Debates of Nov. 26th, 1998

Special Import Measures Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, for Mr. Benoît Sauvageau]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-35 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 36 the following new clause:

“51.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 97:

1. (1) Within three months after the coming into force of this section, the Governor in Council shall make regulations amending the sections of this Act so that, in addition to the prospective method for the imposition of duty, a retroactive method is used for this purpose, but the retroactive method shall not be used for the imposition of duty except where a ) the price or cost of the goods is likely to fluctuate substantially; and b ) the regulations so permit.

(2) Subject to subsection (2), a regulation made under subsection (1) shall come into force six months after the coming into force of this section.

(3) The coming into force of any regulations repealing a regulation made by the Governor in Council under subsection (1) is subject to the approval of the House of Commons by resolution, and where such approval is given, the regulations shall come into force on the day following the day on which the approval is given.”

Mr. Speaker, another of the Bloc Quebecois' suggestions that was ignored in the bill concerns the prospective or retroactive method for the imposition of duty.

We hope that Revenue Canada will continue to use the prospective method. However, where the price or the cost of the goods is likely to fluctuate substantially, we would like Revenue Canada to be authorized to use the retroactive method.

This method would be used in exceptional cases and only when Revenue Canada deemed it necessary. Accordingly, we are moving Motion No. 7 in the House today. It reads as follows:

That Bill C-35 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 36 the following new clause:

“51.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 97:

1. (1) Within three months after the coming into force of this section, the Governor in Council shall make regulations amending the sections of this Act so that, in addition to the prospective method for the imposition of duty, a retroactive method is used for this purpose, but the retroactive method shall not be used for the imposition of duty except where

(a) the price or cost of the goods is likely to fluctuate substantially; and

(b) the regulations so permit.

(2) Subject to subsection (2), a regulation made under subsection (1) shall come into force six months after the coming into force of this section.

(3) The coming into force of any regulations repealing a regulation made by the Governor in Council under subsection (1) is subject to the approval of the House of Commons by resolution, and where such approval is given, the regulations shall come into force on the day following the day on which the approval is given.”

This may sound a bit technical. This bill is very important, however, as it governs the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on dumped or subsidized goods where this dumping or subsidizing has or may have an injurious effect on producers in Quebec and Canada, while at the same time making changes to the CITT, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

We agree with the intent of this bill, which marks the government's first effort to clarify things. Quebeckers and Canadians, through the Bloc Quebecois, have long been calling for less bureaucracy and more efficiency.

The government must give producers in Quebec and Canada the tools they need to compete in the global economy. Dumping and subsidies are tools criticized but often used by industrialized countries.

This legislation and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act are necessary, in fact essential tools to counter dumping and subsidies.

It is important that these laws be designed in such a way as to appropriately meet the needs they were intended to address. This review has identified a number of changes that need to be made, but more needs to be done, including the changes put forward by the Bloc Quebecois today.

We agree that rapid developments in international trade emphasize the need to review these laws on a regular basis in the future.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 7 would introduce an entirely new concept into the SIMA legislation. It really has to do with the retroactivity that we have a serious objection. I do not understand how this would work. It would cause a lot of confusion for businesses which need to know what kind of ground rules they are operating under. Therefore we would not support this motion.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will support this amendment.

This is something that occurs from time to time, exceptionally, at Revenue Canada. It could be applied, we feel. Despite the difficulty of application, it would send a signal that the Government of Canada can apply a measure retroactively through its laws and regulations.

We are pleased, even though the committee, at recommendation 10, said not to change anything about keeping measures retroactive. We think it is a step in the right direction. It also sends a message.

Once again, we are not inventing sliced bread. It happens rarely, but it has happened at Revenue Canada. We therefore support Motion No. 7.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will be supporting Motion No. 7. It would empower Revenue Canada to use the retrospective duty assessment in cases where there will likely be sufficient fluctuation in prices or costs. In such cases Revenue Canada could require cash deposits on incoming goods with the final liability to be determined on review. The reason is that the U.S. employs this system for all cases, giving it a tougher overall regime on anti-dumping. It is not unreasonable to allow Revenue Canada similar powers which could be used in the appropriate circumstances.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clearly state that the issue was carefully considered and rejected by the parliamentary subcommittees.

The adoption of this hybrid system would among other things disrupt the basic balance that was struck by the bill among stakeholders' interests. It would unnecessarily complicate the administration of Canada's trade remedy system. The government would not be supportive of this motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.