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 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
That is correct, Mr. Julian. If you'd like to speak to it, you get three minutes.
11 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
This is something that, in this corner of the committee room, I certainly will be supporting. This is an important fix for what was an egregious error in the drafting of this legislation. The maritime exclusion is something the NDP has fought for and supported historically. I think it's fair to say that through all of the litigation cases, there has been a certain level of unanimity around the issue of ensuring that maritime lumber is excluded.
We have a situation where the wording of this particular clause of the bill is even more important, because the coalition in the United States has signalled that they'll be taking the money that the Canadian government will be giving them, half a billion dollars, and they will be renewing litigation attacks on Canada. They wouldn't have been able to do that without the half a billion dollars because they were at the end of their ability to fund more legal challenges. But now they have a fresh infusion of cash, half a billion dollars taken right now from Canadian taxpayers.
Because of the fact that only 25% of industry has signed on to the EDC deal, the reality is that the moneys the companies are getting paid to them directly now, 100% dollars, are not deducted through U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Those cheques are already starting to go out; the meeting was last Friday, as you know, Mr. Chair. Thank goodness we didn't ram through this bill on Thursday, because now we know that the cheques have been going out as of Friday, 100% dollars going out to softwood companies because we won on October 13.
So now we have a situation in which this badly botched softwood sellout and this badly botched bill are going to complicate the lives of softwood companies considerably. We have to make sure the wording is exact and resist that legal challenge that will come from the coalition.
We know that challenge will come. They have half a billion dollars in Canadian funds with which to make it. So although it has not been improved to the extent that I would feel comfortable, the wording here is certainly better than the initial crafting of the bill that came out. That crafting changed the maritime exclusion to an exemption payment of nil.
We had to address that as a committee. We've certainly made some steps—important steps, I think—with both Mr. Casey's and Mr. LeBlanc's amendments that were brought forward. I don't think the government's amendments were as helpful. But with the addition of that clause 10.1, we certainly will have better protection for maritime lumber, though it's fair to say it's not the complete protection that we need.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Your time is up.
We will now go to the vote on CPC-2, as amended, with a recorded division.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I abstain.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
November 7th, 2006 / 11:05 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm pleased to now speak on the new clause 10.1. I think it is still the same confusing way of putting into place the numbering system for these new clauses. Though I disagree with the way the clause and numbering system is being put together, I do support the principle of what we are adopting.
I wanted to speak more specifically about northern areas, particularly the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. I must say that despite the fact that we have improved this aspect of Bill C-24 to a certain extent, we still have a way to go, Mr. Chair. What we have is a situation with the softwood industry that is incipient, to say the least.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, I'm going to interrupt you. This is a bit of a different situation. Because clause 10.1 is a new clause, and we passed the amendment, we are in fact finished with it. We do not actually go to a debate or a vote on clause 10.1. In fact, it would cause problems if we did that, Mr. Julian.
We're moving on now.
You have a point of order, Mr. Julian.
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, in this case you would have actually been better letting me finish, I think.
Here we have an agenda that you told me about when we talked about clause 10, moved immediately to consideration of clause 10. You said that we must follow the agenda as set out in last Thursday's meeting. Despite the fact that Mr. Menzies' motion ripped apart any possibility of a really effective move to clause-by-clause throughout the bill, we're in a situation now where, if we follow the agenda, we will be moving from the amendments to debate on whether clause 10.1 should carry.
Indeed, as you know, Mr. Chair, what you are endeavouring to do is exactly the opposite. We've had one process for clause 10, and we are now going to a completely different process for new clause 10.1. What gives, Mr. Chair? What is the agenda? How are we trying to move through this extremely complex bill that needs to be improved because it was badly botched in the drafting? There's no doubt, Mr. Chair, that we have work to do on every single clause, but if we change our rules of procedure and how we function in every clause, then what we're going to end up with is just a lot more points of order than the serious kind of consideration that needs to take place on this bill.
We moved through clause 10 having discussion on the amendments, and then we moved to debate on whether clause 10 should carry. We are now--and this is why I'm raising my point of order--moving to clause 10.1, a new clause. According to what is written very specifically in the agenda, we are moving to, “Shall new clause 10.1 carry?” Well, we are doing that without debate. Now, either we are adhering to this agenda that we set up, despite what Mr. Menzies did to rip apart that agenda, or we're not. But we can't have different rules of order and different rules of procedure for each of the clauses as we work through this process.
That is my point of order, Mr. Chair.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
We are now going to the amendment on page 22. We can't vote--
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I have raised a point of order. Could we have a ruling from the head table, please?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, you are changing the agenda. You went through a process on clause 10, and now you are taking what is clearly before us, which is consideration of new clause 10.1, and you're refusing debate.
There is debate. There is an alteration; there is a ripping up of the agenda.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, I will clarify it for you. The clarification is that we agreed--we passed a motion earlier--to modify the agenda, so now the new agenda is modified. I am in fact sticking to the agenda.
Don't interrupt me, please, Mr. Julian. I am speaking now.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, I've already done that. The chair makes these decisions. I get guidance from the people at the table. I have done that, in fact.
We are going--
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, I will have your microphone cut off if you're not going to respect some order at this committee.
We're going ahead now with the amendment on page 22. That is amendment CPC-3. It's Mr. Casey's.
Just for clarification, we're not going to go to the vote on the clauses that these amendments affect until later. We're going to deal with the amendments. We'll go through them--pages 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26--then we'll go back and proceed from the clause that we last had a vote on.
Ms. Guergis.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Can you clarify for me, Mr. Chair, that the three minutes will be the entire debate, because they're all being debated at once? Is that how it works?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
No, we're not debating them at once, but we are debating them together, in order, starting on page 22.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we adopted a motion that said we were going to clauses 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11. We are now on clause 11.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We were not talking about clauses, Mr. Julian. We were referring to amendments on those pages.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, this is what we adopted. We had that debate two hours ago. As far as I can see, though, we're not obeying any of these agendas. We haven't had a vote on new clause 10.1, we haven't had discussion on new clause 10.1, and we're not even moving to clause 11.
It's total confusion, Mr. Chairman.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, if you will look at pages 11, 12, and 13, because of the vote on new clause 10.1, those are no longer....
Mr. Julian, again, maybe the problem is that the motion referred to the page numbers that the amendments are on. We're dealing with those amendments in the order of page number. We're now on page 22, which is CPC-3, which is Mr. Casey's amendment.
Mr. Julian.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, we are moving to clause 11. That is what we adopted. We had discussion, there was intense confusion around it, and we have subsequently moved to clause-by-clause.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, we're no longer discussing this. In fact, we did pass this motion—