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.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, I explained that I was making a ruling on this. We'll hold your motion until I make a ruling.
Mr. LeBlanc, do you have something to help the chair here?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chairman, to try to help the chair, I had originally proposed a definition, as I mentioned in L-3. I would view Mr. Menzies' subamendment to my amendment as a friendly subamendment.
If we weren't into the procedural games we're in, we would probably accept that without debate. Since we want to debate absolutely everything we can, this may not be possible, although it would be desirable.
Mr. Chairman, from my perspective, I would have no problem accepting Mr. Menzies' suggestions. The amendments that follow are consequential to my amendment and his subamendment. In my view, I would respectfully say they're in order.
If you judge, Mr. Chairman, they're not, Mr. Julian's motion to table to a future meeting is certainly out of order, because as we will remember in the original motion, there will be no future meetings until we dispose of this bill. We will dispose of this bill at this meeting.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Of course, Mr. LeBlanc. I understand that.
Give the chair a minute to decide on this issue, please.
Okay, the subamendment has been withdrawn, and we'll go back to Mr. LeBlanc's amendment. Thank you for that. This, of course, can be dealt with at report stage.
Yes, Mr. Julian.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is too important an issue to screw around and throw in last-minute amendments. So I have moved to table the discussion of this clause. It is in order. We do have the right to choose to table certain amendments if they are difficult or if the wording is not right.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, actually, I have ruled, and the subamendment has been withdrawn. We're now back to Mr. LeBlanc's amendment.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I have moved the motion to table this particular amendment, and I so move.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it is very much in order.
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could I get a ruling from your head--
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, you're testing my patience here. As I've explained to you, I have ruled on this and this issue has been dealt with.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian has challenged the ruling of the chair. We will now go to the familiar motion that the ruling of the chair be sustained. There is a recorded division.
(Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 7; nays 2)
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The decision of the chair has been sustained.
Let's go, Mr. LeBlanc, to your amendment.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I had already spoken when I introduced amendment L-3. I'm sure members were impressed by the eloquent way in which I introduced and supported this motion, so I would encourage members, in the interest of being expeditious, to proceed to a vote on this amendment.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
No, Mr. Chair, I spoke to the subamendment. We are now on the amendment.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Go ahead, Mr. Julian. I can't remember for certain. It's been a while.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I wouldn't play tricks on you, Mr. Chair. I spoke to the subamendment, and now I'll speak to the amendment.
The direction this committee seems to be going in is exceedingly dangerous. We've refused to hear from the independent lumber remanufacturers, even though they specifically requested to come before this committee. We've refused to hear witnesses who want to address serious and egregious deficiencies in the bill. Now we're throwing out an amendment that actually imperils the B.C. timber sales program. It's absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Chair, that we would do that.
We've had a traditional definition of “tenure”. It has been a traditional definition for some time. Tenure is a renewable right, not a one-off. That's the way we've always felt. That's the way Canada has always defended its position.
Because of the refusal on the subamendment, what we have now is an amendment that undermines all of that work over the years and creates a whole new definition of tenure. That means the B.C. timber sales program will henceforth be considered to be a tenure-based program.
The provincial government has spoken out against this. The Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association has spoken out against this. Aside from people on this committee, there is nobody who believes that putting the B.C. timber sales program in jeopardy is a good idea.
You've heard some of the testimony that the independent lumber remanufacturers would have liked to have given to this committee had this bill not be ramrodded through and had they not been completely excluded from having the opportunity to say their piece and their words. It's absolutely absurd to me that we would try to adopt an amendment that destroys the traditional interpretation of tenure, particularly in British Columbia. I am surprised that there are B.C. members at this committee table who are ready to vote against lumber remanufacturers in B.C., who have very specifically said what they want to see. They want to see tenure defined as what it really is: the renewable right to harvest crown timber, not one-off purchases of timber sales that are done at an arm's-length, sealed bid auction.
How could we possibly accept the United States coalition's interpretation of tenure? Why would we do that? We don't even do it in the agreement. That we are now doing it in the bill is an absolute absurdity. It just makes absolutely no sense.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, thank you. Your time is up.
Would anyone else like to speak on this?
Mr. Harris.
November 7th, 2006 / 12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chairman, I think it should go on record that Mr. Julian's rant is fundamentally a rant of ignorance. He does not understand that the independent remanufacturers are in fact supportive of Mr. LeBlanc's amendment. If anyone hasn't listened to the independent—
12:35 p.m.
Conservative