Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
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.
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.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is an important subamendment, Mr. Chair. The amendment would read:certified under section 25 and does not hold a renewable right to harvest over 10,000 cubic metres per year in a public forest.
We would then eliminate “specific rights to harvest timber” and “has not acquired standing timber directly from the Crown after October 11, 2006”. Then the subamendment would continue “and is not a person”, as opposed to “an associated person”...“with respect to any personal specific rights to harvest timber in a public forest”. And delete the rest of that section.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I can. And if you'd like to suspend temporarily, I could go down to the clerks and have it written out in full.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
It will read, “who is certified under section 25 and does not hold a renewable right to harvest over 10,000 cubic metres per year in a public forest”. We're adding that after “not hold”, and we are deleting “specific rights to harvest timber”.
We are then deleting “has not acquired standing timber directly from the Crown after October 11, 2006”, and then it would continue “and is not a person”--as opposed to “an associated person”--“with respect to any person who holds specific renewable rights to harvest timber in a public forest”.
Then we would delete from “or” down to the end of the clause.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is really important, Mr. Chair.
We refused to hear from the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association.
Here's what they have to say:
Tenure has always meant a renewable right to harvest over 10,000 cubic metres per year. If a company was not tenured, it was eligible to bid for timber in the B.C. small business enterprise program. In response to U.S. allegations of non-market administrative set stumpage, we now have the new B.C. Timber Sales program.
Under it, about 20% of the crown timber is put up for sealed bid auction in the form of non-renewable timber sale licences. Given that this wood is sold at arm's-length market prices via sealed bid, the results of this auction are then used in a formula to set the stumpages on the tenures.
The timber sale licences themselves are not tenure, or weren't tenure until the coalition insisted that they be called tenure in this agreement. In spite of our protests and protests from the B.C. government, Canada said okay to the coalition.
What we would do, Mr. Chair, if we do not approve this amendment, is that not only will we accepting the American definition of tenure, but we'll be ruling out of order all the independent lumber remanufacturers who use the B.C. timber sales program. The implications and the consequences are extremely serious.
We didn't hear from the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association; we refused to hear what they had to say. They are endeavouring as well as they can to avoid catastrophe in British Columbia.
Mr. Chair, yes, we do have to adopt the subamendment that changes this, because if we adopt this motion, not only are we putting in peril all the independent lumber remanufacturers across the country, particularly in British Columbia, but we are saying that those companies that have purchased through an arm's-length bidding process in the B.C. timber sales program will have to now give up their timber sales or they will be defined as having tenure. It's absurd. It is probably--along with clause 18--the most egregious error that was made in the drafting of this bill. If this committee rubber-stamps it, there will be trouble.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
Is there any other debate on Mr. Julian's subamendment?
We will go to the recorded division on Mr. Julian's subamendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will now go to the vote on the Liberal amendment.
Ms. Guergis, please go ahead.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Chair, I've taken a look at this, and it seems to me that we have agreement from around the table, just from conversations I've had, that we support a definition. I have just a little concern with the definition provided by Mr. LeBlanc's amendment. I'm a little concerned that it might be a little too restrictive and might limit the number of remanufacturers who want to participate.
I'm suggesting that perhaps someone should be making a subamendment. Perhaps it could just take the exact wording that sets out the definition of remanufacturers in the softwood lumber agreement and place it into the legislation. I think it would perhaps make the remanufacturers happy and would accommodate and accomplish exactly what Mr. LeBlanc was attempting to do.
I would very much appreciate it if someone would put forward a subamendment--oh, looky here.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I happen to have a subamendment that we've been working on to try to do exactly as Ms. Guergis has indicated. It provides some clarification and ensures that the definition of remanufacturers that appears in the agreement is brought into the legislation.
I have a copy in both English and French. Could I ask the clerk to distribute those? I'd greatly appreciate it.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
I can read it out while we're waiting for it to be distributed.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
If it's in both languages, you don't have to read it. If you want to speak to it further, Mr. Cannan, you can do that.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It is an excerpt of the agreement.
Is there any other debate on this subamendment?
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, to be fair, can we wait until it's actually...?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We'll wait until you receive a copy, Mr. Julian.
I thought you were very familiar with the original agreement and would know, in fact, what was being referred to here. I'm very disappointed.
Mr. Julian, are you ready to speak to the subamendment?
12:10 p.m.
NDP
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You don't have a copy yet? Can we give that to Mr. Julian, please?
Mr. Julian now has a copy.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm sorry, but this subamendment--I'm happy to consider it, but it amends two different clauses.
Is he just moving the first clause of the double...?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
It is apparently just to the first one.
It's in order, Mr. Cannan.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
One is consequential to the other, Mr. Julian, and it is in order.
Are we ready to call the question, then?
Would you like to speak it, Mr. Julian?