But the bill repeals all of that.
Evidence of meeting #219 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #219 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was products.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Yes.
4:10 p.m.
Director General, International Trade Policy Division, International Trade and Finance, Department of Finance
That's right. They remove the moratorium of two years, and if the previous measure was less than 180 days, the moratorium is one year. These are repealed for a two-year period and reinstated two years after royal assent of the bill.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
There's a reference in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act to those provisions, so it's just making a consequential amendment to remove that reference.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Yes.
4:10 p.m.
Director General, International Trade Policy Division, International Trade and Finance, Department of Finance
Correct.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Yes.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Okay. So that's the whole bill. I just wanted to make sure there were no surprises.
Has the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in the last, let's say, five years found that other countries have engaged in steel or aluminum dumping in Canada?
4:15 p.m.
Director General, International Trade Policy Division, International Trade and Finance, Department of Finance
The dumping and the subsidization—the countervailing process—are complaint-driven. Companies would complain first to the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, and the CBSA determines whether or not there is dumping—
4:15 p.m.
Director General, International Trade Policy Division, International Trade and Finance, Department of Finance
—or subsidization.
In a parallel process, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal looks at, if there is dumping, whether or not that dumping is injurious to Canadian producers. The CITT really looks at the injury portion of the process and does not determine whether there is dumping occurring in the Canadian market. That's done by the Canada Border Services Agency.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Have either of those bodies found that dumping has existed in the last five years with respect to steel and/or aluminum?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Yes. I think Patrick referred earlier to 77 measures being in place, with anti-dumping and countervail cases against a number of different countries related to steel products.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
What were they? What was the time frame during which those dumping incidents occurred?
4:15 p.m.
Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Some of them go back quite a long time. Measures are generally imposed for five years, but they can be extended if it's found to be warranted and if it's likely that the dumping and subsidization that are causing injury are likely to continue. For some products, I think it goes back even 10 or 15 years.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Senior Director, Trade Rules, International Trade and Finance Branch, Department of Finance
Absolutely. I think for virtually all products, China is one of the countries that are subject to those measures.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
If there's more later, Pierre, we can come back to you.
Mr. Fragiskatos.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the officials for being here.
I want to ask a question about international legal obligations from a trade perspective. Can you tell us how this legislation is consistent with Canada's international legal obligations in that regard?
June 11th, 2019 / 4:15 p.m.
John Layton Executive Director, Trade Remedies and North America Trade Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I think the legislation is consistent with our legal obligations in the sense that there's no obligation to have this time period or moratorium on new measures. There's no obligation to have that in our law. However, if Canada imposed another measure within the two-year period, because we've removed it from our law, I think other WTO members would have questions about how that were consistent with the obligation in the WTO agreement. That is the obligation, but it only applies if we impose another safeguard measure.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Okay, but just to be clear, as far as this bill is concerned, we are not offside with the WTO in any way? We wouldn't face any complaint or anything like that?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Trade Remedies and North America Trade Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
I think we will face questions about why we're doing it, but my understanding is that there wouldn't be a WTO dispute launched because of our law.