International Trade Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Temelkovski.

We will now go to the vote on NDP amendment 4, which is on page 7 of the amendment booklet--a recorded division.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now we go to government amendment 1, which is on page 8 of the amendment booklet.

Go ahead, Ms. Guergis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of course, the government and we on this side support this amendment. It is one of several amendments required to implement the revised effective date for the Canada-United States softwood lumber agreement on October 12. The original effective date for entry into force was October 1. The extension from the October 1 date was due to the complexities on both sides of the border, in particular with regard to determination of litigation and requests from Canadian industry for more time to complete the legal documentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Guergis.

Is there any other discussion on this motion? Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Because of the vagueness of how this is worded, I'd like to offer a subamendment, that it be “October 11, 2006, at midnight”.

I'll speak to the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Let's just get the amendment again, Mr. Julian. Please repeat it.

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

It is two words: “at midnight”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You want to add “at midnight” after the year.

Okay. Go ahead and speak to your subamendment, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've had the vagueness around this whole issue of the actual

implementation of the Agreement. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that duties have been collected on Canadian softwood lumber that crossed the boarder after October 2. According to certain rumours, depending on whom you speak to, it was October 13 or 14. In any case, the problem clearly lasted for several days.

Double payments were made, meaning that, once again, softwood lumber companies were penalized. That was not the most effective way to proceed. They have been penalized by this Agreement and they continue to be penalized. They would have been penalized had they agreed to sign the Export Development Canada documents, because we now see that 75 per cent of companies did not sign them and will be receiving...

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, would you speak to your subamendment, please?

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

They are also penalized because of a lack of rigour as regards implementation of the Softwood Lumber Agreement.

Because people are still paying double taxation, it will take some time before we know who paid twice — in other words, who paid Canadian tariffs levied against softwood companies and who paid U.S. tariffs, even though they were illegal. So, a specific time will have to be set in order to know to what extent companies were hit with this double taxation.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it will take months to make sense of all the problems that have arisen since the Agreement came into effect. We can't just say it's one day later or one day earlier. A company that delivered its exports at 11:59 p.m. on October 11 and paid twice could say to the government...

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, your time is up.

Does anybody else want to speak on Mr. Julian's subamendment?

We go to the recorded division on Mr. Julian's subamendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now we'll go to the recorded division on the government amendment.

Mr. Julian, you have up to three minutes. You don't have to use all the time on the government amendment.

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

I appreciate these little gifts of five and six seconds you're giving me as well, Mr. Chair, despite the closure, although overall, with the five or six seconds and with what you've taken away for asking committee witnesses, I still come out behind.

Mr. Chair, this is a pretty fundamental issue. We have companies that paid twice. We don't know how many. We don't know for how many days. We don't know, when we look at the Washington border crossings, the Minnesota border crossings, and the New York State border crossings, to what extent and where those double payments were made. But if we set it at October 11 and we don't have a precise hour--which will add further legal difficulties, there's no doubt about that--what we are doing is imposing that double tax in a way that is not to the benefit or the advantage of all the companies that have suffered from this botched agreement and this botched bill. We know that companies paid twice. We know that. We don't have the final comprehensive list, because the government didn't have its act together and didn't do the kind of tracking it should have done as this agreement was forced into place.

Mr. Chair, the end result is that companies paid twice. By saying that the duty payments are in effect as of October 11, we are enshrining that double payment for those companies in what I think is an extremely irresponsible way. Mr. Chair, we're forcing them to pay twice. They paid the 10.8% illegal American tariff that was removed by the Court of International Trade as of October 13, and we've seen, as I mentioned last Friday, that Customs and Border Protection is now paying out 100% dollars to Canadian companies that have not filed with the government. So we have the companies that stayed away from the government now getting those 100% dollars, and we have the companies that signed onto EDC having a double tax, which actually means that they'll be getting about 67¢ back. It's absolutely bizarre and irresponsible, Mr. Chair.

Now on top of that double tax that we're imposing through clause 18, we're also looking to impose a double charge: the illegal American tariffs and the 15% self-imposed Conservative capitulation tariffs. We're looking at egregiously poor treatment of softwood companies.

October 11 cannot be the date. I cannot speak in favour of this, because it is absolutely irresponsible. It was irresponsible of the government to impose this. It's irresponsible of the government to set this date.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, your time is up.

Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this government amendment 1, which is on page 8?

We'll go to recorded division on government amendment 1.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

We now go to the clause. Does clause 10 as amended carry?

Mr. Julian.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Actually, the biggest part of the change to clause 10 has yet to be considered by this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, I appreciate your leading to a clarification. That will be clause 10.1, which is considered to be a new clause, so we will vote on clause 10 now.

If you follow the agenda, Mr. Julian, you'll see that.

Let's go to the recorded division on clause 10 as amended.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, you have to vote first. You can't bring a point of order. We're on the recorded division on clause 10 as amended.

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

Mr. Chair, what you have done is added a new section--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No, Mr. Julian, you cannot go to anything else until you vote on this. Are you abstaining?

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

No, I will not abstain. But, Mr. Chair, with respect, what we have done is changed these rules of order, the rules of procedure--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, with all due respect, we cannot entertain debate or a point or order or anything until you vote. The rest have voted on this clause as amended, and either you vote, Mr. Julian, or abstain--it's up to you.

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

I'm on a point of order, Mr. Chair, in terms of consideration of clause 10.