Thank you very much.
So I believe very strongly that we as a committee have to take the due diligence that is required to do the clause-by-clause consideration in a responsible and in-depth way, going into each of those particular clauses that raise serious concerns across the country.
This deletion would essentially allow us to do our deliberations in an effective way and provide the clause-by-clause consideration that I think Canadians, particularly Canadians involved in the softwood industry, would require, rather than saying we're going to, at the end of day, have closure, that no matter how many problems there are on this bill, no matter how many things need to be fixed, we're going to bring this back to the House.
What an embarrassment that would be for members of the committee to bring something in that people outside this House have already flagged as major concerns, though we're not allowing those folks to testify, and other parliamentarians are aware of those concerns as well. So to come back with a half-baked, half-done job because the government wants to impose clause-by-clause consideration being done by the end of the day on Tuesday makes absolutely no sense.
We're talking about decisions that will make the difference in millions and millions of dollars between softwood companies and how this bill is currently configured and what softwood companies can actually expect back, and the kinds of penalties and the kinds of interest charges that softwood companies will have to endure. So for us to simply throw our hands up and say we're not going to deal with this, we're going to throw out the bill no matter how badly botched it is at the end of the day on Tuesday, November 7, certainly signals to me the highest irresponsibility.
Let's look at the third clause of Mr. Menzies' motions and I think what is a helpful amendment that I've offered to make the change, make the improvement to what he has actually said. He says in his motion that all clauses that have no proposals for amendment be voted on together in one vote at the start of the meeting on Tuesday, November 7--that's next Tuesday--that we simply vote them all together.
We've already had concerns that have been raised. We know in Marleau and Montpetit, very clearly--and I'll stipulate the clause--we have the right to raise amendments. Certainly even though we've responded as a courtesy to the government with dozens of amendments to help improve the bill in good faith last Tuesday, it is very clear that we didn't have to have that obligation.
Marleau and Montpetit, in chapter 20, which deals extensively with the committee structure in the House of Commons and how committees need to act--I don't need to signal that to you, Mr. Chair, as I know you're aware of all of those elements--says very clearly in the second paragraph that motions to amend a clause of a bill do not require notice. So we do not require notice to provide these amendments; we can simply provide them.
Well, we have had eight days to consider the clause-by-clause, and it is by no means certain I think for any of us that we have exhaustively gone through the various improvements that need to be made to this bill.