thank you very much.
That's all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Robertson.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I would like to follow on Mr. Julian's questions. I understand that all companies have not registered yet, have not completed the documentation to get a refund for the countervailing duties that they have paid. There are delays in the process.
What delay are you expecting in the timeframe that was agreed to? Would it be possible for businesses to have to pay export charges before they get their refund? If it was the case, would it be because of a mistake or a lack of due diligence?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Gentlemen, I'm not sure who is going to answer that one.
Mr. Robertson.
9:50 a.m.
Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Thank you very much.
Let me first clarify that what we're speaking about is that companies have registered for the program, but after registration there is a lot of documentation that has to be submitted by the companies. Therefore, one of the elements, for example, is a search that has to be done on the company as to whether there are liens or securities on the company.
There hasn't been a delay with respect to the registration and participation of companies. There isn't a delay in working through the documentation that companies have to provide to EDC in order to receive the refund, and that has always been anticipated, that it would be an uneven time among companies to get that documentation in. It's a function of how each company wants to organize itself to submit the documentation.
That's why EDC has always said they can pay the refund four to eight weeks after all the documentation has been completed by the company, because they do not have control over how long it takes the company to submit the necessary documentation for EDC to pay the refund. So that's what we're talking about.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Considering that most businesses have financial difficulties, I suppose that they are speeding up the process in order to get their refund.
9:55 a.m.
Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
That's right, and that's an illogical assumption. Even though not asked, I'll undertake to provide more information to the committee with respect to where the process is, and to Mr. Julian's question as well, about which companies have finished. I just don't have that information from EDC.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Could it be possible that companies have to pays export charges before they get their refund? Is it a possibility?
9:55 a.m.
Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
No, because under the EDC process, the government is putting forward the money to these companies before the government receives the money from the U.S. side. Therefore, when the government is doing this, when EDC is doing this as an agent of the government, they're receiving permission from the companies that are in their program to pay back approximately 82% of all refunds owing to them directly to the company and the approximately 18% that's retained for the U.S. interest side.
What the 18% calculation is based on is that you basically have a $5.5-billion total and we have to pay $1 billion to the United States' side from that total. So it's a pro-rated calculation for all companies receiving refunds, approximately 18% that has to be levied on those refunds in order to pay the U.S. interest. So those companies participating in the EDC program do not have to wait for refunds from the United States. The government is providing the money directly to them in an expeditious manner, immediately to them, and they're also paying to the U.S. interest that portion.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
That money will be refunded immediately as soon as the documentation will have been completed.
9:55 a.m.
Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
That's right, because there are liability questions about paying money into a company that may have liens on its assets and receivables. There are questions like that.
What I've said in our discussion to date is that there are some companies now that are very close to completion, and there may in fact be some that have completed. I just don't have the specifics. But I've undertaken to get back to the committee some more information on this, given the interest of the committee with respect to that question.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Let us come back to the bill. From what you are saying, we could not add a clause to prevent that kind of situation. I didn't find any reference to this in the bill. You are saying that there is no risks, that it would be impossible.