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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I'm not certain, but that was the number I was told.
That was out of order, by the way, Mr. Eyking. We'd gone to the recorded division.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
On the motion to sustain the ruling of the chair.
(Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 10; nays 1)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will now go to the vote on G-5, and it applies to all the other votes that I listed, of course. Let's go to that vote--a recorded division.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We now go to NDP-12, which is on page 30 of the amendment booklet.
Shall we go directly to the vote?
Mr. Julian, I think you have to move the motion. You don't have to; you could withdraw.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
That's kind of you to invite me, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate you allowing Mr. Martin to sub in for me. I've had cold water and am aching to go for the second 10-, 12-, or 14-hour shift that we'll have here.
I will say that this really comes to the heart of what we are doing here. This deal is falling apart, there's no doubt. When only 25% of industry signs on to the EDC, then what we're seeing is a massive rejection by the industry. They were bludgeoned, and only the NDP was standing up for them in Parliament.
The reality is this deal is unravelling. We have the U.S. Customs and Border Protection sending 100% dollars out to the companies directly. We have this judgment of the Court of International Trade--and I will stress it because it's important for members around this table to note: “...all the Plaintiffs'”--that's Canadians--“unliquidated entries, including those entered before, on, and after November 4, 2004, must be liquidated in accordance with the final negative decision of the NAFTA panel. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.”
We have had the decision that obliges the United States to pay us back 100% dollars, and companies are taking advantage of that now. They are moving forward, Mr. Chair, and they are getting those 100% dollars, no thanks to this government. We have in place instead, in clause 18, a clause where we are double-taxing those who did sign up to the EDC. Mr. Feldman said that very clearly last Tuesday. It would be irresponsible to rubber stamp this one, as irresponsible as it was to destroy the right to tenure of the independent lumber remanufacturers in British Columbia, which is what happened about an hour ago, Mr. Chair, and as irresponsible as it was earlier today when we simply changed how Canada has traditionally defended the right of related and unrelated persons in arm's-length transactions. We've thrown that away too.
Now we come to the heart of the matter of what Mr. Feldman and Mr. Pearson indicated in the one day of testimony, the two hours of testimony that this committee actually permitted. These two people who testified raised serious concerns about this agreement. What Mr. Feldman said is that we now have, because of the way this is configured, a double tax on the companies that do sign up for the EDC formula. They were told by the government it would take two years for the United States to pay back on the basis of the Court of International Trade's decision. We find out that the difference is actually, Mr. Chair, five days.
What this amendment does is it takes away that double taxation. It actually calculates the formula on the basis of what this bill and what this softwood sellout is worth, which is about a buck. What this means is that companies are not double-taxed, they're not penalized for filling out, as Mr. Feldman testified, the EDC forms, which penalized them 18%, and then a second time penalized them through this formula with a special charge. It's a double penalty. What we have now is the companies that have opted out not paying and companies that did not paying twice.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Julian; your time is up.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We now go to NDP-13 on page 31 of the package.
Mr. Julian, you may move the motion.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much. We're on the same wavelength now, Mr. Chair. I hope that continues.
This amendment amends Bill C-24 in clause 18 by adding after line 12 on page 14 the following:
It does not include the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006.
As we heard from Elliot Feldman in the one day of testimony this committee held.... Even though literally a dozen organizations from across the country indicated they wanted to testify in this committee, all of them were refused. The only two who were able to appear were Mr. Pearson and Mr. Feldman.
Mr. Feldman made it very clear that due to poor drafting in this bill we end up including end-match lumber, not excluding it. What we end up doing--in the same way as with the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers and the issue of tenure that we have just stomped all over in a most irresponsible way; in the same way that we have repudiated the traditional Canadian interpretation of what constitutes related or unrelated persons, which has crucial consequences after going through many WTO and NAFTA rulings--is saying that what the Americans decide is okay with us.
So the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006, effectively includes in this agreement end-match lumber. No one who is paying their due diligence to this bill would include end-match lumber when the traditional position of Canada and the provinces has been to exclude end-match lumber.
What are we doing with this? Are we simply throwing caution to the wind and adopting these motions holus-bolus without proper thought to the consequences? Are we actually taking that little bit of testimony we agreed to hear from Mr. Feldman, who said to be careful and don't include end-match lumber, that that would be irresponsible...? He suggested in his testimony that we include an amendment that says very specifically it does not include the final scope ruling made on March 3, 2006. This is something that members on all four corners of the table should support, because it just makes sense. It ensures that end-match lumber is not included--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, thank you. Your time is up.
Is there anybody else to speak on NDP-13?
Ms. Guergis.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
I would ask the officials to comment on this one for us, please.
November 7th, 2006 / 1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Would someone like to comment?
Mr. Solursh, we haven't been calling on you an awful lot today.
Counsel, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Basically, how it works is that the scope is frozen under the agreement as of April 27, 2006. When I say “scope”, I'm referring to the scope of product coverage under the agreement. That scope of product coverage is based on the revocation of the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders that existed up until recently, so as of April 27, 2006, it was based on the anti-dumping countervailing duty orders.
On March 3, 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce ruled that end-matched products were included in that scope. Because they're included in that scope, as of April 27 they are included in the scope of product coverage under the agreement. Therefore, they're included in the scope of the agreement and this amendment isn't correct; they're included in the scope of the coverage under the softwood lumber agreement. They're not excluded from the scope of the coverage.
If a NAFTA panel were to rule in the future that possibly they should have been excluded from this coverage, at that point we could go to the U.S. and ask for a technical working group to resolve that issue, but as it currently stands, they're included--end-matched products are included in the scope of the coverage.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you very much.
Does anyone else want to speak to that?
Go ahead, Mr. Cannan.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you.
Just to clarify, are we basically saying this amendment goes beyond the terms of the agreement?
Counsel, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
It's not in line with what is in the agreement, which is that anything that was in the duty order as of April 27, 2006, is included in the scope of the coverage. This product was in the duty order as of April 27, 2006, and therefore this amendment is not correct.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
We go to the recorded division on amendment NDP-13.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We now go to NDP amendment 14. It is on page 32 of the amendment booklet.
Mr. Julian, if you want to move that motion and speak to it, you may go ahead. If you want to pass it over, that's okay.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I'd actually like to move that we waive the three-minute speaking requirement on this particular amendment.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
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.
