Evidence of meeting #36 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
If anyone hasn't listened to the independent remanufacturers, it's Mr. Julian. However, he has another agenda here, rather than the swift passage of this bill that will benefit the softwood lumber industry and the independent remanufacturers' industry as a whole.
In fact, the independent remanufacturers support the amendment by Mr. LeBlanc. This committee should in fact pass this amendment, because it is the proper amendment that recognizes and fixes the concerns of the independent remanufacturers in the country.
Mr. Julian should be a little embarrassed at his ignorance of the support that this amendment has from the independent remanufacturers, Mr. Chair, and I believe that should be part of the record.
Thank you.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
In spite of the time, I echo Mr. Harris's comments.
Call the vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Let us go to the vote on Liberal amendment L-3, on page 17 of the package. It will be a recorded division.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8, nays 4) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Amendment L-3 has been carried. NDP-7, therefore, cannot be moved.
Liberal amendent L-3.1 has already been withdrawn.
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. NDP-7 is perfectly in order. What it does is define, in a more specific way, “who is certified as an independent remanufacturer by the applicable provincial or territorial government, in consultation with the Government of Canada”.
You would not supersede.... It would help to address the egregious errors of what we just adopted. So it is very much in order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The amendment NDP-7 would be in order except that very section of clause 12 has been amended already at this stage, so we are not, of course, procedurally allowed to entertain that amendment.
We now go to Bloc amendment B-3.
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, it is very much in order. What we do, as we've done with some of the subamendments that have been offered by the government side, is we simply make the consequential amendments. In this case, we would make a consequential amendment based on what we've just adopted, adding in what I've put forward as wording. It is very much in order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, you had an option to introduce this as a subamendment, and you missed that opportunity.
No, Mr. Julian, we're finished with that.
On Bloc amendment B-3, Monsieur Cardin, would you like to--
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I challenge your decision.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian has challenged the decision of the chair. We are now moving to a motion to sustain the decision of the chair--a recorded division.
(Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will now go to Bloc amendment B-3, which is on page 19 of the amendment booklet.
Monsieur Cardin.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, it's important to set the record straight on this, because I'm surprised at my colleagues from British Columbia and their ignorance about the B.C. softwood industry.
We have a small organization in Ottawa, the Canadian Lumber Remanufacturers' Alliance, which represents a few dozen lumber remanufacturers that have said they're in favour of the amendments we've just adopted. It's true that they don't have the same tenure structure as we do in British Columbia. The independent lumber remanufacturers of British Columbia have very clearly expressed their disapproval of this egregious usurpation of the definition of “tenure”. I'm appalled that we have two members from British Columbia who don't understand the distinction between B.C. lumber remanufacturers and an eastern organization that represents some eastern remanufacturers. That's the difference, the fundamental difference.
The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association was not consulted on the amendment that we've just adopted in this clause. In fact, they expressly objected to the wording and said so and wanted to come before this committee. This committee refused to hear from them, from the hundreds of British Columbia independent lumber remanufacturers that are represented by that organization, many of them in the Okanagan, many of them in northern British Columbia. You can be sure, Mr. Chair, that those lumber remanufacturers are going to be hearing about what transpired in committee today.
I understand now it wasn't done in bad faith. It was just appalling ignorance on behalf of some of the committee members who didn't understand the distinction between an eastern organization, based in Ottawa, and organizations in British Columbia that represent the vast majority of independent lumber remanufacturers in British Columbia.
They said very clearly that we cannot redefine tenure. If we redefine tenure according to the American model, what happens, Mr. Chair, is twofold. Number one, of course we're setting ourselves up for a fall next time there's litigation from the United States, as we have with clause 6. We seem to be hell-bent on doing that in clause 12 as well, as we've done with clause 10. What we are doing progressively, what other members of the committee are doing, is setting us up for a tremendous fall, and for serious consequences because they're not approaching this bill with the seriousness it requires. To define tenure now as something that is subject, even through a sealed bid, arm's-length auction.... A one-time auction will now be considered tenure because we've adopted this. What a catastrophic error.
Rather than agreeing that maybe we're ramrodding this through too fast, and maybe there are implications, and maybe there are lost jobs that will result from this, because, effectively, lumber remanufacturers are going to have to opt out of the B.C. timber sales program, this committee is just ramming through clause-by-clause no matter what the consequences.
I object fundamentally to this, Mr. Chair. It is very clear that what this committee is doing—
NDP
Liberal
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to indicate to the committee that, as a member from British Columbia, I have consulted with the mills, and they're fully supportive of this agreement. The sooner we can get this passed, the sooner there will be certainty and some predictability for the industry. Premier Campbell supported it.
I think we need to attend to business, so I call the question.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Lui Temelkovski
Let's have the question.
(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas, 8; nays, 1; abstentions, 1)
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Lui Temelkovski
We will now proceed to page 20, NDP-8, which is clause 13.
(On clause 13--Surge mechanism)
Mr. Julian, are you prepared to move...?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, I am, Mr. Chair.
I'm still getting over that last vote. I'm appalled, as any Canadian listening in would be, that due care and attention is not being brought to this bill. What we have just done to independent lumber remanufacturers in British Columbia is absolutely appalling. I have not seen anything this egregious in my brief time here on Parliament Hill. It just makes no sense.
I now move on to the motion itself. Here, as elsewhere in the many dozens of clauses that we'll be examining over the next day or two, Mr. Chair.... Unless somebody in this committee votes to reconsider these appallingly bad rules of order to ramrod this stuff through, no matter what the consequences, we've seen so far, at least in three areas, that we have provoked some very egregious consequences.
Here, in clause 13, what we have is replacing “The amount of the charge applicable to an export of a softwood lumber product from a region during a month is increased by 50%”. That's how subclause 13(1) currently reads. We would be reducing that to 0.5%, so that what we would have is a penalty, but a penalty that is not a straitjacket for the softwood companies.
We've seen here that what we have done so far is penalize lumber manufacturers. We've given away our ability to deal effectively on arm's-length transactions, and accepted holus-bolus the American interpretation of what an arm's-length transaction is and what unrelated and related persons must be. We haven't adequately defined a whole series of aspects of this bill. And we have these punitive measures that permeate this bill.
As Mr. Feldman, one of the two non-governmental witnesses that this committee allowed before it moved to ram through each and every clause of this bill, said, most of this bill consists of punitive, unfair measures levied against the softwood industry. It's a recipe for disaster. That's why we've lost nearly 4,000 jobs in the few weeks that this agreement has been in place, with closures right across the country.
There have been plant closures in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, there have been plant closures in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and there have been closures on the North Shore. Those closures occurred because the industry has no faith in this Agreement; it has no faith in what we are doing here. People in the industry know full well that this is not in the interests of communities.
So we have here a clause that is increasing punitive charges for companies that, through no fault of their own—in fact, it often could be the fault of another company overriding anytime—
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Lui Temelkovski
Thank you very much, Mr. Julian.
Would anybody else like to debate?
