International Trade Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I just want to clarify the reason for this. It's one of the amendments required to implement the revised effective date. As we know, the effective date for the Canada–U.S. softwood lumber agreement was October 12. The amendment ensures that the special charge will be collected on refunds of all deposits paid up to the revised effective date of the agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Cannan, we're actually on clause 17, unamended. Should I go with the recorded division on clause 17?

(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move adjournment now, it being 1:30. We've worked on this for four and a half hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No, Mr. Julian, you know....

Mr. Julian, we could suspend for question period right at two o'clock if you would like.

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

I would be perfectly in agreement with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will start again at five minutes after three.

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

I will be there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Let's continue.

(On clause 18--Definitions)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We're now on clause 18. The first amendment to clause 18 is G-5, which is on page 29 of the amendment booklet.

Go ahead, Mr. Cannan, please.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to move the motion. As I mentioned, this is one of several amendments required to implement the revised effective date of October 12 of this Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. The amendments ensure that the special charge will be collected on refunds of all deposits paid up to the revised effective date of the agreement. So that's the reason for it.

I propose--at an appropriate time, and I would defer to you or the clerk--that there are several other amendments that have this effective date, and perhaps it would be appropriate to provide that amendment for administrative ease.

I defer to the chair for your advisement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, Mr. Cannan, just hold a minute on that. We had discussed this, and I'm just going to discuss it a little more.

Thank you for bringing that forth, Mr. Cannan. I'll get back to you on that. We are discussing how we can accommodate that.

Is there any other debate on this amendment, which is on page 29?

Are you sure, Mr. Martin, you really want to debate it? Go ahead, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I very eagerly would like to debate it, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.

I'll be sitting in from time to time, Mr. Chairman, so thank you for recognizing me in this clause-by-clause analysis of Bill C-24.

I should point out, Mr. Chairman, it's unique--to me--to have time limits of three minutes put on motions, amendments, subamendments. We are probably setting history, to some degree, in having such a narrow limitation and opportunity to debate motions that can be, I'm sure we would all agree, complex in their nature.

The second thing that's novel, by way of introduction of my remarks on government amendment G-5, is that we're in a televised room but the television cameras don't seem to be following the debate.

Can I ask, from a point of clarification, if this meeting is televised or if it isn't, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Martin, you are an experienced parliamentarian, and you would probably know that if you look at the notice of the meeting it states whether it is televised or not. This one is not. The notice of meeting indicates it's not televised, Mr. Martin. And your time is ticking here.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That explains why the cameras are not following the action here, Mr. Chairman. I was curious about that.

Mr. Chairman, government amendment G-5, on clause 18, deals with liquidation in respect, etc., and changes language. I think it's self-evident to any objective outsider or any third party that would come across this setting, Mr. Chairman, that the amendments are plentiful, not only from the NDP, but from government itself, as they try to repair or to put back into order what was clearly a rushed document, a flawed document. It's a document that came to us, to the House of Commons, in a state that cried out to be amended.

I've been observing that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster is quite isolated in this committee, in that he alone seems to be standing up for Canadians in trying to improve the softwood lumber deal to make sure that it's the best deal we can possibly achieve for Canadians.

What strikes me is the number of amendments that are necessary, Mr. Chair. To me, that's revealing about how what was put to Parliament was in fact a flawed document.

One of the themes that seems to flow through the softwood lumber deal reminds me of the crusade that the new Conservative government is on to kill the Canadian Wheat Board. You can't deny the similarity between these two initiatives, Mr. Chairman, because both are doing the dirty work of the American government. Both are key trade irritants that the U.S. government has remarked upon at every single opportunity, and finally they have a government that is willing to address both of those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Martin, much as I would love to hear your debate on the Wheat Board, your time is up.

I understand that the Bloc is going to withdraw their amendment on page 130 of the booklet. Therefore, we are now going to the vote on all of these together. They are consequential, and we have had debate take place on all of these together.

Mr. Julian.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, you are saying that the amendment on page 29—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

And also, as Mr. Cannan suggested, the amendments on pages 114, 115, 116, 119, 120, and 130, as listed.

The Bloc has removed the amendment on page 130. There was a line conflict on page 130, but that one has been withdrawn, so the rest have been debated and will be voted on together. They are consequential amendments.

Yes, Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, are you saying that the bundling of these amendments was voted on by the committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No. I'm saying this was an issue that was pointed out to me by Mr. Cannan. I've examined it, and I have ruled that these are consequential amendments. We're going ahead with one vote on all of the amendments together. Therefore, the debate is complete, I believe.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this was not a motion that was adopted by.... He says that given that the implementation of the softwood lumber agreement was extended from October 1 to October 12, the government has proposed a number of amendments—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, it's not a motion at all. It was a ruling of the chair, so we're going to go ahead with the vote now.

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

That's completely inappropriate, so I challenge the chair's ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

This is a very interesting situation, Mr. Julian. I've heard of chairs being challenged before, but when the rulings of the chair are continually upheld, it is a very odd thing that these challenges would continue.

But I will go to the vote. It's not debatable. The motion is that the ruling of the chair be sustained. It will be a recorded division.

Yes, Mr. Eyking.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Chair, just for the record, how many times has this been done so far today?