It contains provisions to ensure that illegal actions of the United States Department of Commerce are not expressly endorsed by the Government of Canada and this Parliament, and that private companies deprived of access to dispute resolution within the agreement are not abandoned with no recourse. Their case, Wynndel Box vs. Gorman Bros., is the last of the litigation involving private companies that indisputably has not been mooted by the softwood lumber agreement and cannot be resolved without government involvement. It's in everyone's interest not to leave their case festering as an embarrassment to both governments, apparently afraid to let the challenge be heard before a NAFTA panel.
Assuming our advice is not followed, and the relevant part of clause 18 is not deleted, as I've suggested this morning that it should be, then to subclause 18(1), in the definition of “United States duty order,” paragraphs (a) and (b), after the words “as amended”, the following words should be added: “but disregarding the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006.” One of the amendments to which the language refers is the amendment that added “end-matched lumber illegally after five years” to the scope of the orders. The addition of those words would mean that refunds of duty deposits on end-matched lumber would not be subject to the special charge.
The minister then has discretion over the export control list. Pursuant to section 6 of the Export and Import Permits Act, at the direction of Parliament, he should exercise that discretion, consistent with clause 112 of Bill C-24, to strike end-matched lumber, because it never should have been included. Because of its inclusion in annex 1A, Parliament must direct the minister to fix the problem. These two steps would effectively extinguish the pending litigation, saving both countries from the embarrassing way in which they have been treating their obligations to name NAFTA panellists, remove the last issue affecting private companies, who have no rights in dispute resolution within the agreement, and deny the United States a final illegal act in defining the products covered by the agreement.
Finally, this agreement entered into force on October 12, not October 1. Throughout Bill C-24 there are references to October 1 as the effective date. All these references should be corrected so that the bill conforms with the facts. Regarding interest accrued to participants in the EDC program only until October 1, Parliament should consider requiring a correction. On the U.S. side of the border, interest in fact accrued until October 12, when the orders were revoked. Moreover, U.S. law requires interest accrual until the liquidation of entries. For purposes of the legislation going forward, clause 10 needs to be amended because it provides for calculation of surcharges based on an October 1 effective date. The easiest option would be to waive the surcharge for October. An alternative would be a pro-rated calculation of the surcharge for October. Either way, without an adjustment there is a risk of a retroactive surcharge based on a partial month of data, which would be contrary to the intentions of the bill.
Thank you for my extra time, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to do the best I can to answer questions or discuss other parts of Bill C-24