Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
I am delighted that you are here today, Mr. Feldman, Mr. Pearson, and Mr. Woods. It's very important. This committee has to do its due diligence on Bill C-24, and the concerns you're raising are very significant and are something the committee needs to take into consideration.
I'm very pleased to follow Mr. Harris, because Mr. Harris raised the issue that he thinks other people may say other things about Bill C-24.
Now, we know, Mr. Chair, that in the last few days a number of organizations, municipalities, and industry representatives have written to the clerk to indicate that they want to be heard on Bill C-24. So I will raise a notice of motion. We have three notices of motion we sent to the clerk this morning prior to this committee. But I'll read mine out so that it's on the record:
That the Standing Committee on International Trade hear testimony from those organizations, businesses and municipalities that have recently written to the Committee to request to testify on Bill C-24, and that they be heard either in person, or by video, or telephone conference before the beginning of clause by clause consideration of Bill C-24 by this Committee.
That's a notice of motion for the beginning of the meeting on Thursday, Mr. Chair, and it's a good segue from Mr. Harris's comments.
I'd like to come back now to a point you raised, Mr. Feldman. In this turn, I'm going to concentrate on you. Mr. Pearson, I'll come back to you for questions on my next tour.
Mr. Feldman, you raised the issue of the payments that have been made. Essentially, the taxpayers picked up $950 million yesterday in payments out to companies. I certainly applaud this, as you did, and that the government has finally acted. They should have acted nine months ago and done this. We've said all along that the government had the power to take taxpayers' money and apply it to help the industry, and indeed, yesterday they proved that they can and that we were right on that matter.
Since the industry is receiving those taxpayers' funds, the issue, of course, is due diligence on taxpayers' money. We had a judgment on October 13 that essentially awards all the money back to Canada, as a taxpayer. And given that the taxpayers are picking up the tab, I guess the question would be what would happen--you referenced the fact that this committee and Parliament have the right to turn Bill C-24 down--if we indeed did turn down Bill C-24. How would that judgment of the Court of International Trade apply, and when would the taxpayers essentially get the money back that has been forwarded or advanced through EDC?