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.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is absolutely absurd. This is a travesty, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, if you wish to vote, vote now. If you want to bring a point of order afterwards, we'll do that. We cannot have a discussion or a point of order during a vote. Now, please vote.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The vote was called when I had clearly signalled that I wanted to intervene on clause 11. You cannot continue to bulldoze your way through this bill.
(Clause 11 agreed to [See (Minutes of Proceedings)]
(On clause 12--Definitions)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We are now going to clause 12 and Bloc amendment BQ-2 on page 16.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could the head table please tell us exactly how many clauses have not received final debate and a final vote at this point?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, we've done that. All clauses have been voted on up to clause 12. We're now dealing with clause 12.
There is an amendment to clause 12 that is a Bloc amendment. If Mr. Cardin would like, he can move the Bloc amendment to clause 12, which is BQ-2, on page 16 of the amendment booklet.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you can see, this isn't particularly complicated. We are simply trying to ensure that the French and English versions match, so that the text is easier to understand.
Conservative
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with Mr. Cardin. This amendment does bring the English version in line with the French version. We intend to support amendment BQ-2.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would like to move a subamendment, Mr. Chair, that the words read “incurred in the placement aboard any conveyance”, and I will speak to that.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Referring to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary--which, they state, is the “world's most trusted” dictionary--the word “any” as a pronoun is defined thus: used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many.
That's the first definition given. The second definition is this: whichever of a specified class might be chosen.
And then the adverb is defined this way: at all; in some degree.
Again, what we have here in this particular clause is loose language, language that doesn't get the job done. As we've seen with the Maritimes exclusion, and certainly as we've seen with the definition of “related persons”, the changing of one word can make an enormous difference in what the legal outcomes are. For this particular bill, the decision to not make the language as tight as it needs to be puts us in a situation whereby, again, we could be looking at provoking litigation. As Mr. Pearson said very clearly last Tuesday, the lack of clarity and the loose language is going to provoke litigation. And as he testified, the litigation would commence almost immediately.
Mr. Chair, we're in a situation whereby if we choose the wrong word, we are not helping our cause. We've done it now in a number of other clauses. In this particular case, I'm offering the subamendment “any” because of the definition offered by the Oxford dictionary--namely, “one or some of a thing or number of things”.
So when we're talking about conveyances here, I don't believe it's appropriate to refer to it as “the” conveyance or “a” conveyance. Rather, it should be “any” conveyance, since that better reflects the language that's needed--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, Mr. Julian, your time is up. Thank you.
Does anyone else want to speak to Mr. Julian's subamendment?
Monsieur Laforest.
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I just wanted to say that this sub-amendment is inconsistent with the amendment the Bloc Québécois has already proposed, which in fact clarified matters.
I think this one only complicates matters even more. I intend to vote against it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
Let's go to a recorded division on the NDP subamendment to the Bloc amendment.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will now go to the Bloc amendment....
Mr. Julian--surprise--go ahead.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this.
Although Monsieur Cardin has quite rightly said this amendment improves the language in English, it is important to note that we could have improved it even more.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “the” as: denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge; the definite article used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique; with a unit of time, the present; and the informal is used instead of a possessive. It's used with a surname in its plural form to refer to a family or a married couple.
It's used to point forward to a following qualifying or defining clause or phrase. They note in the Oxford English Dictionary that chiefly with rulers and family members with the same name it's used after a name to qualify it. It's used to make a generalized reference rather than identifying a particular instance. Pronounced stressing is used to indicate that someone or something is the best known or most important of that name or type.
It's used adverbially with comparatives to indicate how one amount or a degree of something varies in relation to another. Usually “all the” is used to emphasize the amount or degree to which something is affected.
If we go back to the definite article denoting one or more people or things, as I mentioned, I would disagree that even though “the” is certainly better than the initial language used, it's certainly not as good as the subamendment we had offered on “any”.
As a result of that, Mr. Chair, I think it's important to say this is a slight movement along a continuum that we have to pay more attention to. Every word in this agreement, every word in this bill, has implications down the road for us.
As with giving away $1 billion, as with penalizing and destroying thousands of softwood jobs—4,000 since the agreement was rammed into place—if it's not a clear sign that this is a bad deal and a bad bill, I don't know what is.
Because every word has importance and every word can potentially be used by the coalition to justify litigation against us in the future, we have to make sure every word counts. I believe that “any” was certainly an improvement on the definitive article “the”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, your time is up.
Is there any other debate on amendment BQ-2 on page 16 of the amendment package?
We'll then go to the recorded division.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We now go to amendment L-3, on page 17 of the package.
Mr. LeBlanc.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am moving amendment L-3.
Mr. Chairman, as colleagues will know, and we've talked about this at a number of our hearings, this deals with the independent lumber remanufacturers, companies that are in every part of the country, in Atlantic Canada and across the country. Some of the larger ones, for example, are in western Canada and Alberta. They buy lumber on the open market and remanufacture the lumber to add value to it. So they have a unique circumstance with respect to exporting to the United States because they do not themselves harvest lumber or operate sawmills. They are independent, meaning they remanufacture, add value and create jobs to lumber that is sold on an open market.
The intent of amendment L-3 is simply to...we view it as a way to provide a definition of “independent remanufacturer” in the legislation. The bill does not itself define what is an “independent remanufacturer”. In the softwood lumber agreement, however, Canada and the United States have agreed to a definition. So we simply wanted to add the definition of what is an independent remanufacturer, as contained in the agreement, into the legislation.
For example, I know the parliamentary secretary will be happy that the date, October 11, 2006, has been inserted as the effective date, to be consistent again with the agreement.
With respect to “associated person” in our amendment, this is defined in relation to another statute, the Special Import Measures Act. Again, we view this as consistent with the intent of the softwood lumber agreement and the definition contained therein.
Our amendment, therefore, seeks simply to ensure consistency between the act and the original intent of the agreement. And it provides legal recognition and protection for this distinct class of exporters.
Mr. Chairman, I hope colleagues can support this effort to ensure the appropriate definition of these companies is inserted in the legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. LeBlanc, you actually submitted an amendment, L-3.1, as well as amendment L-3. Amendment L-3.1 is on page 18.1. I'm wondering which one you actually intended to introduce here. They are slightly different.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chairman, the reason was to respect the deadline that you set two weeks ago, I believe--how time flies in this committee. With respect to the deadline to submit amendments, I had submitted one that was only in English. The translation hadn't arrived in time. Therefore, amendment L-3 would be fine and we will obviously withdraw amendment L-3.1. This was as a result of a translation necessity, but we view them as consistent.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
That is good.
For the members to note, I see there is a line conflict with amendment NDP-7. Be aware of that as we're discussing and as we vote on this.
Mr. Julian, I believe, is next.
No, it's Ms. Guergis actually, then Mr. Julian.
