International Trade Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

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

On the actual amendment.

This is the difficulty, Mr. Chair, as we ram through sixty seconds per clause. We are making mistakes one after the other. These are errors that can't be corrected once we throw them into the bill. So what we have here is an amendment that I think had a good intent; however, without the necessary qualifications that we were talking about earlier, we risk putting our softwood companies in a worse situation. We've done that with lumber remanufacturers earlier. It's appalling, absolutely appalling, to change the definition of tenure. It boggles the mind. B.C. timber sales are now impacted because this committee did not do its due diligence. At sixty seconds per amendment, it's difficult to imagine--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Does anyone else wish to speak to that?

Let's go to the recorded division on amendment CPC-4.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I asked some questions earlier but I never received any answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Had you asked a question of the officials?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes, I asked for clarification. I saw that people were working very hard to try and find the answers. It's important that they be given a chance to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I apologize, Monsieur Cardin. I hadn't recognized that you had asked a question.

Is there a response from the officials? Are you aware of the question?

[Paul Robertson, Director General, North America Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Perhaps it would be useful, Monsieur Cardin, if you would repeat the question so that everybody understands what we're replying to.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Well, that is rather a lot to ask, because I only have 60 seconds.

My impression is that this amendment will limit the amount of information that exporters have to remit to the government on a monthly basis. I just wondered how relevant this amendment really is.

[Cindy Negus]

Thank you for your question.

Limited information will make it very difficult for the Minister of National Revenue to administer and enforce this act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. We will go to the vote now, a recorded division on amendment CPC-4.

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

I abstain.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll now go to the vote on clause 26 as amended.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're going sixty seconds per clause, sixty seconds per amendment. Perhaps clause 26 is one of the best examples of why that breakneck, absolutely irresponsible draconian, dictatorial, and mean-spirited pace is bad for our softwood companies.

We're throwing out amendments left and right. There is no real consideration of what the implications are. Now we have an amended clause 26 and we are not completely aware of what that clause may in fact do to softwood companies.

Sixty seconds a clause is not the way to write legislation. It's irresponsible. You ask any Canadian whether sixty seconds should be used for each clause on a bill that's brought forward and what will they say? They will say, “That's absurd. You mean you took sixty seconds to consider the implications of each clause? You took sixty seconds to decide on the future of the softwood industry even when you were told there were problems with it.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, just in the spirit of the committee, and as chair, trying to help out a member of the committee, might I suggest that if you find the sixty seconds isn't enough, you could actually use the sixty seconds to discuss the amendment or the clause before the committee? That way, you wouldn't find that you're short of time. Thank you.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, your comments, with respect, are completely inappropriate. Sixty seconds is not an adequate time, regardless, when we're dealing with the complexity of a bill such as Bill C-24. Under no circumstances is sixty seconds adequate, and you know that as well as I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, Mr. Julian, on a point of debate....

Let's go on to the recorded division on clause 26 as amended.

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go on. Clause 27 is finished.

(On clause 28--Small amounts owing)

We'll go to clause 28, and amendment NDP-20, which is on page 41 of the amendment booklet.

Mr. Julian, would you like to move that motion?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, but if you would give me a moment's consideration....

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm moving amendment NDP-20.

As we're going through at this breakneck pace of sixty seconds a clause, we're forgetting what's actually happening to the softwood companies out there. Currently under this legislation, in a case where there's a discrepancy of less than $2, the amount owing by the person is deemed to be nil. We are suggesting that amount should be raised to $100.

The obligations of this bill are incredibly heavy and onerous on softwood companies. The punitive actions—18 months in prison if you don't obey the law under Bill C-24—are completely irresponsible. It is a draconian bill by any stretch of the imagination. Very clearly, the only two people we called on to be witnesses outside of the government attested to that, and then we shut down debate. We shut down hearings. We shut down any possibility of folks actually getting to comment on this bill. We need to have it raised to $100--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Julian. Actually, your time is up.

Does anyone else want to speak to NDP-20? No? Then we'll go to a recorded division.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

NDP-20 is defeated. Shall clause 28 carry?

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we ramrod through clause after clause, at sixty seconds per amendment, we're doing it at a breakneck pace that has never happened at a committee before. This is completely unprecedented. In a majority government, one could imagine that this would happen. In a minority government, it is

inconceivable that the Opposition parties would introduce procedural rules that limit a Member of Parliament's speaking time to 60 seconds.

Clause 28 currently imposes a penalty. If a company owes $3, it is required to immediately remit that money to the government, because other provisions yet to come in the Bill impose an 18-month prison term. So, that being the case, penalties will be imposed as soon as someone owes $3.

That is the reason why I am voting against this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Julian. Your time is up.

Would anyone else like to speak on clause 28?

We'll go to the recorded division on clause 28.

(Clause 28 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 32--Extension of time)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

What we're on now is amendment NDP-21, which is on page 42 of the amendment booklet.

Mr. Julian, would you like to move your amendment and debate it?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I so move amendment NDP-21, as we race through at sixty seconds a clause—absolutely the most irresponsible action in Canadian parliamentary history.

But what do we do here, Mr. Chair? What we are doing is saying that basically the penalties are required to be paid on the day the time expires. So what we have are penalties on top of penalties—18 months' imprisonment, if you don't follow the strict letter of this draconian legislation—and there is no provision to provide any sort of respite or period of transition from the time the moneys are due.

Now the penalties, as we'll see later, are onerous—absolutely ridiculous. So the amendment basically states that those penalties or moneys would be required to be paid ninety days after the date on which the extended time expires—not immediately. There would be a period of ninety days for companies with serious cashflow difficulties, so that they would actually be able to meet—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Your time is up.

Would anyone else like to speak to amendment NDP-21?

We'll go to a recorded division on amendment NDP-21.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 1)