Mr. Chair, for clause 18, we voted in the first amendment a double penalty now on softwood companies. So those who go through EDC, that 25% of companies that actually accept the government pressure, will actually be penalized twice. They're getting 67¢ back on the dollar, as Mr. Feldman testified. We have also included end-matched lumber. That's a brilliant stroke of genius, Mr. Chair, that we are now in a situation in which we are reinforcing something that Canada has traditionally opposed. In other words, the softwood sellout is right here and right now, Mr. Chair. We're seeing it through the course of this committee hearing, where we are selling out on a wide variety of areas on which Canada has traditionally stood firm. As one member of the lumber industry asked me last night, why are the Liberals supporting what the Conservatives are trying to do? That's a question the Liberals will have to answer.
We've imposed the double tax, and we've now said that end-match lumber is included, completely in opposition to the way we have traditionally stood on this. Even the Liberal government stood on this, and now it's repudiated and end-match lumber is in.
So now we look at the punitive charge that is actually levied currently on the basis of earlier days, the date on which this act is assented to, and the date that is the earlier of that for duty deposit refund, or that on which the specified person sells the rights.
As we heard in testimony two weeks ago, when we talked with officials from the department, there was no provision in this bill to ensure that companies who opted to go through EDC weren't being doubly penalized. There's no provision for that. Essentially, the companies that go through EDC--and they're the ones that are hardest up, like Tembec, as I mentioned--the moneys that are getting taxpayers' funds, because this government so badly botched the agreement.... We now have a situation where we know within the category of clause 18 that we're forcing a special charge before any of these companies necessarily gets money. So we are attempting to say that it is based on receiving payment, either on the date on which the duty deposit refund is issued, or on the date the person receives payment for selling the rights.