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.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to start off by saying that I understand, looking at—
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I challenge your decision. We have a logical sequence.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We'll go to a recorded vote on the motion. The motion—I should know this by now—says that we sustain the ruling of the chair. It will be a recorded division.
(Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 8; nays 1)
(On clause 14—Export from Atlantic provinces)
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you very much.
I'm taking a look at both Mr. Casey's and Mr. LeBlanc's amendments, on pages 22 and 23. I do see that they are almost exactly the same, and I'd like to applaud both members for the great work they have done here.
But I do have a little concern here. I notice that there might be just a slip of the words. A couple of words seem to be wrong here. I'm looking at the top of Mr. Casey's, which says:
If, during a particular calendar quarter, exports of softwood lumber products from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and Labrador
The word “or” is correct, but when I come down to the very bottom of it, at the third line from the bottom, it says “and”. I think someone should be proposing a subamendment to change that to “or”.
I see Mr. LeBlanc seems to be in favour of that. I'm looking at his as well, and he has “and” in his two positions. They should read “or” as well.
So I just wanted to express my concerns, but I also wanted to comment that the amendment we put forward on the government side with respect to clause 14 will be withdrawn if this were to pass.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the parliamentary secretary. Mr. Casey and I both seem to have had a little difficulty with respect to this amendment. It should read “or”. Therefore, I would suggest a subamendment to CPC-3, which we're looking at now on page 22. The third line from the bottom that begins “and Newfoundland and Labrador” should be changed to “or Newfoundland and Labrador”, to be consistent, as the parliamentary secretary said, with the fourth line at the top of that same page.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm just shaking my head, Mr. Chair, about how this is being done.
What we have is a badly botched clause 10, which we endeavoured to fix by adding new clause 10.1, which we have not debated as a new clause. We are now moving to clause 14, and we have amendments that need to be fixed because right now, currently, the way this particular amendment is worded, you would have to have a softwood log product that has been processed in all four provinces before we'd be able to actually have the exclusion that was originally included within the softwood lumber agreement. This is not a way to make legislation in any way.
Mr. Chairman, we can see here that our decisions are making the situation even more confused. That means we are likely to make mistakes that will have serious consequences in the coming years. With respect to the sub-amendment, if we keep the current wording, the Coalition would most certainly conclude that the four provinces as a whole are not affected. It is impossible, indeed, unthinkable to subject the product to four different steps, in this case, in the four Atlantic provinces. That definitely has to be clarified, to ensure that primary processing occurs in one of the four Atlantic provinces.
Mention is also made of the State of Maine, something that is very important to the north, as I mentioned earlier. The fact is that if we continue to draft wording on the back of a napkin, we will end up making mistakes and people will be harshly criticized subsequently, Mr. Chairman. The wording must be clarified to say that this does not apply to the four provinces as a whole. We need to ensure that a product from Northern New Brunswick or Nova Scotia is subject to the provisions that exclude the Maritimes. So, it is very important to pass this sub-amendment.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, your time is up.
Does anybody else want to speak on the subamendment? Then we'll go to the recorded division on the Liberal subamendment
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I propose a subamendment to subclause 14(1). The last three lines would read:
shall pay a charge calculated by applying $100 per thousand board feet of exported lumber products to that person's excess shipments.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Can we have comments from the witnesses as to whether that would change the agreement itself?
11:20 a.m.
Counsel, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Yes, it would change the agreement. The agreement provides for a $200 charge on exports in the Atlantic provinces that exceed production in inventory. It's specified in article XVII of the agreement. To remain consistent with the agreement, it should be a $200 charge, not a $100 charge.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, it is out of order, Mr. Julian, in fact. I've come to that conclusion.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'd like the witness to reference on what page of the agreement it is, for our....
11:20 a.m.
Counsel, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I don't have the pages listed here, but it's article XVII, “Anti-Circumvention”, paragraph 5(a).
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, your time is up.
I would like clarification from the witnesses as to whether these changes would change the amount of money that would be paid out by government.
November 7th, 2006 / 11:25 a.m.
Counsel, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
In order not to circumvent the agreement, it has to be a $200 charge, not a $100 charge.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I was asking about whether that could require more expenditure on the part of government. If so, that would mean, of course, that the subamendment is out of order.