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
Mr. Chair, again, this is very consequential. We're talking about amendments that have huge impacts. He is talking about certification under section 25, and then he is amending clause 100. These are two different clauses.
Mr. Chair, I would hope that you would rule that the second clause is out of order.
Mr. Chair, this is on a point of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, there is no line conflict or anything with any amendments in clause 100, which is where the other part applies, so we can just rule that the vote applies to both; there isn't a problem with that, Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would like to move that the two clauses be treated separately, and I would like to speak to that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I have ruled that the second one is consequential and we can deal with them both together. There is no line conflict with clause 100, which is the other clause being dealt with. So let's move ahead.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
You may disagree with how it is treated, but the motion is in order.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
No. I've ruled on it, Mr. Julian. What you can do if you choose is challenge the ruling of the chair.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, let's go to a vote that the ruling of the chair be sustained.
(Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 6; nays 1)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The ruling of the chair has been upheld.
Let's now go to the vote on the subamendment.
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What we are doing is compounding the problem that existed in Bill C-24. This has enormous ramifications, and I'm really dismayed that the committee is not taking this particular clause with the seriousness it needs to take.
The Canadian Lumber Remanufacturers' Alliance, the largest association in the country, said they wanted to come before this committee. Their ability to intervene was refused. They want to see tenure defined as what it really is--the renewable right to harvest crown timber. That would allow independents to buy open market fibre to trade for what they need without disqualifying them from first mill.
They also note that the coalition has no legitimate argument against this. What the coalition has been doing is simply harassing the Canadian sector that buys all of its wood fibre at arm's-length market prices.
In addition, the disqualification of these companies means that the number of bidders for the B.C. timber sales program is reduced, or they'll have to discount their bids to make up for the increased tax they'll have to pay. Both of these undermine the credibility of the B.C. timber sales program in setting the stumpage on the tenures.
I'm surprised that we have a B.C. member pushing for something that is going to undermine the B.C. timber sales program that the B.C. government has already spoken out against as well and that Canada should not have capitulated on. To play around with loose wording and kind of throw in whatever definition we can won't just mean the coalition has the opportunity to broadly define timber on their basis when they come back at us with the half billion dollars that the Conservative government wants to give away; it also means that the B.C. timber sales program is going to be impacted.
Every single member around this table knows that this is going to impact the B.C. timber sales program. We can't throw out last-minute definitions. We can't try to just deal with it in a very superficial way. We have to take appropriate care and attention to ensure that tenure is defined on a Canadian basis, not an American basis.
Mr. Cannan's subamendment does not do that. In fact, Mr. Cannan's subamendment complicates things even more.
We have specific direction from the largest group of lumber remanufacturers in the country. This committee refused to hear them, as they refused to hear the vast majority of witnesses who came forward and said they wanted to testify.
Let's not make this egregious error and mistake. Let us not be irresponsible. Let us take the appropriate care and due diligence on this section.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian. Your time is up.
Is there any other debate on the subamendment? We will now go to a recorded division on the subamendment.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you.
This is a subamendment to this clause that, as a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in clause 16 be amended by replacing line 8 on page 12.
Okay, sorry, I need to back up here. This was just handed to me as a wonderful amendment to that. We will start it over again.
The amendment, with reference number 2438017, is to be further amended by replacing lines 1 to 10 of the proposed amendment with the following, “who is certified under section 25, in accordance with the procedure established under schedule 1”, and schedule 1 is the actual wording from the agreement that has already been tabled.
I'll try to stick to the amendment. As a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in clause 16 is to be amended by replacing line 8 on page 12 with the following, “name is set out in schedule 2 is exempt from”.
Also as a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in clause 16 is to be amended by replacing line 14 on page 12 with the following, “regulation, amend schedule 2 by adding”.
Also, as a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 in the schedule is to be amended by replacing line 1 on page 100 with the following, “Schedule 2”.
As a consequence of the subamendment, Bill C-24 is to be amended by adding the following, “Schedule 1” at line 27 on page 99.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I need a bit of time.
Mr. LeBlanc, if you could, please help with this.
Liberal
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to help members of the committee.
There was some confusion originally in Mr. Cannan's—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Yes, that subamendment is inadmissible in the form it's in.
We're now distributing some documentation here. We're going to try to figure this out.
Mr. Julian, yes, go ahead.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'd like to move to table the consideration of this amendment until we can get some clarification, to come back at a subsequent meeting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, as I explained before, I'm considering this before I make a ruling on it. So it's on hold.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The motion is still submitted in good form, Mr. Chair. We have the right to table discussion over an amendment. I don't think we're going to do it today. We need to come back at a subsequent meeting, because how we word this is critical. That's why I put forward the formal motion to table discussion on this amendment.