Finance Committee on June 13th, 2019

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to seek some clarification. If a committee challenges a chair and the chair being challenged is still behind the microphone conducting the vote, how can that vote be properly carried out in an objective fashion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That is how it operates in Parliament. The chair did not vote on the amendments. The clerk called a recorded vote on whether the challenge to the chair would be upheld or not. The chair's decision was upheld by a substantive majority, with members of different parties supporting the chair. That ruling is passed and done, but if you have questions on any of those areas for the officials who are here, then you're welcome to it.

I do have a second point of order, from Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to ask again, have you ruled this clause to be out of the scope of the bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes. The proposed new clause 1.1 in CPC-1 has been ruled inadmissible; the other proposed new clause 1.1 in the amendment NDP-1 has been ruled inadmissible, and we are on clause 2.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

On the challenge vote, I just seek some clarification. If a member, while in the conduct of voting, concedes that he or she is not sure what he or she is voting on, then it calls into question whether the challenge vote was actually legitimate. It's possible that more than one member of the government side was confused about what they were voting for or against. In fairness, part of that is that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's not a point of order, but we'll allow him to discuss it a little bit, and we'll then go to yours, Mr. McLeod.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

—when you vote on a challenge, you vote yes if you want to uphold the chair and no if you want to challenge the chair. A lot of people might assume that when they're voting yes they're actually voting yes in favour of the amendment. In fact, the effect of the vote is precisely the opposite of the intention in case of such confusion.

Furthermore, in terms of the yes that someone might vote during a challenge function, they might be thinking, yes, I agree that we should challenge the chair, and when members admit that they're confused about that, there should be no shame in it. It's possible for that to happen. But I noticed then that the parliamentary secretary started to issue voting instructions verbally. The parliamentary secretary is a quasi-member of the executive branch of government, something for which I congratulate her. It's an honour to serve as a parliamentary secretary, but it is not appropriate for the executive branch to be at this table dictating to people how they should vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think you are into debate, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

We agree with the presence of the parliamentary secretary. I think she has added a great deal to the conversation on many days, but it is wrong for parliamentary secretaries to issue instructions to members of the committee. That's where the line is crossed and I want you to make sure that members of the governing delegation, who are here today, feel comfortable expressing their own will, both that they know what they're voting on and that they don't feel any sort of intimidation or pressure in doing so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right.

Could we now go to Mr. McLeod, who I think was wondering if the chair's decision shall be upheld.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate his concern, but I want to reassure the member that it was clear to me what I was voting on, so he doesn't have to worry about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to on division)

There's a proposal for a new clause 2.1, and I remind the members once again that if there are questions for the officials, they are here for that purpose. You're welcome to ask them.

Mr. Dusseault on NDP-2.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of the amendment is to address a situation that I find very problematic, especially for the industry. Only two of the seven product categories were subject to safeguard measures, following the tribunal's analysis and decision and the subsequent order of the Minister of Finance.

My amendment is quite clear. It seeks to protect the five other product categories:

2.1 (1) If no order has been made under subsection 55(1) of the Customs Tariff in respect of concrete reinforcing bars, energy tubular products, hot-rolled sheets, pre-painted steel or wire rods within four months after the day on which this section comes into force, the Minister of Finance must cause a report to be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the expiry of that four-month period.

(2) The report must include the reasons why no order has been made.

The industry is concerned that five product categories will face risks and disruptions. Unlike the two other categories, these categories aren't subject to safeguard measures. The witnesses who appeared before us didn't say that the five other product categories would be protected in the future. For the sake of transparency, we're asking the Minister of Finance to table a report within four months of the coming into force of this section to explain why, if applicable, protection measures haven't been enforced.

We want to make the process transparent, especially since people in the industry expect the government to stand up and support them, particularly with respect to the five product categories that I listed. These categories aren't currently subject to safeguard measures. As a result, these categories face risks, unlike the two categories for which protection measures have been granted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. The amendment is on the floor and has been explained.

Ms. Rudd.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Just as a point of clarification, I think, when my colleague talks about “no industry participation”, if he remembers, the witnesses yesterday did talk about the panel that has been struck, in which industry is very engaged.

Part of that conversation was about what mechanisms will be looked at going forward, because we recognize that this is a new world we're in, and we need to make sure that we're always nimble and ready for what the next situation brings. I guess the other point was really about understanding that the scope of what those safeguards could be and should be was one of the roles of this panel.

In a more formal way, my comments would be that the customs tariffs require that certain evidentiary standards—and we heard that from the panel—must be met in order for the Minister of Finance to recommend the imposition of provisional safeguards: goods that are imported in such conditions that cause or threaten to cause serious injury to domestic industry and the existence of critical circumstances.

We heard that from yesterday's panel, as well as the previous panel of officials, who were talking about making sure that the surges are well investigated in order to make sure they understand where those surges are coming from and why they're coming in that manner. As well, a variety of considerations could affect the government's approach to safeguard actions, including information gathering from domestic producers and stakeholders going back to the panel and the broader sector generally.

For those reasons, Chair, I believe this amendment should be defeated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion? Are there any other comments? Are you ready for the question on NDP-2? All those in favour?

(Amendment negatived)

Next, still dealing with the same section, we have a new clause 2.1 proposed in NDP-3.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, the goal is to increase transparency with regard to “the impact on employment in Canada of the use of steel from domestic and foreign producers in the construction, maintenance and repair of public works, federal real property and federal immovables.”

For a long time, the NDP has been asking for more transparency in public contracts when it comes to the use of Canadian steel. The NDP wants explanations on the source of the material used for the construction, maintenance and repair of public works. This would show whether the Government of Canada is helping our industries, primarily by purchasing steel products locally. This aspect is extremely important for many parts of the country.

The amendment requires the minister to table a report in each House within six months of the coming into force of this section, in order to show the process for assessing the impact of public contracts on employment in the steel industry in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault. The amendment is in order.

Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank my NDP colleague for proposing this amendment. However, I believe that the amendment should be rejected.

I think that there are other more appropriate and effective ways to ensure transparency on this issue. For example, a study could be conducted by a parliamentary committee. The Standing Committee on International Trade recently completed a study on the implications for Canada of tariffs imposed by the United States under section 232 of the United States' Trade Expansion Act. The study worked very well.

There are already other ways to ensure transparency. I therefore propose that this amendment be rejected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan.

Are there any others who want to speak on this?

Then we'll call the question on amendment NDP-3.

(Amendment negatived)

We're still dealing with new clause 2.1, an amendment proposed by the NDP, and now amendment NDP-4 in that regard.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope that the fourth time will be the charm.

The purpose of this amendment is to implement a tool so that the Minister of Finance can prepare a report on “the sufficiency of the resources allocated to the Canada Border Services Agency for the administration and enforcement of the program legislation, as defined in section 2 of the Canada Border Services Agency Act, with respect to steel.” Once again, the minister must table the report in the House within six months of the coming into force of this section.

This is a matter of increasing transparency and giving the Canada Border Services Agency the capacity to intercept steel products that cost less than the normal estimates. As witnesses told us yesterday, CBSA plays a key role in ensuring the integrity of our borders and in preventing us from being inundated with low-cost, low-quality steel products. That's its role. However, some experts in the field have criticized CBSA's work. According to them, CBSA is sometimes too lax and is lacking in resources.

As the Standing Committee on Finance, we must ask the minister to provide a report within six months of the coming into force of this section to ensure that CBSA has sufficient resources to carry out its mandate to protect our borders. In this case, the focus is on protecting the steel industry, which is under external pressure. CBSA must ensure that low-cost, low-quality steel doesn't enter the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment NDP-4 refers to the sufficiency of resources allocated to Canada Border Services Agency. I think we all agree that CBSA has a tremendous role to play, but I'd like to point out that in April 2018, the government announced over $30 million over five years and $6.8 million per year on an ongoing basis to strengthen trade enforcement, and most of that money will be going to the CBSA to beef up its enforcement and investigative capacity.

That translates to 40 new jobs, a 50% increase in the number of employees fully dedicated to trade remedy investigations and compliance. The government has made the investment and will continue to review the appropriate allocation of resources.