Bill C-411 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act (domestic prices)

This enactment sets out the conditions required for deeming whether domestic prices in a country are substantially determined by the government of that country and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market.

Special Import Measures Act

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

moved that Bill C-411, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act (domestic prices), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-411, which I am introducing today at second reading, sets out criteria that we hope will make it easier to detect dumping and will provide better protection for Canadian businesses.

Competition in the business environment has changed enormously in recent years, and the manufacturing sector has been hard hit. The rise in value of the dollar is an aggravating factor that has dealt a serious blow to Quebec's economy. However, we believe that increasing competition from Asia is the main factor in the distress of many of our companies.

Between 2001 and 2006, Chinese imports to Canada nearly tripled, going from $12 billion to $32 billion. What is more, Canada now has a $26 billion trade deficit with China. In Quebec, traditional industries are suffering the most from Asian competition right now. Chinese textile and clothing imports have risen eightfold, furniture imports have increased sixfold and bicycle imports have grown fivefold. Needless to say, our traditional industries are suffering and job losses are multiplying.

The government is doing nothing to help these companies, and the manufacturing sector is being devastated. Between 2003 and 2006, 100,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in Quebec. In 2006 alone, the first year this government was in power, 35,000 jobs were lost in Quebec's manufacturing sector. And 2007 is shaping up to be even worse. Quebec had 29,000 fewer manufacturing jobs at the end of February than it had at the beginning of January this year.

The more traditional sectors were the hardest hit, including the clothing industry, which has lost almost half of its workers since 2000. The textile industry has lost a quarter of its employees since 2000. The furniture industry has also had a 22% drop in its workforce, and the forest industry has lost 10,000 jobs since April 2005 alone.

Currently, the industry is being left to fend for itself. This is the policy of this Conservative government, at a time when the industry is experiencing terrible difficulties.

Programs for the textile and clothing industries were cut from the budget in 2006. The main federal support program for research and development called Technology Partnerships Canada came to an end on December 31. The Conservatives claimed it was because of administrative problems, even though analyses confirmed that all these programs were very effective.

As for trade laws, the Conservatives decided not to implement the laws that would temporarily protect our companies and give them time to adapt to the new environment and to modernize.

As the members of the Standing Committee on Industry unanimously agreed in February 2007, trade laws must genuinely protect businesses from unfair competition, which is called dumping.

The Bloc Québécois has decided to propose a series of measures for Quebec industries that are facing the biggest challenges: the furniture, textile, clothing, forest and aerospace industries, the marine industry and high-tech industries in general.

I will backtrack a little in order to explain what dumping means.

Dumping is an unfair and illegal trade practice by which a company exports a product at a price that is lower than the normal production cost or lower than the price at which it is sold within the exporting country. When a business adopts practices of this nature, it must expect some countries to impose anti-dumping duties in order to counter such unfair practices.

How do we measure dumping? Generally, to determine if a foreign company is practising dumping, we must look at the price at which the product is sold within its own market. If the product's selling price is lower here, this constitutes dumping. We must be careful: this practice is only valuable if the fair price can really be identified. We can also ask the company to turn over its books and total all its costs in order to determine of the sale price reflects the production cost. Once again, this way of proceeding is only valuable if the production costs are accurate. They can be altered by government intervention in production costs. For example, an intervention might involve the government paying for the electricity needed to manufacture the product.

When the bank is government owned and gives a loan at a prime rate, or if the currency is artificially devalued—we need only think of the Chinese yuan, which is 40% lower than its real, normal value, specifically to help Chinese companies export their products—or when the books do not account for all the normal costs because of inadequate accounting practices, in these instances it is pointless to look at their accounting books.

Also, when various government practices play a role in altering the data, we will not necessarily be able to calculate the fair price. These practices could involve devaluing the dollar, indirect assistance or assistance to the business' subcontractors. We must look further. This is what bill C-411 proposes.

The United States and the European Union do more than just look to see whether the Chinese government is directly involved in setting prices on products, which is what the Government of Canada does. The U.S. and the EU have issued a series of criteria to assess whether the practices of the Chinese government falsify the costs and the prices. In particular, they look at the value of the currency. As I was saying earlier, it is widely known that the yuan is deliberately devalued to artificially lower the prices of Chinese exports. The regulations in China are also considered, but they know full well that these are not always on par with universally recognized regulations. This practice allows the Chinese to hide data. The U.S. and the EU go much further and do more investigating. The production cost and the input cost to manufacture a product can be artificially lowered if the supplier of the raw materials or parts is a government corporation. Thus, the EU and the U.S. evaluate the suppliers. While Canada imposes anti-dumping tax on only 17 Chinese products, the United States taxes 53. While the European Union taxes 49 products, Canada carries on with its 17 little Chinese products only and these products enter freely here in Canada.

Bill C-411 is based on legislation in effect in the United States and in Europe and lays out criteria to be taken into account to assess whether there is dumping, which we hope will better protect Quebec and Canada's businesses from the illegal practice of dumping.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the manufacturing sector is very important to our government. If the member would pay attention to the last budget, she would know that specifically the industry committee's number one recommendation was to accelerate the capital cost for depreciation for the acquisition of equipment to two years to help manufacturers deal with the competitive global markets as well as the rising dollar so they could take advantage of investing in equipment in other countries. I know manufacturers in my riding have taken advantage of that specific budget policy and are very appreciative of it.

At a time when our economy is as strong as it is and unemployment is at a 33 year low, the member is proposing to put forward an amendment to a single provision of the legislation without taking into account broad considerations, and this has never happened before.

Is my hon. colleague not concerned that her new approach may result in a law that does not reflect an appropriate balance of interest?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

There have been a few minor investments in research and development, but this is not enough and it is not what companies need.

Although the manufacturing sector is concentrated mainly in Quebec, Canadian as well as Quebec firms need safeguards to protect them against this huge influx of goods from China and other emerging economies.

We must ensure that companies from emerging economies do not import goods that they manufacture to Canada and sell them for less than on their domestic market. That is important.

As the Auditor General of Canada said, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is not currently equipped to get to the bottom of things. We hope that putting criteria in place will make it possible to add skilled staff to get to the bottom of things.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for introducing a bill that is especially important to many manufacturing companies in the riding of Shefford, including Raleigh, which makes bicycles.

Raleigh spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend its dumping complaint before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, which finally recommended a surtax on bicycle imports from China. Yet, as with other CITT decisions, the Minister of Finance did not budge.

What could Bill C-411 do for a company like Raleigh?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Repentigny for his extremely important question. It touches on two things: first, the discretionary power of the minister to agree to antidumping measures or not and, second, the entire issue of the cost a business has to incur to appeal to the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the CITT.

If a company suspects that there is dumping on the Canadian market, it is required to go to the Canada Revenue Agency first. The cost is between $50,000 and $100,000 and can even reach $200,000. If the Canada Revenue Agency finds that there was indeed dumping, then the Canadian International Trade Tribunal—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville. I have to allow the hon. member for Peterborough to ask a brief question.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, Quebec has a number of industries that do business with Asian countries, such as China, which the bill would certainly target. Specifically with regard to the aerospace industry in Quebec, which benefits from trade with countries such as China, does the member not feel that the retroactive action which would be taken through measures like this would impose potentially very significant negative factors on Quebec? I wonder if she has considered them at all.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville will provide a very short answer.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. member's question. Nonetheless, I do not know if I will have enough time to give him an answer. His question is related to the answer I wanted to give the hon. member for Repentigny about the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. If I may, I would like to come back to that.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has to ensure that the aerospace market is not being hobbled. Again, this can cost between $50,000 and $200,000.

After companies have exhausted the normal recourse to the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, it can become very expensive for them to exercise their rights—$400,000 in the case of Raleigh. The minister can veto and say that there was no dumping, when the proof is there—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville. We have to continue the debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to comment on the private member's bill tabled by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville calling on the government to amend the Special Import Measures Act.

The bill proposes an amendment to section 20 of the Special Import Measures Act. The amendment would set out the conditions required for deeming whether domestic prices in a country are substantially determined by the government of that country and whether there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market.

The Special Import Measures Act, or SIMA, is Canada's principal legal instrument that governs the application of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to imports of dumped or subsidized goods that are found to cause injury to domestic producers.

Under SIMA, a Canadian industry is entitled to trade remedy protection if it is established through a formal investigation that the imports are being dumped or subsidized and that the dumping or subsidizing has caused or threatens to cause injury to that industry.

In such a case, definitive anti-dumping or countervailing duties are normally levied on all imported subject goods for a period of five years, with the possibility of an extension if Canada's administrating authorities, those being the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, determine that there is likely to be a continuation or a recurrence of dumping or subsidization and injury if the duties are removed.

SIMA implements Canada's rights and obligations under two WTO agreements: the anti-dumping agreement and an agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures.

Key provisions of these agreements include methods for determining the existence of dumping and countervailable subsidies, requirements for the initiation of investigations, obligations respecting procedural fairness, the duration of orders and the transparency in the decision making.

In addition, these agreements set out the economic factors to be considered in determining whether injury exists and whether or not such injury is caused by dumped or subsidized imports.

As originally drafted in 1984, SIMA represents a balance of interests between those parties requiring protection from injuriously dumped or subsidized imports and those requiring secure access to imports to ensure profitability for their economic activities.

The importance of this balance between imports and production concerns continues to be relevant as the dependence of Canadian manufacturers on imported inputs has increased substantially since 1984.

Today, imported inputs make up 34% of the content of goods manufactured in Canada.

When SIMA was reviewed by the subcommittees of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 1996, the subcommittees' conclusion was that the basic circumstances that motivated Canada to establish SIMA continued to exist; that is to say, the law provides basic protection to Canadian producers while limiting unnecessary collateral damage to downstream users of the products in question.

During the 1996 review of SIMA, a large number of interested parties representing a wide cross-section of the Canadian economy appeared before the subcommittees to present their views. The witnesses commented on whether the legislation continued to adequately serve Canada's national economic interests, including industries that benefit from trade remedy protection and industry associations that must import goods as a normal course of business.

Following the completion of this review, Canadian industries also took advantage of the opportunity to make their views on these issues known to the government in the context of the Doha round of trade negotiations at the WTO.

As part of the extensive consultation process related to the WTO, the government received 23 submissions from industry and provincial governments that provided input for developing Canada's position on the negotiations, which aim to clarify and improve disciplines related to the WTO anti-dumping and subsidy agreements.

The government takes the consultation process very seriously an regularly updates industry on the status of negotiations. Extensive consultations are critical for developing and maintaining an effective multilateral negotiating position and are equally important in the consideration of unilateral changes to Canada's domestic trade laws.

In fact, the government has recently received recommendations from two parliamentary standing committees that call for the government to conduct a review of Canada's trade remedy system. The first recommendation came in the February 2007 report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled “Manufacturing: Moving Forward--Rising to the Challenge”.

Two of the recommendations were trade policy related, one of which recommended that the government conduct an internal review of Canadian anti-dumping countervail and safeguard policies, practices and their applications to ensure that Canada's trade remedy laws and practices remain current and effective.

This review would also include comparisons with other WTO members such as the EU and the U.S. This recommendation was based on the standing committee's observation that the growing economies of countries such as China and India represent a challenge for Canadian producers to both their domestic and American export markets. As well, the standing committee noted the concern expressed by some industries regarding an apparent divergence between Canadian trade law and its application, and it believed more information was required. This led to the recommendation for a review of Canada's trade remedy system.

Following this report came an April 2007 report of the Standing Committee on International Trade entitled “Ten Steps to a Better Trade Policy”. Among the recommendations in the report was a call for the government to immediately review its trade remedy system to ensure that critically valued imports, needed as inputs by companies who subsequently export products out of the country, are not unnecessarily blocked.

The standing committee was told that Canada's trade remedy system needs a different mindset, that is not to assume that all imports from China are bad because for some manufacturers such imports are critical. In fact, one witness noted that, “it’s the only way they’re going to be in the game.”

The government intends to table responses to these recommendations shortly. It is interesting that these standing committees made identical recommendations within two months of each other, namely that the government conduct a review of Canada's trade remedy system. However, these recommendations were made for quite different reasons.

The industry committee recommends a review to ensure that Canada's trade remedy system remains effective to deal with dumped or subsidized imports. The international trade committee recommends a review to ensure that Canadian manufacturers have stable and predictable access to global supply chains.

Although these two standing committees had opposing views on the role and impact of Canada's trade remedy system on Canadian manufacturers, they made identical recommendations. Because they agree that the government must consider the trade remedy system as a whole and to take into account the view of all stakeholders before considering changes to the system, the government supports the view of the standing committees that all stakeholders must have an opportunity to put forth their views on the legislation as a whole.

SIMA has been amended several times to reflect changes in international agreements and to implement the recommendations of the 1996 parliamentary review. However, there has never been an amendment to a single provision of the legislation without broader consideration being taken into account.

Bill C-411 would have us take a piecemeal approach to the Special Import Measures Act that would be contrary to ensuring this law reflects a proper balance of interests.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-411, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act (domestic prices), which is commonly referred to as SIMA.

The mover of the bill raised some very important questions with which parliamentarians must deal with from time to time. To give some indication of that, the implications to Quebec have been very serious in some areas, particularly, as she mentioned, textiles, garments, furniture, bicycles and forestry and the tens of thousands of jobs being lost as a consequence of activity with regard to the importation of goods and the competition.

She talked very well about the whole concept of dumping, which is an illegal activity where a country will actually export goods to Canada at a price that is less than its own production costs, which obviously puts our own producers at a significant disadvantage.

Clearly that kind of activity could be extremely damaging to Canada if we did not have rules, regulations and legislation to guide us in determining whether that kind of activity exists. We do in fact have it and the Special Import Measures Act is the instrument.

The particular section which the member wants to deal with, and I think it is important simply for the information of members and those who are watching, is section 20(1) in the Special Import Measures Act.

Let me just review a couple of things and members will see how this is a very complicated area. It states:

Where goods sold to an importer in Canada are shipped directly to Canada

(a) from a prescribed country where, in the opinion of the President--

--and “the President” refers to the president of the Canada Border Services Agency--:

--domestic prices are substantially determined by the government of that country and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market, or

Therefore, as a principle, are we having dumping at a price lower than production would be an example.

Also, it covers coming:

(b) from any other country where, in the opinion of the President,

(i) the government of that country has a monopoly or substantial monopoly in its export trade, and

(ii) domestic prices are substantially determined by the government of that country and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market,

Those are the principles that must guide the president of CBSA.

I asked for some information about the specifics.

I should elaborate on the Special Import Measures Act. SIMA provides for the rules and the procedures for anti-dumping and countervailing duty actions under Canadian domestic law. The act is designed to provide protection to Canadian producers who are being harmed or injured by dumping or subsidizing goods imported into Canada. The member has raised a number of examples affecting Quebec industries.

I should also mention that I had the same situation in my own riding where back in 2004 there was an investigation with regard to the importation of bicycles from China which were hurting the bicycle industry. We have a thriving bicycle industry in my area.

The SIMA is administered by the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The Canada Border Services Agency conducts investigations into dumping and subsidies and implements duties on dumped or some subsidized goods. That is its job.

The CITT, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, conducts inquiries on the harm to Canadian businesses and industries from dumping and subsidies on imported goods.

The investigations are initiated after a formal complaint by a Canadian producer or group of producers. Inquiries are initiated after a formal complaint by a Canadian producer or group of producers and the recommendation comes from the president of the Canada Border Services Agency.

The determination of dumping or subsidies is based on a baseline price for similar goods. The baseline is called “normal value” and that is defined in some detail in the Special Import Measures Act. It is used by both the CBSA and the CITT during their investigations and inquiries. SIMA contains extensive rules for determining normal value, which are found in sections 15 to 23.1 and sections 29 to 30 of the act.

Bill C-411, introduced by the member to amend the Special Import Measures Act, changes the rules for determining normal value where an export monopoly exists in the exporting country for the good. Specifically, the bill deems foreign countries to have an export monopoly if certain criteria are not met. This bill changes the criteria and is proposing certain conditions that in fact change the definition of normal value.

The bill states in clause 2 that the lack of any of the factors listed will result in the country being deemed to be an export monopoly. This amendment would prevent these countries from being used as a reference for determining normal value and would allow the CBSA or the CITT to utilize the formula in paragraph 20(1)(c) for determining normal value.

I could probably put on the record some of the other details, but suffice it to say that this is not a simple matter, as members can see. We are not talking about a linear industry. We are not talking about just one sector of the economy. We are talking about the vast trade relationship that we have with countries around the world. Canada is a very active trader.

Let me simply summarize by saying that the bill seeks to codify conditions used to determine if an export monopoly exists in a given country. It does this by outlining five conditions which if they were not met would automatically result in a country being deemed to be an export monopoly.

This bill in fact is not necessary. I know the member has heard this before. The bill the member has put forward is redundant because it seeks to tell the president of the Canada Border Services Agency how to do his job. The president of the CBSA is the one who currently makes these determinations under the existing legislation called SIMA.

The categories are broad and could conceivably result in almost any country being designated as having an export monopoly. This includes the United States and the European Union, which the CBSA already relies on to determine normal value and normal market prices. This again impairs the ability of the CBSA and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to do their jobs.

The legislation clearly lays out their authorities to protect the interests of businesses, but it is up to the businesses and groups of producers to make their case to have the prescribed investigation and inquiries made to determine under the legislation whether or not there is a matter of dumping to be addressed.

The concerns that the bill purports to address can already be addressed through a variety of mechanisms, including existing trade agreements and in trade tribunals. These issues are better addressed during trade negotiations.

Therefore, the Liberal Party is not going to be able to support this bill. We have always advocated that trade agreements are the way to seek a fair balance. We understand the importance of real free trade, which is why we are advocating that the government ensure that the proposed South Korea free trade deal effectively eliminate non-tariff and regulatory barriers that keep Canadian manufacturers, specifically in the automotive sector, from having open market access.

Although we will not be supporting the bill, I want to congratulate the member for bringing forward to the House yet another important matter in regard to which it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to inform themselves about and to assure their constituents and their businesses that there are rules in place and that we will respond where there is an investigation or inquiry that identifies areas where there is anti-dumping activity that hurts Canadian business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-411, introduced by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville. This is a very important bill to deal with what is really going on in the main areas affected.

The currently reality in the manufacturing sector cannot be ignored. Earlier, the Conservatives and the Liberals said that this was not a problem and that they would stay on the same course. To do so would mean ignoring the reality facing workers across Canada.

The NDP will be supporting this bill because we understand that there is a manufacturing crisis going on in this country right now.

I would like to preface my comments in English by quoting somebody who spoke in the House in regard to this very issue of dumping cheap imports and the loss of Canadian jobs that result. I will read it verbatim:

A Conservative government would stand up for Canadian workers and work proactively through international trade policies to ensure Canada competes on a level playing field.

That was said just before the last election in regard to protecting against the dumping of cheap imports and the loss of Canadian jobs that resulted. Who said that? It was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, the same individual who just a few minutes ago stood up in this House and said that we do not need to do this, that we have to review SIMA because it is difficult and complicated. Before the last election he was not saying that. He was saying exactly the contrary. He was saying that there is a crisis in manufacturing jobs, that there is a problem. It is important for the Canadian public to understand what the Conservatives said before the election and what they are saying now. He said, “A Conservative government would stand up for Canadian workers”.

I could not agree more with the comment from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade except that the new government is acting exactly like the old government. It is doing exactly the same thing as the Liberals did while jobs are hemorrhaging out of this country.

In the textile and clothing industry alone, 50,000 jobs have been lost in the last five years. That is why the Conservatives made that commitment. The situation is no better. In fact, it is worse.

For the Conservatives now to say that it is very complicated, as the Liberals said before, just shows that there is not a whole lot of difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party when it comes to governing. Perhaps that is why so many people, including those in Outremont, Quebec, are looking to the NDP, because we are actually in favour of taking action to protect Canadian jobs.

Fifty thousand jobs in the textile and clothing industry have been lost. I wear proudly my Canadian-made suit. I wonder how many members from the Conservative Party are wearing Canadian-made suits.

Let us look right across the country at the number of jobs that have been lost.

Between 2002 and 2007, nearly 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. That means 300,000 families have lost a breadwinner, and the Conservatives say it is complicated and difficult and they cannot take any action. Those 300,000 families have lost a breadwinner because of the inaction of the Liberals and the inaction of the Conservatives.

We disagree when the government says it cannot take action and stop the dumping of imports. A framework has to be put into place. The government has to take action. A Liberal member said we should not tell government agencies how to do their job. Those agencies are not doing their job and that is the problem. That is why we have lost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs.

What has been the result? Just two weeks ago we saw figures from Statistics Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade knows these figures very well because I told him. I mentioned them at the international trade committee, not with any effect yet, but I am hoping to convince Conservatives that they cannot just keep doing things the way the Liberals did.

Since 1989, with the loss of those hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, two-thirds of Canadian families, 66% of Canadian families, have actually seen their real incomes go down, not up. They are actually earning less. We have seen overtime go up over one-third. Canadians are working longer hours. We have seen the debt load of the average Canadian family almost double.

Since 1989, since the signing of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, middle class families have actually lost one week of salary on average across the country. Lower middle class families have lost two weeks of salary. The poorest of Canadian families have seen their incomes collapse. They have lost six weeks of salary.

Canadian families are struggling more and more with less and less money in their pockets. Their real incomes have fallen for the exact reason that the good quality jobs are being washed away. Jobs are hemorrhaging out of this country and neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have been willing to do even one thing to take action to address this crucial issue.

We are talking about Quebec, we are talking about Ontario, we are talking about British Columbia and other provinces across the country where this hemorrhaging of good jobs has led to a fall in real incomes for most Canadian families. Why would a government not then say that very clearly we have an income crisis and a job crisis when it comes to quality jobs? People are working part time and in temporary jobs. They are trying to make ends meet that way. We have a prosperity gulf, an income crisis in this country and yet the Conservatives continue to say that we simply cannot do anything to address this issue.

I come back to Bill C-411. Essentially the bill puts into place some additional mechanisms to ensure that we have protection against the dumping of cheap imports. If we look at the criteria, it is quite clear that these are market driven definitions.

The NDP is very clear that there are some areas that should not be in the market at all. We believe in public health care and reinforcing our public health care system. We believe very strongly in that. That is why we have the quality of public health care that we have today in Canada. It is because of Tommy Douglas and because of the work of the NDP. Without the NDP, we would have no public health care in this country, and like the U.S., we would be spending twice as much per capita for a system that would leave millions of Canadians with absolutely no health care protection whatsoever.

We believe there are areas that need to be protected by the public sector, but we also believe that there is a role for the private sector. When there are market driven mechanisms for certain private sector instruments, we support the market. Yet the Conservatives and Liberals are saying that they do not support those market mechanisms, that somehow they cannot provide market based definitions for the dumping of cheap imports.

We have an anomaly here. The NDP is standing up defending the market and Canadian jobs and the Conservatives and Liberals are saying, “No, we cannot have market based definitions to protect Canada against dumping”. They are of one mind. We have seen this with the throne speech. The Conservatives and Liberals sound alike and they think alike. They do the same things and essentially in both cases they are refusing to apply market based mechanisms to ensure that we are protecting Canadian jobs against the dumping that is taking place.

Here is the paradox. We have a manufacturing job crisis. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. We have an income crisis. Most Canadian families, two-thirds of those that are watching us tonight, have actually seen their real incomes fall since 1989, since the signing of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. CanWest Global may disagree, but that is the reality which Statistics Canada tells us about. Most Canadian families have seen their incomes fall and yet the Conservatives and Liberals want to do their favourite action, their favourite remedy, which is to do nothing.

We in this corner of the House in the NDP, in our growing caucus, believe we have to do something and we have to apply these market based mechanisms as defined in Bill C-411 to protect Canadian jobs, Canadian workers and Canadian communities. That is why we are supporting this legislation.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to discuss Bill C-411. I would like to thank my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for introducing this bill.

I want to talk about this bill in the context of the throne speech debate, a debate in which the Conservative Party has placed itself on a pedestal and the Liberal Party is bowing down before it.

Despite these peculiar circumstances, we still want to work for Quebec and for Canada; we want to save jobs in Quebec and in Canada.

Nevertheless, I would like to say a few words about the Speech from the Throne. The government claims to be concerned about the crisis, but it has not proposed any real action to revive the industry, nor has it come up with an assistance program for older workers who have been laid off.

I would like to quote part of the Speech from the Throne:

Our government will stand up for Canada’s traditional industries. Key sectors including forestry, fisheries, manufacturing and tourism are facing challenges. Our government has taken action to support workers as these industries adjust to global conditions and will continue to do so in the next session.

Who does the government think it is fooling when it says things like that in the Speech from the Throne? It has done nothing at all about the crisis in the forestry industry. We know exactly what it did.

Even though the courts ruled in Canada's favour with respect to the forestry industry, the Conservatives still paid the United States so that the destruction of the industry could go on.

I would also like to mention the report tabled by the Standing Committee on International Trade several months ago. The report urged the government to lift all barriers to free trade with China even though Quebec imports ten times more goods from China than it exports to China. The report recommends weakening trade laws to make things easier for importers and ignores the fact that producers are currently suffering from fierce and often unfair competition. The government wanted to bring down supply management in agricultural industries even though the system assures farmers of a decent income at no cost to consumers or the government.

With respect to supply management, I will come back to the Speech from the Throne in a future debate in an effort to clarify the government's hidden agenda.

Supply management is very important to Quebec in the manufacturing sector. Manufactured goods account for 60% of its GDP and 85% of its exports. In Alberta, for instance, manufacturing accounts for only 6.7% of GDP. There are obviously some Conservative members who do not want the legislation on special import measures changed in order to help our companies survive under particularly trying circumstances. It is true that things are difficult all over the world, but that is no reason to let people get away with unfair and even illegal practices.

Earlier I heard the Secretary of State say that he was mostly concerned about people who import. He wants to see Canadian importers paying as little as possible, even if the prices are illegal and unfair and a result of dumping by certain emerging countries. All we want is to ensure that the rules of the game are clear, honest and transparent. There are some countries that practice dumping and we should ensure that this practice is clearly identified and steps are taken here to impose countervailing duties on dumping.

The United States accused us of dumping and unfair practices in the case of softwood lumber. We paid duties. But we were found to be in the right. We were not dumping. Unfortunately, though, we are the victims of dumping in Canada and Quebec.

Both the parliamentary secretary and the Liberal Party representative told us that we should just use what already exists and the companies should just go out and defend themselves.

Our hon. colleague from Shefford gave a good example, the Raleigh bicycle case. The International Trade Tribunal found that the company was right and that there was dumping. The industry minister at the time, just before becoming Minister of International Affairs, simply said that it was not very serious, this company and its jobs were not very important, there was no problem and people would just get to pay less for their bicycles. I repeat: these are unfair, illegal practices.

The government is making itself complicit, therefore, in these practices. I even suppose they would be prepared to use such practices themselves, although we would obviously be opposed.

We must recognize that Canada is not alone in this. It seems that the government does not want to play by the same rules as other countries. We need only look to the United States or the European Union, which apply similar criteria. In fact, rather than having 17 goods subject to anti-dumping measures, as Canada does, these countries have three times that number. I do not know how many different products China manufactures, but 17 is not very many.

More stringent criteria are needed to demonstrate a willingness to identify these dumping practices. It goes without saying that jobs must be protected. We are not talking about protecting them for all eternity, but a responsible government—or one that claims to be—must provide these industries with the means to develop, to compete with other countries and to increase their productivity. Thus, policies must be developed while these countervailing duties, these antidumping duties, are in place.

It is obvious that the government does not wish to move in that direction. However, we must stop underestimating the fair value of goods.

As I said earlier, Bill C-411 lists the criteria to be used in determining whether a business is really growing in a market-based economy. We know that China had a command economy for some time. Then China joined the WTO and there was talk of a transitional market. Canada hastened to recognize it as a market-based economy. Now it is letting things slide and is reluctant to establish the criteria that would enable us to identify products that have been dumped on the market.

Instances of commercial dumping can be proven if solid criteria, such as those proposed here, are in place. However, there is something even worse. The Conservative government is way behind on this issue and so are the Liberals. Social dumping scorns human rights and is heedless of the environment, and we have to start thinking about it now. We have a long way to go, and that is what I want to talk to the government about: social dumping.

The government has to start trying to understand that commercial dumping is happening. It has to pass Bill C-411 so that we can have solid criteria that will help businesses in Canada and Quebec.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to speak to the private member's bill tabled by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

Bill C-411 proposes an amendment to section 20 of the Special Import Measures Act, which would set out the conditions required for deeming whether domestic prices in a country are substantially determined by the government of that country and whether there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market.

I will take this opportunity to briefly outline the key aspects of Canada's trade remedy system, of which the Special Import Measures Act, or SIMA, is the principal legal instrument.

SIMA governs the application of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to imports of dumped or subsidized goods that are found to cause injury to domestic producers. In just a quick primer, anti-dumping duties are additional duties designed to offset an exporter's underpricing in an importing country's market, whereas countervailing duties are designed to offset the effects of foreign subsidies on imported products.

Under SIMA, a Canadian industry is entitled to trade remedy protection if it is established, through a formal investigation, that the imports are being dumped or subsidized and that such has caused or threatens to cause injury. In such a case, definitive anti-dumping or countervailing duties are normally levied on all imported goods for a period of five years, with the possibility of an extension if Canada's administrating authorities, the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, determine that there is likely to be a continuation or a recurrence of dumping or subsidization and injury if the duties are removed.

Canada operates in a bifurcated trade remedies system under SIMA. The Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for initiating investigations and making preliminary and final determinations respecting dumping and/or subsidizing or the goods in question. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, is responsible for determining whether the dumped or subsidized goods have caused or threatened to cause injury to a Canadian industry.

SIMA implements Canada's rights and obligations under two World Trade Organization agreements: the WTO anti-dumping agreement and the WTO agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures. Key provisions of these agreements include methods for determining the existence of dumping and countervailing subsidies, requirements for the initiation of investigations, obligations respecting the procedural fairness, the duration of orders and transparency in decision-making. In addition, these agreements set out the economic factors to be considered in determining whether injury exists and whether or not such injury is caused by dumping or subsidized imports.

I will take this opportunity to describe another important component of Canada's trade remedy system, safeguard measures.

Canada, like many trading nations, has legislation that allows the application of important safeguard measures to protect domestic producers that have suffered or are threatened by serious injury from increased levels of fairly traded imports. This legislation implements Canada's rights and obligations under the World Trade Organization agreement on safeguards, which establishes the conditions for applying important safeguard measures as well as notification in consultation procedures for safeguard inquiries and measures.

The CITT conducts important safeguard inquiries under the authority of the act. While the CITT may initiate import safeguard inquiries following a complaint by domestic producers, the government may also direct the tribunal to conduct important safeguard inquiries.

In a global safeguard inquiry, the CITT considers the effects of imports from all sources on domestic producers. The object of the inquiry is to determine whether a product is being imported into Canada in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to domestic producers of like or directly competitive goods.

If the CITT makes an injury determination, the government may apply important safeguard measures in the form of surtaxes under the customs tariff or in the form of quantitative restrictions under the Export and Import Permits Act.

There is another type of safeguard mechanism available to Canadian industry that applies only to goods imported from China. This safeguard came into effect on September 30, 2002, to implement the safeguard provisions of the 2001 protocol on the accession of China to the World Trade Organization.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have five minutes left to finish his remarks the next time the bill comes before the House.

It being 6:54 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.)

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-411, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act (domestic prices), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-411, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act (domestic prices). The summary of the bill states:

This enactment sets out the conditions required for deeming whether domestic prices in a country are substantially determined by the government of that country and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market.

I understand the concerns and issues, and I understand the spirit of the bill. It essentially targets two specific areas. One is dumping practices, which I will talk about, and the other is the pressure on our domestic market. I would say that the manufacturing, forestry, and textile sectors would be the relevant sectors that feel competition from imports, especially when it comes to our dumping practices.

Dumping is an anti-competitive practice that undermines domestic production. Dumping is the sale of a product for export at less than its normal value.

Artificial price reduction is illegal under the World Trade Organization rules because it harms producers in the export market. This strategy also harms exporters of similar products in third countries because they are unable to compete with artificially cheap exports from the dumping country.

If Canada can show that a foreign exporter is dumping products on its market and that these imports could harm Canadian producers, it is entitled to impose anti-dumping measures, such as charging an import duty to raise the price of a certain product to better reflect its actual value in accordance with WTO law.

As I indicated, that is definitely a legitimate concern and something that we need to address. I will allude to some of the concerns I have about this bill specifically around dumping practices. There are other concerns, as I mentioned earlier on, in the manufacturing sector and the forestry sector.

The manufacturing sector alone represents 18% of economic activity in Canada and its contribution to wealth creation is even greater. Since December 2002 until November, statistics indicate that over 210,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing alone. This is enormous pressure on our manufacturing sector and it needs to be addressed.

What bothers me profoundly is that the current government is aggressively pursuing trade negotiations with the South Koreans and is putting in place a trade deal that would effectively further compound job losses in the manufacturing sector. I cannot understand why the government would pursue such an initiative. It wants to, in effect, create jobs in lower value-added areas that pay less and have less benefits. We would lose our high value-added Canadian jobs. This really concerns me.

There are other issues with respect to South Korea regarding non-tariff barriers that need to be addressed in that trade agreement that have not been addressed thus far by the minister. We have not had proper debate or discussion on that. We are working thoroughly in committee to address these concerns and hopefully that will shed some light on these important issues.

Most important, this is about families. When a person loses a job, it compromises his or her family's position. It is a loss of income. It also has a direct impact on the community. This has to be addressed as well. Not only have we lost those jobs but we are fundamentally shifting the landscape of our country with respect to the economic outlook going forward.

The other sector that is obviously under a tremendous amount of pressure is the forestry sector. Not too long ago the government signed a flawed deal, one that is referred to as the softwood sell-out, a title which I think is appropriate. This deal has questioned our sovereignty when it comes to forestry policies. By signing this deal we left $1 billion on the table, a substantial amount of money. It was a broken promise by the government. The government committed to collect the full amount of the tariffs, but it only collected 80¢ to the dollar, leaving $1 billion on the table. The government threw all our WTO and NAFTA rulings right out the door to settle for a deal that puts on quotas, and charges higher tariff rates to our industry.

Every day in the business section of the newspapers we read about forestry companies closing, mills closing and people losing jobs. This is not simply a matter of jobs. It affects families and communities. It has a ripple effect across our country and our economy. Not only is there concern about particular job loss, but many of these jobs, specifically if we consider the auto sector, have seven to eight spinoff jobs that are lost as well because they are directly correlated with that initial job.

There are thousands of jobs being lost in manufacturing and forestry. I can understand the intent of this private member's bill is to make sure that our economy avoids dumping practices and also avoids the unfair pressure on our manufacturing sector, the forestry sector and the textile sector and other important key industries in our economy.

I indicated before that I do have some reservations and concerns about this particular bill. The bill seeks to codify the conditions used to determine if an export monopoly exists in a given country. It does this by outlining five conditions which, if any of them were not met, would automatically result in a country being deemed to have an export monopoly.

This bill is redundant and seeks to tell the president of the Canada Border Services Agency how to do his job. The president of the CBSA is the one who currently makes this determination.

In my opinion, the categories are broad and could conceivably result in almost any country being designated as having an export monopoly. This includes the United States and the European Union which the CBSA already relies on to determine “normal market practices”. This again impairs the ability of the CBSA and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to do their jobs.

These are legitimate concerns that our party has. The concerns that this bill wants to address can be dealt with through a variety of mechanisms, including the existing trade agreements, as well as trade tribunals. These issues are better addressed during trade negotiations.

The Liberal Party has always advocated for trade agreements which seek a fair balance, free and fair trade. We have done so and have demonstrated this in our discussions on the South Korea free trade negotiations.

The Liberal Party is a party of free trade. We have a long history of promoting free and fair trade. If we look at our trade negotiations with South Korea, our concern generally has revolved around market access. We want to make sure that Canadian products have a level playing field when being sold in South Korea. We do not want South Korean products to come into our market and our companies and our hard-working Canadians have difficulty selling our products into the South Korean market. This is a legitimate concern that we have. This is the concern that is being addressed.

As I said in my remarks, that there were some concerns that we had around Bill C-411. I have addressed our concerns about the bill. I will again remind the members who are listening that we have reservations and concerns.

We have said that the bill seeks to codify the conditions used to determine if any export monopoly exists in a given country. It does this by outlining five conditions that if were not met would automatically result in a country being deemed to have an export monopoly.

Our party has expressed its concerns about this bill. We understand the spirit and the intent of the bill. We understand the pressures that are currently being felt in our economy from dumping practices. We have alluded to and explained the process around the dumping practices. There is a system in place to address this.

We feel that this bill is too simple. It does not have the wording and the mechanism in place to properly address the concerns that have been raised by some members.

As I have said before, the Liberal Party understands the concerns. We feel that those concerns can be addressed in trade agreements and through trade tribunals. That is something that the Liberal Party has supported as a party of free and fair trade. We look forward to further discussions on this bill.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-411. I will begin by saying that we, the NDP members of the House, will be supporting the bill when it comes to a vote.

My community of Hamilton has long been one of the central manufacturing areas for all of Canada. For generations, men and women from my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek have filled the plants of Hamilton, working hard to keep Hamilton's industrial engine turning. Lately, far too many of those hard-working Canadians have been put out of work. It is not just a Hamilton trend, but that trend plays across every province of Canada in all core manufacturing areas, with the greatest damage happening in Quebec, Ontario and B.C.

Clearly, the manufacturing sector must not be ignored any longer. Measures such as those contained in Bill C-411 are needed now to help prevent the further dumping of cheap foreign goods into Canada and the loss of manufacturing jobs that will absolutely follow.

As well, it is vitally important to the well-being of our country that Canadians start to buy Canadian. Cross-border shopping feels like an adventure to some, but I would ask Canadians to pause and take a moment to take into account the effect it has on their economy and their neighbours' livelihoods.

Not all is lost, though, because these days I am hearing more and more constituents of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek talk about buying Canadian to save Canadian jobs. Sadly, this has not begun to happen because of the leadership of the Conservative government. No, it is mainly as a result of a growing understanding of the impact that cross-border shopping has been having on our economy.

As well, everyone who is watching the media will know that the fear of toxins coming into North America imported from other countries, particularly from China, has begun to spur a buy Canadian attitude, so in a roundabout way, the common sense of Canadians is beginning to take hold and they are fighting back. We could use more of their common sense in this place. Then the members just might stop performing for the cameras and start performing for Canadians.

One point I want to be clear on, which will come as no surprise to government members, is that the NDP looks at the marketplace much differently than other political parties do. For instance, we do not believe health care should be a part of the open market, or we will wind up like the U.S. spending double per capita on health care than we do now in Canada and getting worse results.

On the other hand, we also believe that there are areas that need to be protected by the public sector. There is a role as well for the private sector to play here too. We believe that Canada must have market based definitions to protect Canadian jobs from foreign dumping.

The steel industry in Hamilton is a case in which the steel companies are very much at the mercy of foreign companies which dump their excess inferior steel into our market, undercutting our very best steel producers.

Going back to the broader manufacturing crisis, an example of the failings of both the Liberal and Conservative governments over the past five years is how they stood by and watched over 50,000 textile and clothing jobs simply disappear. After listening to the Conservatives during this particular debate and others when they so glibly shout out “a promise made, a promise kept”, today that rings hollow in the face of the deepening crisis and job loss in the manufacturing sector.

The record shows that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade while in opposition said:

A Conservative government would stand up for Canadian workers and work proactively through international trade policies to ensure Canada competes on a level playing field.

Fine words, but the Conservatives simply have not got the job done on this file.

Today we have literally thousands of workers from Hamilton's manufacturing plants waiting for their federal government to do something, anything, to protect their jobs. The only standing up for Canadian workers that the current government has done to date, and the last government for that matter, is to stand up and wave goodbye to the jobs.

If I am starting to sound a little angry, it is because I am. In point of fact, Hamilton lost 11,000 jobs just in the last year. Between 2002 and 2007, close to 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost across the country. Then people wonder why poverty is on the rise. That is 300,000 breadwinners who have gone from well paying jobs to where?

I will wait for it, because of all its best lines about growth and the McJobs that the government will claim to have created with its policies. If we look around, older workers, and so many in manufacturing are older workers, get retrained and then they are handed a spatula and turned loose.

Canadian families are struggling. They have to do more and more with so much less money. The value of their earnings has dropped significantly and they have watched their buying power lose ground since 1989. Remember 1989, that was the year of the free trade agreement. It was free all right. It freed many Canadians of their jobs.

For close to 20 years, I have watched my friends and my neighbours lose their jobs, lose their homes and lose hope while they waited for the real intervention from their federal government to protect them. They cannot wait any longer. The government has a responsibility to act now. Stop the spin, stop the BS and put together a real and comprehensive manufacturing strategy, a strategy devoid of partisanship. Come together with business and labour and the best economic strategists in the country and do it now.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-411, even though I am somewhat less pleased now that I have heard what the Liberals have to say. They think that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal can resolve all disputes. But how many of the tribunal's decisions has Ottawa respected since it was created? None. They should not be telling us that there are measures in place to ensure that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's decisions are respected because Ottawa has not honoured a single one of the tribunal's decisions. The argument does not hold water; it does not make sense.

Where did Bill C-411 come from? The answer is easy: it came from the manufacturing sector's report. The report submitted by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology was unanimous. I will read the 10th recommendation from the report, a report that the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP all supported:

That the Government of Canada conduct an internal review of Canadian anti-dumping, countervail and safeguard policies, practices and their application to ensure that Canada's trade remedy laws and practices remain current and effective. This review would also include comparisons with other World Trade Organization members such as the European Union and the United States.

I did not write that text. The manufacturing sector did. We spent a year talking to representatives from industry, the manufacturing sector and unions. We included this recommendation in the report. I did not make this up. The report was unanimous.

As for making comparisons with the WTO, the European Union and the United States, the work has been done. We studied the issue because the Conservatives demonstrated zero political will to help the manufacturing sector. I thought the Liberals might understand because they have been asking the Conservatives to help the manufacturing sector. However, when it is time to walk the walk, they refuse to get up from their chairs. In contrast, the members of the Bloc Québécois are standing up for manufacturers.

I would like to read five criteria, which were not just pulled out of a hat. The United States and the European Union follow these criteria. The first is as follows:

Prices, costs and inputs have to be determined by supply and demand.

This is not the case in China, where things do not work based on supply and demand, but are determined by the president. Maximum salary levels, for example, would not be a production cost determined by the laws of the market. That is the first criterion.

The second and third criteria are as follows:

Firms have to have one clear set of basic accounting records, independently audited in line with international standards.

The production costs and financial situation of firms must not be subject to significant distortions carried over from previous non-market economy systems.

This could involve, for example, cheap privatizations. The fourth criterion states:

Firms are subject to bankruptcy and property laws.

They are therefore subject to these laws which provide legal security and stability for their daily operations. These types of companies are essentially unseizable, because bankruptcy laws are inadequate and cannot be enforced. So, these companies can operate indefinitely without paying their debts, which obviously cuts down on operating costs.

The final criterion reads as follows:

Exchange rate conversions must be carried out at market rates.

This includes a floating exchange rate determined for each transaction by the balance between supply and demand on the foreign exchange market.

This bill would specify the conditions for determining whether a country meets the economic definition of market during the assessment of the normal value of goods that are part of an antidumping investigation.

The United States and the European Union have these five criteria. Why is Canada going its own way? For us, it is no big deal to let all sorts of items and products into Canada. We will welcome them with open arms, even if companies close. That is what we are doing. We are lax. We are doing absolutely nothing.

While other countries have a certain number of criteria, we are acting like a second class country. To Canadians, it is not important that we protect ourselves. It is much more important to protect others. We are going to let others profit at our expense, like good Canadians.

And on it goes. What is happening in my region today? Productions Ranger is restructuring. The story is in today's paper. The Ranger family has had to close five sewing plants, four they operated in Beauce, the riding of the former Minister of Industry, coincidentally, and one in Montreal, where 200 jobs have been cut.

Company representative Yvon Ranger said this:

We can compete against companies in Quebec or Canada, but we cannot compete against China. The major store chains buy almost nothing from Canada now. Everything is made in China.

This happened today. Five more plants have closed. Why? Because we are not doing anything. We are not doing anything because we do not have five criteria for analyzing another country's market economy. There is nothing complicated about this. It is not hard to have five criteria. But they still do not understand anything. I wish someone would explain to me why we cannot adopt these rules when other countries have adopted them.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is looking for the support of all the members of this House to help the manufacturing sector. However, I believe that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will be the only parties to support manufacturers. We are going to listen again to the Liberals ask the Conservatives to help the manufacturing sector.

This will be the second chance we have given them. The first chance we gave them was when we introduced a motion two weeks ago to save the manufacturing sector. But they stayed seated when it came time to vote.

We want to save the manufacturing sector. It would not cost a thing—not one dollar. We do not even need royal assent. We do not need anything. The only thing we need is votes to truly save the manufacturing sector in Quebec and Canada. Nonetheless, if people do not want to save it, then we will just have our simple little criteria that we can do nothing with.

In addition to doing nothing, we are told that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal is going fix everything. I said this earlier and I will have to say it again. Ottawa has never given its approval to any ruling by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Never. Now they would have us believe that this tribunal is going to fix everything. It is the Minister of Finance who decides whether or not the Canadian International Trade Tribunal ruling will be applied. Give me a break.

Let us provide the people who control border services with the tools to investigate properly. This is currently not possible.

Do hon. members know what Canada's criterion is? I will tell them. The agency uses just one criterion in every individual case of dumping. Canada determines whether China should be considered a market economy based on the following—and there is just one—criterion: domestic prices in a country are substantially determined by the government of that country and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market.

That is our criterion. As such, in the recent dumping case, the agency determined every time that the Chinese government was not setting the prices. Of course not, it was the companies that set the prices, but they are subsidized.

What is our criterion? Did the government set the price? If not, these companies can import their products here. That is why the other countries have five criteria. It is not hard to figure out. When these five criteria are met, there is no dumping.

In closing, this bill could provide the Canada Border Services Agency with the necessary tools for determining whether emerging countries are practising dumping. Our businesses would be better protected instead of having to abide by inadequate investigations that are unable to protect them from dumping.

Time is of the essence. Some 68,000 jobs have already been lost in Quebec since the Conservatives came into power. As I was saying earlier, and I will say it again, this bill presents the same criteria used by the European Union and the United States.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for the Ottawa valley riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the private member's bill tabled by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville calling on the government to amend a Special Import Measures Act.

The bill proposes an amendment to the Special Import Measures Act, Canada's trade remedy legislation that governs Canada's anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of dumped or subsidized goods that are found to cause injury to domestic producers.

Anti-dumping duties are additional duties designed to offset an exporters underpricing in an importing country's market. Countervailing duties are designed to offset the effects of foreign subsidies on imported products.

The act seeks to balance the interest between parties requiring protection from injuriously dumped or subsidized imports and those requiring access to imports to ensure profitability of their economic activities. This recognizes that Canadian industries are entitled to protection under certain circumstances and in conformity with internationally agreed rules. It also recognizes that Canada is a trading nation that relies on predictable trade flows, including the flow of imported goods, in order to remain competitive in the global economy.

The act can protect Canadian manufacturers from the injury inflicted by dumped or subsidized imports but was not intended to serve as a shield for Canadian companies in the face of the economic competitive realities of the global marketplace.

As the Government of Canada, it is our role and responsibility to represent all Canadians, which is quite different from the Quebec isolationists or separatists who lack the broader perspective that Canadian prosperity depends on open access to a free market.

There is no greater advertisement for a united Canada than a sharing of the prosperity that comes with being a member of the Canadian federation. We all benefit from Canada's status as a trading nation.

In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, my constituents depend on access to international markets for their products. Individuals, like Dave Mackay who is the local president of the National Farmers Union in Renfrew county, have expressed concern on behalf of members of what they feel is a serious financial crisis among hog and beef farmers.

I am pleased to confirm that I am working toward a meeting with our local agricultural producers in Renfrew county as together we will try to find solutions for problems in which there are no easy fixes.

The border has only recently re-opened to beef and exports for Canadian farmers to the United States. While we, on the government side, are working with our farmers and continue to be the most responsive government to farmers in over 14 years, I have a real concern that our hard work as a government could be lost as a result of this or some other private member's bill from a separatist member of the House of Commons.

The same situation applies to the softwood lumber industry. The lumber industry is a significant employer in my riding. I am proud of the fact that one of the first items of business, thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister, was to negotiate an end to the softwood lumber dispute.

I appreciate the cooperation I have received from the Minister of International Trade on the softwood lumber file and look forward to his continued cooperation with my local lumber producers as we work together to improve upon the existing agreement.

The time had come to move forward. We got the job done.

I have many other industries in my riding that rely upon foreign markets. Under no circumstances do I feel that we should be taking any actions in this place to jeopardize employment for all Canadians, including constituents in the riding and province of the member who proposed this private member's bill.

Our new Conservative government has committed to enhancing Canada's international competitiveness with our long term national economic plan, “Advantage Canada”, a plan designed to make Canada a true world economic leader.

From Ireland, to Singapore, to the United Kingdom, other countries are developing competitive advantages based on their own strengths. Given Canada's social, demographic and economic circumstances, we have the opportunity to create a competitive advantage of our own.

Advantage Canada is focused on creating five Canadian advantages to help improve our quality of life and succeed globally. These are: a tax advantage to reduce taxes for all and establish the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G-7; a fiscal advantage to eliminate Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation; an entrepreneurial advantage to reduce unnecessary regulation red tape and lower taxes to unlock business investment; a knowledge advantage to create the best educated, the most skilled and the most flexible workforce; and an infrastructure advantage to create modern, world-class infrastructure to ensure the seamless flow of people, goods and services.

Our ambitious Advantage Canada plan was tremendously well received from numerous organizations. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce heralded it as “a great road map, it's got all the elements of the things we need to do”. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce applauded it as a “good foundation to build on”. The Canadian Council on Learning was pleased with the “welcome and positive initiatives” included in the plan. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business cheered the plan's focus and “the key issues that our members say should be focused on”. That is just a small sampling of the reaction to Advantage Canada.

Our plan is optimistic, but realistic. It is visionary, but pragmatic and results-oriented. It is ambitious, but grounded in the realities of the world markets.

The world economy is changing. New players are emerging as major economic powers. Competition in world markets is fierce. Emerging economies, such as China, India and Brazil, with inexpensive labour, are becoming increasingly significant in the world economy. These countries have traditionally had low labour costs and their labour costs will remain lower than Canada's for the foreseeable future. This labour cost advantage is being maximized by increasingly effective trade and information and financial linkages with the global economy.

Since Advantage Canada's unveiling in 2006, we have taken significant steps in budget 2007 and in the recent fall economic update to implement its vision, including various measures helping businesses grow and compete.

Freer trade, advances in communications technology and relatively inexpensive transportation costs have helped firms to locate where they get the greatest advantage. Many labour intensive activities have moved to emerging economies, while developed countries are increasingly specialized in higher value-added activities, such as research and development, engineering and product design, that tend to be more capital and knowledge intensive. The rise of emerging economies creates both challenges and new opportunities for Canada. In the near term, emerging economies have increased the competitive pressure on low-skilled, labour intensive sectors.

In due course, the ability of developing countries to compete in higher value-added activities will also increase. Canada will need to continue to innovate and emphasize these higher value-added activities to maintain a competitive advantage and create better jobs. Yet these emerging economies bring significant opportunities for Canada and we look to capitalize and take advantage of these as our economy continues to grow and thrive.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to take part in today's debate on Bill C-411. It gives me great pleasure to be responding on behalf of the Minister of International Trade and specifically to support the comments of my colleague regarding the proposed amendment to Canada's trade remedy legislation.

The bill, introduced by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, raises issues that are at the heart of any discussion of Canada's competitiveness in the ever changing global economy. The Government of Canada is well aware of the opportunities and the challenges that international development presents for Canadian trade and investment interests.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the government's approach and plans in this regard. Let me start with a few words regarding the international framework that underpins Canada's international commercial relations in general and specifically Canada's anti-dumping regime.

The World Trade Organization provides the rules that govern trade relations among the organization's 150 members. The membership includes Canada, plus all of our most significant trading partners.

The WTO framework consists of a series of agreements that are specific to particular areas of international trade policy. The agreement pertinent to today's debate is the agreement governing anti-dumping measures. While the WTO aims at equal treatment and a smooth flow of trade among its members, it also permits certain exceptions. Anti-dumping measures are one of these exceptions.

For those who are watching this debate, dumping occurs when a company exports a product at a price that is lower than the price it normally charges in its home market. The WTO rules spell out the circumstances in which a member may take measures against dump imports from another WTO member and the procedure for applying such measures.

Canada has implemented our rights and obligations under this agreement by means of Canada's Special Import Measures Act. This act falls under the Minister of Finance and its implementation falls under the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

I observe that Canada's anti-dumping framework involves a transparent, quasi-judicial process for the review of complaints by Canadian companies regarding dumping by foreign competitors. The process provides for a balanced and impartial review of the legitimate concerns of domestic industries in Canada and the evidence provided by foreign suppliers and their Canadian customers.

In announcing the introduction of this bill, the hon. member indicated that goods from China are a target of the proposal. Allow me to speak for a few moments about Canada's trade with China.

China is Canada's fourth largest export market and our second largest trading partner. Last year, our bilateral trade totalled over $40 billion. In Canada's case, this meant $7.7 billion in exports of goods alone. These indicators point to a strong and growing trade relationship with China, with tremendous benefits for both sides. One need only observe the accomplishments for Canadian firms in China, for example, in the engineering, financial, transportation and communication sectors, to see how strongly Canadian firms can compete in the dynamic Chinese market.

This is just part of the picture. There is another message that the statistics tell, the fact that imports from China are over four times our exports to China. Canadian consumers benefit from such imports in terms of price and choice.

We have also heard the concerns of certain Canadian producers regarding the growth in imports from China. Some of these complaints allege that these imports are being dumped in the Canadian market or that they benefit from subsidy programs in China.

Canada has 11 anti-dumping measures in place regarding imports from China. In three cases where the products were found to be subsidized, the goods are also subject to countervail measures. These actions demonstrate that Canada's trade remedy system is working.

Canadian firms have made use of the system by formally registering complaints regarding certain imports from China. Trade remedy measures have been applied to these imports where such measures were found by Canadian investigators to be warranted.

While it is useful to remind ourselves of Canada's current trade remedy actions against imports from China, the trade remedy system is not the mechanism we should be looking to in terms of addressing the broader issue of Canada's competitiveness in China and other key markets.

The government monitors our trading partners to ensure that they are living up to their WTO commitments. This includes China. In most cases China has implemented the commitments it took on when it joined the WTO in 2001.

There are exceptions however. Last year Canada filed a challenge against China at the WTO regarding China's tariff treatment of imported auto parts.

Canada has a strong interest in the auto parts sector. Last year Canadian manufacturers supplied over $370 million in auto parts to China's growing auto sector.

Furthermore, the government has recently decided to join other WTO members in formal WTO consultations with China. These are consultations that focus on China's enforcement of intellectual property rights and on certain Chinese subsidy programs.

The consultations will provide opportunities for Canada to relay the concerns of Canadian stakeholders to Chinese authorities and to assess China's latest steps in both areas to bring its regime into compliance with its WTO obligations.

Consultation are the first step in the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism. If consultations do not succeed in resolving the matter under discussion, Canada, like other WTO members, has the option of requesting a WTO panel to adjudicate the issue.

Canada's new government recognizes that many Canadian manufacturers are facing intensified competition and are adjusting to fast-changing global realities.

The government has recognized that Canada needs a more competitive business climate and is committed to government policies that encourage investment and job creation.

The Minister of Finance's economic statement last fall presented a road map of policy directions, “Advantage Canada”.

“Advantage Canada” includes a plan, the government's global commerce strategy, to more aggressively engage the world beyond our borders. For instance, the government is committed to reinvigorating our trade policy while we continue to work toward a meaningful result in the Doha round of multilateral negotiations.

We are also committed to stepping up the negotiation of bilateral trade agreements, ranging from free trade agreements to improved relations and investment accords.

In the case of China a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is a priority. In today's global market, investment drives trade and investment is the essential catalyst for technology transfer and the development of supply chain links.

We therefore see significant benefits for Canada from an investment agreement with China. As well, our plan is about showing the world that Canada is moving up the value chain.

We are getting the message out that Canada is a leader in science and technology, and a great place to anchor North American commercial platforms, particularly where science, technology and innovation links are key. The government's strategy is also about stepping up our presence on the ground in key--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to ask my colleagues to take this seriously and read the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which was released in February 2007 with the unanimous approval of all members from all political parties in this House. After reading the report, they will realize that a great many of the things said in this House tonight are simply not true. A lot of misinformation has been heard.

I listened carefully to the remarks, and I think some things require clarification. I would remind the members that dumping does exist and that under international law, dumping is illegal. Companies that engage in this unfair, illegal trade practice export products below the cost of production or for less than they would sell them on their own domestic market.

When a business uses practices of this nature, it must expect countries to impose antidumping duties in order to counter the effect of these unfair and unlawful practices. Trade legislation must really protect businesses against the unfair and unlawful competition known as dumping. It is not just the Special Import Measures Act or the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, since those two authorities are under the minister, and it is the minister who raised the question of antidumping duties.

At this time, the Conservatives have decided not to enforce the Canadian trade legislation that could temporarily protect our businesses, as well as give them time to adapt to the new context and become modernized.

We would not be the first country to bring in measures to ensure that our businesses are not forced to compete with countries or importers that use unfair and unlawful means. The United States, 25 countries in Europe and all the members of the OECD have adopted such measures, all except two countries—and guess which? Australia and Canada.

The countries that have antidumping measures have issued a series of criteria to assess whether the practices of the Chinese government, in particular, distort the costs and prices. For example, they look at the value of the currency. The regulations, especially in China, are also considered. However, these countries know full well that theirs are not always on a par with the universally recognized regulations, and feel free to hide data.

The EU and the U.S. also evaluate the suppliers. Once again, Canada is showing a complete lack of leadership. I am convinced that this government, which wants law and order, cannot allow something unlawful to take place. It must automatically support my bill. I understand that the Conservative ideology is focused on the open market. However, the open market does not mean illegality. Allowing this to continue now means allowing illegality.

I believe that members who vote against my bill will be demonstrating that they are in favour of an illegal practice that harms Canadian and Quebec businesses. Next Wednesday we shall see who supports our businesses.

The government boasts that it has reduced taxes and passed measures to help the manufacturing, forestry and agriculture sectors. The reality is that they are enabling those turning a profit to add to their coffers. It has not brought forward any measures to help companies existing on credit to deal with the devastating effects of the high dollar. It is now preparing to allow foreign companies to use illegal and unethical practices.

The Bloc Québécois believes that globalization can benefit taxpayers. It provides the opportunity to have more variety in the choice of products. However, we must not allow globalization to harm the efforts of our companies who do not have sufficient means to help them exercise their rights.

Therefore, I repeat, dumping, members of the House, my colleagues—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 12, 2007, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-411, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act (domestic prices), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-411, under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #28

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion lost.