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.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to clarify. I did check with the legislative clerk before I presented the motion, and those were the conditions and the understanding--that the page and the amendment were one and the same, so if you want to put a friendly amendment instead of the amendments on pages 5, 6, and 9, that would be fine.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cannan, excuse me. There's no need for an amendment here. We understand what is intended. The clerk has indicated that is the case as well, so let's just go ahead with it.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, this is not the way to proceed--based on page numbers. We've been proceeding clause by clause. I think the assumption around the table was that the amendments were being based on clause-by-clause consideration, which would mean—
that the next one would be the amendment to clause 5 which is being proposed by the Bloc Québécois. Now we are not proceeding clause-by-clause, but rather, based on page number. We are addressing several amendments at the same time that relate to the same page, rather than actual clauses, which are actually clearer and easier to follow, while at the same time providing for a certain amount of transparency.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, you've made your point. We are going to proceed based on the clauses on these pages. Let's proceed, please, starting with the amendment on page 5, which is technically CPC-1.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will proceed.
The current vision of the bill fails to reflect the total exclusion for Atlantic Canada and for two other categories under section 1 of article X of the softwood lumber agreement. The problem with the current language is that it would make everyone subject to the export charge, with various carve-outs later in the bill. This is directly contrary to the total exclusions laid out in section 1 of article X of this softwood lumber agreement.
Section 1 of article X of the softwood lumber agreement states that the export measures shall not apply to exports from, number one, Atlantic Canada, referred to under the agreement as “the Maritimes”; number two, exports from the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut; and number three, excluded companies listed in annex 10 of the agreement.
This amendment corrects this problem and clarifies that the legislation aligns precisely with the agreement by stating that the export charge cannot apply to the exclusions provided for in the softwood lumber agreement.
This amendment is essential. It preserves the total exclusion for Atlantic Canada that dates back to 1986. We agree to the other amendments provided that the amendment to section 1 of article X is enacted.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me finish that statement, finally.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
We are considering clause 5 and we have Mr. Menzies speaking to clause 10. That is, to say the least, confusing.
We adopted a motion that proceeds by order of amendment by clause, so I would ask that you direct Mr. Menzies to speak to clause 5, not to clause 10.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Menzies, here's the situation, and it's an error on my part.
This motion has been passed, but what the motion doesn't do is state where we start, so we will have to debate. We'll go through the clauses until clause 10, at which time we can take all of these together as proposed here. It doesn't change an awful lot, except that we'll deal with the clauses up to clause 10. At that time this motion comes into effect, and we will deal with those all together. It's not a big deal, but Mr. Julian and Mr. Cardin are correct on this. I just didn't understand what was being said, Mr. Menzies. I apologize for that.
We will go ahead to clause 5, as has been indicated here.
Mr. Julian and Monsieur Cardin, I didn't understand what you were saying. I had it explained, and you're correct.
Ms. Guergis is next.
(On clause 5--Time of export)
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I would like to start off by saying that I support this Bloc amendment, Mr. Chair.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The Bloc will move their amendment.
We're on clause 5. The Bloc amendment is on page 3.
Go ahead, Monsieur Cardin.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you can see, clause 5 deals with the time of export. In terms of quotas, we all know that they are calculated on a monthly basis. When the softwood product is loaded onto a truck, it automatically leaves to be exported. In that case, the date corresponds. However, when the product is shipped by rail, it may be loaded on to a railcar that stays in the yard for quite some time. In that case, the date may be carried forward several days and end up in the following month. Because of the time that can elapse before the product is actually exported, a significant imbalance could affect the way quotas are managed.
As a result, we would like the export date to be the date when the product is loaded onto the railcar, and not the date the car is assembled to form part of a train.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to say that we support this amendment. It clarifies the timing under which a shipment sent by rail is deemed to be exported and will provide increased certainty for the lumber companies. We, on the government side, support this amendment.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I have a subamendment to offer, but before I do that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask our panel what they believe the impact of this particular amendment would be.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Go ahead.
Their time would technically be included when we're having—
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Gentlemen, please keep in mind that your time will be included in the three minutes of debate.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Questions and clarifications are not included, very clearly, in last Thursday's draconian motion. So no, that is not the case. Questions of the panel are separate from the actual speaking time. That's obviously an omission of Mr. Menzies, but that's the reality. If you check with the head table, I'm sure they will reinforce my contention that the question time is separate from the intervention time on amendments.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, I appreciate your input into this, but in fact in any committee I have been with, the questioning time of a member includes the answer from the witnesses, and that's the way this has been interpreted.
Let's go ahead, please, gentlemen,
If on certain issues we feel more time is needed for the officials, the committee can agree to it at that point in time.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What you're saying, then, is that it is a disadvantage for members to ask questions of the panel. You're saying that because of the three-minute rule, essentially—