Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first begin by saying that it is true that this is unusual, because we normally go through the researchers. But let us however say that this is not a first, since last week, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food passed a motion that was tabled as a report, and this same document was even adopted by the House of Commons last week. What we are attempting to do is therefore not impossible.
I drafted this motion because we probably will not have sufficient time, before the summer recess, to get a bone fide report from our researchers. I am told that Thursday, most probably towards the end of the day, we will be adjourning for the summer. That may not necessarily happen, but I would like to see us leave at least some trace of the fact that we heard witnesses during our first two meetings and that they did come and confirm a certain number of things.
If you will allow me, I will quickly read through this and make a few comments.
Based on the testimony heard, the Committee on International Trade recommends that the government:
1- Take the time needed to conclude a final agreement that meets the expectations of the Canadian softwood lumber industry, since it will be in effect for 7 to 9 years;
I believe that everyone would be in agreement with that.
2- Uphold Canada's legal victories before NAFTA tribunals and ensure that the agreement does not include any reference to the American allegations of presumed subsidies to the Canadian industry and harm to the American industry;
To my mind, everyone would be in agreement with that as well.
3- Ensure that the anti-circumvention clause is worded so it preserves the provinces' ability to amend and enhance their forestry policy without the risk of American reprisals;
Several witnesses brought this matter up. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ritchie mentioned this here again today. He said that this was perfectly logical and that the Americans had even tried to infer that it would be necessary to keep an eye on the provinces' forestry policies. The idea here is therefore to ensure that this clause, aimed at preventing the circumvention of the agreement, not be drafted in such a way as to in fact grant veto powers to the American authorities over our forestry management.
4- Ensure that under Option B, which stipulates export taxes and export ceilings, the ceiling is not so rigid as to prevent companies from obtaining and honouring major contracts in the United States. A flexible ceiling could be provided in various ways: carry forward of unused part of a quota to the next period; possibility of exceeding the quota by “borrowing“ from future periods;
This is exactly what the representative from Bowater explained to us a few moments ago.
5- Ensure that under Option A, the Canadian industry is not excessively penalized for sudden and temporary increases in softwood lumber exports to the United States. In this case also, the necessary flexibility could be provided in various ways;
6- Take every measure to ensure that Canadian companies receive with interest their due share of countervailing and anti-dumping duties within 90 days of the conclusion of the agreement and not of its coming into force.
You are aware that in the agreement there are countless things that are required for its coming into force and that could take up to 180 days. This would mean that 90 additional days would be added to the 180 days already provided for. We must therefore ensure that 90 days after the conclusion of the agreement, companies will have been paid their due share of countervailing duties.
Without this commitment from the American authorities, the government should present a loan guarantee program, covering all the amounts owed to the companies. The Committee reiterates that, for the purposes of a general audit, loan guarantees are not regarded as an expenditure.
7- Be extremely vigilant in obtaining an effective mechanism to resolve disputes over the interpretation of the agreement.
Everyone has requested this.
8- Ensure that if, for technical reasons (computer system not yet ready, for instance), regions that chose Option B must be subject to Option A, these regions are not required to pay the tax levels stipulated under Option A, but rather those under Option B.
This would occur in cases where technical problems would prevent the execution of Option A.
That this motion be tabled in the House as the Committee's report within the next 24 hours.
The clerk suggested that it be 48 hours. That is not a problem for me. What matters to me, is that the Committee table some initial reflections. If the agreement were not signed before our return in the fall, then we could resume this work.
There then are the issues there is consensus on and that we have heard during the course of our first hearings. I therefore move the adoption of this motion.