International Trade Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

If I might explain, this was handed to me by Mr. Casey, and probably I went too far in my explanation of this amendment.

I would like to pass the floor over to Mr. LeBlanc to comment on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

Mr. Jean, are you willing to withdraw that?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chairman, thank you again, and thank you, Mr. Menzies, for moving that new clause 10.1.

Again, this is identical to Liberal amendment 2. Therefore, if this is accepted, obviously Liberal amendment 2 would be withdrawn because it's identical.

We would have no problem with supporting Conservative Party of Canada amendment 2. If we want to move directly to that without a subamendment, we would be ready to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we have here amendments CPC-2, L-2 and G-2.

I would like to know the differences between CPC-2 and L-2, as compared to G-2. There don't seem to be many. If there are, however, I would like to know what that implies. Which amendment is best? If we had to choose between the Conservative one and the Liberal one, I suppose we'd have to go with the government one.

Madam Parliamentary Secretary, I would like some clarification from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go to you, Mr. Julian, but I want to point out before I do that there is a line conflict with CPC-2, which is on page 9 of our amendment booklet, and G-2, which is on pages 12 and 13 of our amendment booklet, just so you're aware of those line conflicts as we debate and vote on this particular issue.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, Ms. Guergis.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that if this amendment passes, the government one will no longer be necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That clarification is very helpful: G-2 will be withdrawn if CPC-2 passes.

Mr. Julian, you can speak now on CPC-2, which is on page 9 of the amendment booklet.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Is Mr. Jean withdrawing his subamendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

He did, yes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I would like to move that subamendment, so I will now speak to the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Perhaps you would explain exactly what subamendment you are putting in place.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

We would remove, at the start, “Despite section 10”. We thus would say:

The following exports of softwood lumber products are excluded from the charge referred to in that section:

I will speak to the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Speak to the subamendment, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The problem we're having here is that we're complicating even further clause 10. As we initially talked about, clause 10 was botched in the drafting. We had very clearly, from the text of the softwood lumber agreement, an exclusion of the Maritimes from the provisions of the softwood lumber agreement. That's something that is historical. That's something that has been established over time. And I think it's fair to say that this is something that all four parties around this table have supported.

So having that exemption from the historical litigation that has occurred around softwood lumber over the last few years, and that was only resolved on October 13 with our final victory in the Court of International Trade, that has now led to U.S. Customs and Border Protection starting to pay back 100% dollars to the companies, which renders Bill C-24

obsolete, most definitely.

The historical Maritimes exclusion was not moved from the softwood lumber agreement to Bill C-24. Now we have a situation where we're endeavouring to fix this.

In a sense, with the wording of both CPC-2 and L-2, which we support in their essentials, we're still in a situation where we're referring back to the clause 10 we have crafted--which is, to say the least, somewhat contradictory in terms of what we have, or what we would be adding, in new clause 10.1. Effectively we're endeavouring to build into that a clause that refers to the specific maritime exclusion--Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador--and also exports from the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut Territory.

It's very clear, Mr. Chair, that this is something that would need to be clarified as well in terms of subamendments.

By referring to clause 10 here, I think we would muddy the waters even further. In endeavouring to fix that particular clause by referring back to clause 10--we're now creating new clause 10.1--what we are doing is putting into place a series of building blocks of confusion, a labyrinth. If we are creating new clause 10.1, it stands on its own to refer to the exports of softwood lumber products excluded from the charge, specifically the four Atlantic Canadian provinces and our three northern territories.

As Mr. Jean mentioned when he moved the subamendment, as was right for him to do, by having that wording in there--Mr. Menzies referred to this as well--what we're doing is adding further confusion to the overall thrust of clause 10 and new clause 10.1 and how they interact.

I'm concerned about that confusion. I'm concerned about--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, your time is up.

We'll go to Mr. LeBlanc on the NDP subamendment.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I hope this doesn't become a pattern, but I agree entirely with Mr. Julian's subamendment. As Mr. Menzies explained at the table...and Mr. Jean was ready to move.

So we would certainly support the subamendment, which we believe strengthens new clause 10.1.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Anyone else on the subamendment?

Then let's go to a recorded division on the NDP subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now we will go to the vote on the amendment as amended.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'd like to offer a subamendment, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned in our discussion of the previous subamendment on clause 10, to clarify the exclusionary aspects of clause 10.1, we would add to clause 10.1(1) the words “the provinces of” to “Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland and Labrador” in paragraph 10.1(1)(a), and the words “the” and “Territory” to “Yukon” and the word “Territory” to “Nunavut” in paragraph 10.1(1)(b).

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, we're not certain that subamendment is in order.