International Trade Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have a point of order, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Cullen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

We've just heard from translation. Because of all the background noise, they've cut off the translation. I think that's a slight to people who want to listen to what Mr. Julian is saying in English or in French. I wonder if we could keep the background noise to a minimum so at least we can hear what he has to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will ask the members and anyone near the table to keep the conversation very quiet so we can have the translation.

Mr. Julian, continue, if you would like to.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank Mr. Cullen for his intervention, because I do believe this is important.

When we talk about the calculation of the inflation rate, there are differing points of view on the issue. I think it's important that this committee take very seriously into consideration the amendment because of the fact that we do have these disputes around whether the Bank of Canada inflation rate, calculated nationally, actually represents perfectly what the inflation rate is in certain regions of the country. Of course, Mr. Chair, that is not the case. If we are talking about the price of certain goods and services in the Yukon, for example, because of the high cost of transportation from southern Canada to northern Canada, the national basis point will not represent, ideally, what the inflation rate is indeed in that region. That is very true. I think it's a valid criticism.

In British Columbia, for example, we've seen in greater Vancouver, certainly, a rise in the cost of gas and in the cost of heating oil. Other parts of the country, like Nova Scotia, have seen that as well. And that will not be reflected in the national inflation rate.

But the argument I would make back, Mr. Chair, is quite simple: there is no way of guaranteeing with exactitude an inflation rate that takes into consideration every single region of the country. We're a vast land. We have a variety of resource bases in different parts of the country. So indeed, it would be very difficult--almost impossible--to have an inflation rate that would actually correspond with the actual inflation rate in each of the regions of the country.

I will give you an example. When I was living in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, we did not take into account the cost of transportation from Quebec City to Chicoutimi through the Parc des Laurentides when establishing the inflation rate. The costs were lower. When we saw the inflation rate announced by the Bank of Canada, we realized that the inflation rate in the Saguenary—Lac-Saint-Jean region was much higher than elsewhere in the country. There were marked variations. This criticism is well-founded. Furthermore, I think it is important to underscore the fact that what we are offering now is the most precise possible element in the circumstances.

There is another matter that is also important. What is included in the basket? Does the basket truly reflect what people need to purchase? For example, I was talking about one element that the Bank of Canada takes into account in establishing the rate of inflation. I am talking here of Internet access. Is this an essential product or simply a matter of personal choice?

A few years ago, the cost of an Internet connection was not included as an essential product, because the majority of Canadian households did not have access to the Internet. However, as in the case of the telephone, with the evolution of technology, the cost of an Internet connection has been included as a core measure of inflation.

Today, access to the Internet is considered essential for the majority of Canadian households. The cost of an Internet connection for Canadian households must therefore be included in the consumer price index used by the Bank of Canada to measure inflation, and for a very simply reason: today, people need this access. Numerous taxpayers working at home require Internet access. The Internet is an element of our modern-day communications.

This second criticism of the rate of inflation as it is measured by the Bank of Canada is, I must admit, legitimate. Indeed, it represents essential goods. One must recognize that the definition of what constitutes an essential good has changed. This is important, and these things evolve. Clearly, the Bank of Canada has not always been on the cutting-edge of technology. It has often overlooked things that we would consider to be essential goods, in the belief that they were not truly essential. I believe that it is our duty as parliamentarians to exert pressure on the Bank of Canada in order for it to always take into account these essential products when determining the content of the basket of goods and services it uses to calculate the rate of inflation. It should indeed include all of these elements. It is sometimes true that the consumer price index lags behind. That being said, we can oppose that affirmation because, in essence, it nevertheless is the best we can do. If there are deficiencies in the general price index used by the Bank of Canada to measure inflation, to my mind, these are deficiencies that all of us have a duty to...

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, I have been told that there are some comments being overheard and some rude gestures from people in the audience. This will not be tolerated. Please ensure that any comments you're making are very quietly made and that no rude gestures or comments of any type are made. Certainly, we have to show respect for all members of the committee, and we will do that.

Mr. Julian, please continue.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be moving to my conclusion shortly. I appreciate the committee's patience, because this is an extremely important issue.

How we calculate the inflation rate is something that I know all members find interesting, because it has such a marked impact on our daily lives. We need to know that our inflation rate is accurately calculated. It should include all of the essential goods that appear in the Bank of Canada calculation of the monthly variation in prices on which the annual estimate of the inflation rate is based. Certainly, the fact that there are regional variations is something we have to take into consideration as well.

We should be studying these regional variations with attention. Only careful study will give us an accurate picture of the inflation rates in each of the regions of our vast country, because there are significant differences, without a doubt. Because of the resource base in various parts of the country, there are substantial differences in the composition of our national basket of goods and services.

The Bank of Canada does a passable job in representing this core inflation rate. Surely no member of this committee would disagree with the idea that the inflation rate is much less punitive than imposing what we have in the current wording of Bill C-24, where we take the Treasury Board rate plus 4%. This ensures that we have an interest rate that not only respects the fact that the Government of Canada is not receiving those funds, but also respects how difficult it has been for softwood companies over the past few years and how difficult it will continue to be for them. Any interest that is owed is based purely on the core measure of inflation, as opposed to the kinds of penalties we see in clause 4.

I'd like to thank the committee for its indulgence in hearing me out on the inflation rate. It's certainly a passionate subject for me, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Julian, for your comments. In respecting the time of everybody around the table, and also of taxpayers, of whom I'm one, I think we need to have a little more efficient use of our time. So I propose to make two motions at this time.

Motion one is this. I move that total debate for clauses and all amendments are to be limited to a maximum of three minutes per member, and that if the committee would like to extend debate beyond three minutes per member for a specific clause or amendment, this could be accommodated by general vote.

So each member has a total of three minutes. If we would like to extend it—if there's something contentious or something that takes more time—we could do so by a general vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, you've heard the motion. Is there any debate on the motion? Then we'll go directly to the vote.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I do not believe it's the kind of motion that's in order. Certainly when we're dealing with clause-by-clause amendments, what we're dealing with is very important legislation, and we have to have the opportunity to express ourselves. So certainly all members from all parties have amendments that are brought forward to this committee. We certainly know, and we've heard from the testimony on Tuesday, that how we treat this bill is of utmost importance. If we make mistakes in how we treat this bill, mistakes on how we choose to amend the various concerns that have been brought to our attention, either through the witnesses we heard on Tuesday or those who were refused to be allowed to be witnesses through the discussions this morning.... So we have some very serious concerns.

This is a highly technical bill. It contains numerous clauses and subclauses, in each of which the wording will have fundamental impacts on the softwood industry across the country.

I was in Thunder Bay just a few days ago talking to softwood workers about the impact of Bill C-24. I believe, in fact, softwood workers in Thunder Bay were one of the first groups to write in to this committee to say they wanted to testify in front of the committee. They want to testify because they're concerned about the impact of the bill. They're concerned about the impact of the bill because they're not certain that the government will accept the amendments that have been offered from the opposition parties.

We've had numerous amendments from Mr. LeBlanc, which are important amendments that I think will have an impact on improving this bill. I'm not sure if it will be improved to the extent that it would actually be something that anyone could support, but certainly to improve it we've had amendments.

Mr. Cardin and Mr. André tabled amendments. This means that there are amendments that are important to the members seated around this table. The practice in the House of Commons is a very simple one. With regard to committees, we do not attempt to muzzle people who are trying to present amendments, who are speaking to them. Often, as the case may be, the interactive aspect of the debate around each amendment is extremely important, because it facilitates improving the bill. This way of doing things traces back to the very beginnings of Parliament. Committees have an important role to play with regard to amendments to bills. Each member has something to contribute. It is today completely out-moded, Mr. Chairman, to attempt to muzzle members of Parliament or to curb debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, you are repeating yourself now, so unless you have something new to say, we will go to the vote on this question. I see nobody else asking for comment, although Mr. Cannan actually is--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, I was dealing with an important aspect of what Mr. Cannan is proposing: let us look at all of the history and let us examine the workings of Parliament. This is the 39^th Parliament, and the present government has made promises, guaranteeing that the work of committees would be treated with much greater respect. The new government has promised changes to the way committees function.

Mr. Chairman, I have already told you several times that I find that your way of managing the committee has greatly improved over the last few months. You respect all members and give everyone an opportunity to participate and have his or her say.

However, we have before us Mr. Cannan's motion, aimed at denying this respect due to committee members. There is no need for that, because the government already has tools it can use in any situation. It has already used some to close off debate on the bill in the House. It has already shown its ability to hit hard on committees.

It would be inconceivable for us, as committee members, to accept that the government decide what we can say and seek to limit our debate. That is inconceivable for anyone who has fought for democracy. If we look at emerging democracies, such as South Africa, for example, we can see that Parliament has had to determine to what extent opposition members should be able to speak out and represent their riding.

In South Africa, Parliament has changed the way committees work because, previously, when the regime was much less democratic, committees had no real power. They did not have the power to draft bills.

We have but to look at was is going on in Taiwan. I was thrilled to go there last summer and to see the approach they have with regard to the legislature and the rights of the opposition.

In none of these countries do government members attempt to quash opposition members or limit their opportunity to speak. If we refer to Marleau and Montpetit, it is clear that they do not have the right to do that. They do not have the right to impose rules limiting the ability of members to intervene and they cannot decide that nothing goes, under the pretext that it is the government that is in charge.

Mr. Cannan does perhaps not respect what I am saying, and perhaps he is convinced that he need not listen to me, but I find this important, and I am not alone.

I would be very pleased to hear Mr. Cannan's comments on these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll hear Mr. Cannan on a point of order.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is to clarify what Mr. Julian is saying.

I appreciate that he has his House of Commons Procedure and Practice manual, which every member has. You can get the novel at the gift shop for $200. I'm glad you're reading it, because it says on page 646, under “Length of Speeches”:

Every member of a committee may speak as often as he or she wishes and may also speak as long as he or she wishes, subject to the practice that the committee adopts in that respect. Frequently, a committee will pass motions to govern its proceedings, such as motions to regulate the length of time that members of the committee may speak, to establish the rotation of speakers...and to impose time limits for the proposal of certain types of motions or amendments.

So it states right there that it's—

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

That is not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That is debate.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

As Mr. Cannan knows, you cannot--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, please, I'm on a point of order. The chair has the floor right now.

I have ruled that it is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. We know, of course, that the committee does control its own destiny. If the committee should choose to pass a motion to limit the debate, it can choose to do that. It has been done many times before; I'm sure it will be done many times in the future. That's exactly what we're debating right now, the motion brought by Mr. Cannan.

Back to you, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that, because the issue around limiting debate is an extremely important one for parliamentarians. It is important to note that Mr. Cannan didn't mention the one important issue that came up when we talked about the amendments, which is the fact that motions to amend a clause of a bill do not require notice.

What we've had from the opposition is full cooperation--for eight days--since the time the clause-by-clause package was actually delivered. In no other committee have we seen this kind of cooperation from the opposition. Within eight days, over 100 amendments were put forward to improve this legislation--which was badly drafted, badly crafted, badly botched.

What we've seen from the opposition is very clearly complete cooperation. We don't need to do that. We could have brought forward the motions today. We could have provided them without notice. We could have dropped them now, and certainly we can choose to do that in the coming days.

But the issue is how the government will try to deal with a bill that desperately needs to be improved. Even from the strongest supporter's standpoint, it is very clearly a bill that has been botched.

We've heard limited testimony on that; it would have been wonderful for this committee to hear more. But to now have the proposal, the sledgehammer, to ensure there is virtually no debate on these motions, no debate on issues like clause 10, where we see a clause that could have huge ramifications for the future of the softwood industry.... We've heard some limited testimony to that effect, but the government is saying, “Well, we don't want to hear any more. No, sir, we don't want to know that there are problems with this bill.”

In clause 18 we now have an imposed double tax, and the amendments that were brought forward on this imposed double tax are amendments that are going to make a substantial difference to companies.

Mr. Harris himself asked the question on Tuesday. For a company like Canfor, what is the difference between, in clause 18, a double taxation--in other words, a tax of 18% taken off on the duty refund--and then a special charge levied that is another 18%?

Now, in Mr. Harris' case, he asked the question of what that would mean for Canfor, for example, which is an important business in his riding. And he said--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, you seem to have moved back to....

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Certainly not, Mr. Chair. I'm talking about the importance of these amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We're now debating the motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, with respect, we are debating a motion that will determine to what extent we can consider amendments. It is very much my right and my prerogative to point out some of the clauses that represent enormous difficulty and enormous danger that if this motion were adopted, if this legal procedural sledgehammer were adopted...what it would mean to our ability as a committee to deal with these important clauses.

I come back to clause 18, because that is something that was raised in the testimony on Tuesday and should have sounded alarm bells right through the Conservative members of the committee. What we're looking at in clause 18 is, now, the fact that.... The duty deposits, through the government's own legal machinery, take away 18% of the duties that are to be refunded to companies, and then in clause 18 we see that there is a special charge levied of 18%. That is double taxation that, as Mr. Harris asked about, would mean in the case of Canfor something in the order of $140 million that they would have to pay in the special charge.

We had testimony previously that alluded to the fact that somehow the government was going to fix it by regulation somewhere else. But we also know, the way clause 18 is currently worded, that the companies would be liable to pay the amount of the special charge by a fixed date. At this point, since we don't know when the actual moneys would be coming from the United States, perhaps it's a moot point because of the fact that the government is already making payouts of taxpayers' money. But the result of what has been, I think it's fair to say from everything we've heard, poor crafting on clause 18, is essentially that we have to gut and rewrite that clause, that amendment. We've had a number of amendments in that area that essentially deal with that particular issue. But clause 18 is something we need to have due consideration on.

Having already seen the procedural sledgehammer in the House that the government has been using to ram this through, and of course the procedural sledgehammer with the companies, we're now seeing the same procedural sledgehammer brought in at the committee stage.

Looking through the various amendments, such as Mr. Casey's amendment, and we see Mr. LeBlanc's amendments on clause 10, an important clause, one thing that the Maritime Lumber Bureau referenced very clearly is that it's a problem for the Maritime lumber industry, the way things are currently worded. In a sense, we didn't see the provision made for Maritime lumber that we expected to have. We have clauses that essentially are dealing with important aspects of the punitive nature of this particular bill. I mean, a bill that imposes an 18-month prison sentence on softwood business operators--18 months. That's incredible!

It is inconceivable! We are talking about a prison sentence for a person operating a business in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. Not only would this individual lose his or her ability to operate, not only would the province of Quebec no longer be able to intervene, given these anti-avoidance provisions preventing it from assisting the forestry industry in any meaningful way, but, on top of that, directors of such companies in the Abitibi region would be sent to prison for 18 months. It could happen that the directors of a company be held responsible for that company's debts. That aspect is, it too, important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, these are relevant points to the debate on the motion.