International Trade Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone. Let's get started.

We're here today to deal with Bill C-24, An Act to impose a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States and a charge on refunds of certain duty deposits paid to the United States, to authorize certain payments, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to amend other Acts as a consequence. We're here today to give clause-by-clause consideration to this bill.

We have as witnesses, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Stephen de Boer, director, softwood lumber; Carl Hartil, deputy director, softwood lumber; Dennis Seebach, director, administration and technology services; John Clifford, counsel, trade law bureau; Michael Solursh, counsel, trade law bureau; and from the Canada Revenue Agency, Ron Hagmann, manager, softwood lumber; and Cindy Negus, manager, legislative policy directorate.

Welcome to you all once again. You're getting to be familiar faces here, but hopefully not for too many more meetings.

Before we get into the meeting itself, I want to mention a few things. The officials are here to answer questions on the implications of amendments. There is also, of course, a legislative clerk to answer questions on procedure, and she will be moving over here when we get through the initial business. The officials really can't comment, of course, on any political questions. They're here to speak to the amendments and not from a political commentary point of view, so if you go there, I'll certainly interrupt at that point.

The committee has packages of amendments. They have been distributed to all members to facilitate the work. Part of the package is a package of sheets that show certain clauses in the softwood lumber agreement that are also included in other acts. They're kind of standard clauses that have been used in other acts, such as the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, and so on. This is to make you aware that these are clauses that are used elsewhere. You are aware of the other contents, but I simply wanted to point that out.

I'd like to thank the members for respecting the deadlines for amendments. At this time I'd also like to say that we've had three motions from Peter Julian--proper notice has been given--and we will deal with two of those motions right now, Mr. Julian, if you're ready. The third one will be dealt with after clause-by-clause is finished, because we had agreed to proceed with clause-by-clause. That's the agenda. It has nothing to do with clause-by-clause consideration of the softwood lumber agreement, so it will be dealt with at the end of the clause-by-clause procedure.

You can go ahead with the other two motions, Mr. Julian. Please go ahead and read the first one.

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

Mr. Chair, I do have a question. There is the motion, very important and very timely, on textile protection--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That one will be dealt with, Mr. Julian, after clause-by-clause on the bill is finished, because it has nothing to do with the agenda of the--

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

Well, I'm suggesting for today that we would consider that at, say, 12:30 p.m. There is that motion. There is also a motion that was moved that we did not fully consider. Mr. Cardin suggested some amendments on October 17 dealing with the Canada CA-4 free trade agreement. As you recall, there were two motions: one motion was adopted; we didn't get to the second motion.

What I'm suggesting is that we would come back to that at a designated time today. I'm suggesting 12:30 p.m., both for that motion and for the motion on the textiles and apparel industry.

We must discuss this second motion, the one relating to the textile industry in Montreal. Two weeks ago, I participated, alongside several of my colleagues from the Bloc québécois, in a textile workers' rally. This is an urgent and important matter. It must be considered today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, you've given proper notice of that, of course, and you're free to bring that up any time you wish. If you want to bring it up, you--

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

So you're suggesting that I move that motion sometime after noon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You can do that, yes.

Do you want to deal with these other two motions now? It would seem appropriate, if you would like to deal with them at all.

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

I certainly would, Mr. Chair. There's no doubt about that.

I have provided notice of motion on the second motion. As I have done with some previous motions, I'll reserve the right to move that motion when I feel it's appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have that right.

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

I would now like to move the first motion:

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.

I'm moving this motion because on Monday of this week the government started making payments to the EDC. It's taxpayers' money, but it provided the support to the softwood industry that we've been advocating for many months. For nine months we've been saying that the government has the ability to do this. On Monday, the government made an initial payment of $950 million. We credit the government for doing that. It would have been better if it had been six or eight months ago. The important thing is that those funds from taxpayers are now going to the softwood industry. This allows the committee the opportunity to do our due diligence on Bill C-24.

As we heard from witnesses on Tuesday, there are some critical aspects of this bill that need to be considered. On Tuesday we received an important bit of information from the only witnesses we brought in, aside from departmental witnesses. Credible as government witnesses are, it's important to hear from outside folks. We heard that there is a risk of double taxation in clause 18. That's one element that we heard about on Tuesday.

The second element, which is a very important one, was the question of the actual language of Bill C-24. Mr. Pearson provided strong testimony that if we have loose language, or language that is vague or incomplete, we may be setting ourselves up for litigation that would happen almost immediately.

So the few witnesses we have heard informed us of important risks. If we don't do a measured, complete due diligence on Bill C-24, we could well end up provoking a further crisis in the industry, either through continued litigation, because Bill C-24 hasn't been drafted with the required exactitude, or through double taxation components or other perverse impacts. If we don't do our due diligence, we may indeed find that we're doing more harm than good.

These were the only witnesses we invited. Members around this committee table were invited to submit names, and I did so. Some colleagues haven't, but that may be understandable in light of who we requested. This is a different situation. We're talking about folks across the country who have indicated their interest in coming and speaking to us on Bill C-24, providing their expertise. Whether they come from industry, whether they're workers in the softwood industry, or whether they're municipalities, they're impacted by Bill C-24. There is real concern across the country about what this committee may be doing. From the letters we've received, we've gotten a clear indication that these groups, these folks who are experts in the area of softwood lumber and understand the impacts of Bill C-24, want to be heard. And they want to be heard before we enter into clause-by-clause consideration.

Let's look at who's asked to appear before us. We have Russ Cameron, the president of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I would like to remind you, Mr. Julian, that this committee agreed that each member of the committee would have any recommendations for witnesses in by a certain date. That date was roughly two weeks ago. The clerk is looking up the exact time. We were all given ample time to do that. You did name some witnesses. That process was followed through.

I would ask that all members of this committee respect the previous decision made by the committee.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect, that's not a point of order. What we're talking about here is that folks across the country, with a level of expertise, have written to this committee, written to you, through the clerk, to indicate their interest in testifying. That is a completely different situation from what members might be submitting as lists of witnesses for consideration.

What we're seeing here is a reaction across the country. It's called democracy, and it's a welcome thing.

That people who have a real interest in the future of the softwood industry would write to us, would write to you, through the clerk, I think, indicates a level of interest, number one, in Bill C-24, but number two, and more importantly, it indicates the level of concern. Some of these perverse impacts of Bill C-24, if they're not appropriately considered.... If we don't get the type of due diligence and the type of input that we certainly need from these folks across the country, what we may indeed be seeing is the adoption of clauses or amendments that will have perverse impacts. We certainly heard on Tuesday that those impacts could be very serious.

I'd like to come back, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Guergis has a point of order.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm hearing a lot of things coming from my colleague Mr. Julian that he has said around this table umpteen times already. We have had ample opportunity to hear from witnesses. Of course, witnesses can always provide written submissions at any time. We've done our due diligence. We have heard from witnesses over and over again.

I feel as though the honourable member may be just trying to stall here as long as he possibly can. I know we all made a decision here. I think integrity is at question, because we were all hoping to just get on with clause-by-clause at this point. I see that right off the top here, we're not actually making an effort.

Please call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Guergis, that is debate on a motion, I would suggest.

Mr. Julian, do you have more to say?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I certainly do.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I'm sure he does, for another two hours.

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

I will do so. That's the reality. Members of the committee around this table do have the right to make statements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, would you please address the chair and get on with your discussion on the motion?

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

Certainly, Mr. Chair. I apologize.

Let us take Bill C-11, for example, which is being considered in the transport committee. We have now had four weeks of hearings from witnesses across the country on that particular bill, and in fact we are looking at a period of six weeks to submit amendments.

In this case, the opposition was extremely cooperative. Eight days after receiving a clause-by-clause report, it submitted clause-by-clause amendments to the bill. That level of cooperation is something that wasn't seen either in this or the previous Parliament.

So I would hope that the government would cooperate back, given that we have made concessions, both in terms of the time required for amendments and also in extending the time today for the hearing.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to come to the most important thing, the actual witnesses themselves, and what they have said in requesting to be heard in front of this committee. Whether it's by teleconference, video conference, or in person, I think this is of much less important than the fact that they want to appear.

Russ Cameron of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association stated the following. He urges you to convene committee meetings so that the parties affected by Bill C-24 may appear as witnesses and express their views on this pending legislation:

We realize that sessions were held earlier in this process as we appeared at them, but things have changed a great deal since that time. For example, we were originally assured that all our interest would be returned to us, but now Canada will take some of it too. We were originally told in writing that we would get all our money back if we elected not to sell to EDC at a discount, but now Canada is imposing a special charge and will take that money from us too. We were originally told that 95% support was required, but when it was not there, Canada changed that requirement. We were originally told that all litigation must be dropped, but when it was not dropped, GOC changed that requirement too.

We have yet to see the much changed final agreement that the GOC plans to force upon us, yet we are currently operating under it. We now have experience with what this agreement will do to our industry and we need the opportunity to relate this new knowledge to the Committee.

At the July 31 Trade Committee meetings, a motion by Mr. Julian was passed to take the Committee to the affected parties and hold meetings in BC, Quebec, and Ontario. This has not yet occurred

--and we ask you to follow through with this motion.

The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association represents 120 B.C. companies, employing over 4,000 Canadians. Our annual sales are $2.5 billion on four billion board feet.

So that's Russ Cameron from the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association writing to urge this committee to have hearings on Bill C-24 before we move to clause-by-clause consideration.

We have a letter from Frank Everett, and Bill Derbyshire, who's president of Local 1425--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, I have a point of order.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Chair, a point of order.

It's just a clarification. Are we having de facto witnesses through Mr. Julian today? The deadline is up. We came here to go through this clause by clause.

I would like to call the question on Mr. Julian's motion. We've all had the opportunity to read these letters; we don't need them read out to us again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We can't do that, of course.

Mr. Cannan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand Mr. Julian's concerns. He's expressed them numerous times, and the majority of us have agreed that we want to move ahead.

Coming from British Columbia, as Mr. Julian, we've heard from the communities. There's a real need to move ahead with this. We have a roomful of highly paid staff, and I think in the best interest of taxpayers, I'd like to move that the debate now be adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The member has moved that debate now be adjourned, which is not debatable. We go to the question on that, for the vote on the motion.