International Trade Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[Pierre Gosselin]

There are two types of appeals, and I'll give you an example. One could be appeals to classification decisions by CCRA in which a product is classified under a certain tariff, item number, and the importer pays the duty on those goods. If he or she doesn't agree with the classification that has been given to those goods, they are at liberty to appeal the classification decision, and that could eventually come to us. We would look at the goods, hear their arguments, and decide what the proper classification is.

The reason they might appeal the classification is that different classifications attract different tax levels. The excise tax is usually a value-for-duty issue. When you import goods, the customs department, CCRA, will determine the value of those goods to apply the tax on. There are sometimes disputes on whether some parts of the cost of those goods could be removed or shouldn't be taxed, and so we look at that in terms of the Excise Tax Act.

Who can initiate? The producers or associations representing producers can initiate a dumping or subsidy complaint or a safeguard complaint.

What is the average cost? We have no idea. We're never given that type of information. All we know is our costs, and those are represented in our budget for all these different types of actions.

On the timelines, I believe we distributed this morning the charts for Special Import Measures Act cases and safeguard cases. From the time of initiation of a dumping investigation--we start the final investigation from the date of the preliminary dumping determination--it's 120 days. In a safeguard complaint it's considerably longer than that. From initiation to the end it can be about 180 days. In a China safeguard it's 90 days from beginning to end. In appeals there is no legislated timeframe, although we try to deliver those cases in about 120 days. In government procurement cases it's 90 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gosselin.

We'll go now to Mr. Julian, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to the issue of having workers' representatives on the tribunal. Do you see any obstacles to that happening? What would need to be changed in order to achieve that end?

[Pierre Gosselin]

By representatives, do you mean members?

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

Tribunal members, yes.

[Pierre Gosselin]

The choice of members is made by the Governor General in Council. Normally we publish a statement of qualifications. In other words, people who have some knowledge of the area are looked for. There is an interview process, but really that's just to establish competence in the area, and then the Governor General in Council makes decisions. I don't see any impediment for the Governor General in Council deciding on the candidacy of a person who has a labour background.

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

We talked earlier about the actual initiation of investigations and the fact that you determined that a majority of the industry had to agree with putting forward an investigation for it to actually happen.

At the public hearing stage, are community and labour representatives able to make presentations?

[Pierre Gosselin]

Yes, and some have. I can't remember exactly which cases, but we have had instances. The labour union representing the workers in the bicycle industry appeared before the tribunal.

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

Okay. So in most cases where you move to public hearings—

[Pierre Gosselin]

No, I didn't say that. I said in some cases they have, but interested parties can register, and “interested parties” is a fairly broad definition. Somebody who is affected by the case before us can appear. They just have to register and go through some formalities, such as giving a copy of their statement, etc.

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

My final question is around procurement review activities. I notice for the caseload 2005-06 that three-quarters of the cases were withdrawn, not initiated, or dismissed. For procurement review, why is that so in the vast majority of cases? Is this an anomaly? What is the reason for most of those cases not being upheld?

[Pierre Gosselin]

There are a lot of technical reasons that might disqualify a case. The timeframe in government procurement cases is extremely short. Under the act, they have 10 working days from the time they knew, or should have known, the basis of their complaint to file their case.

So if they file their case later than that, we have no jurisdiction and can't accept the case. That is one of the reasons.

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

Thank you.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Does a member of the Bloc have a question? Go ahead, and then the member of the government party has a question or two.

Go ahead, please, Mr. André

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

First of all, I would like to add something. Earlier, we were talking about bicycles. I would like to add that the company paid $300,000 in legal fees to be heard by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, and the government refused to apply safeguard measures. I wanted to add that piece of information.

I have a question about some decisions made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, particularly about imported milk proteins and butter oils, which are very harmful to farmers.

You are familiar with the significant effort made by governments to protect supply management. At the moment, 50% of the ice cream in Quebec is produced using butter oil. That is very harmful to our farmers. You made a decision that this was not harmful to farmers in Quebec and Canada. I would like to hear your comments on this.

There is also the furniture industry. Representatives of the furniture industry took action regarding safeguard measures for the high cost of $300,000 as well, and they were not even heard by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. In this case, the tribunal was of no assistance to them.

They filed a complaint about the fact that their application was turned down because of the way in which it was presented. They received no assistance. In fact, industry representatives themselves did all the research required to put forward their request for safeguard measures. After all this work, which cost them $300,000, they finally learn that they had not proceeded correctly. So they got no feedback from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Can you comment on these two cases: the farmers and the assistance your provide to...

[Pierre Gosselin]

In the first case, regarding butter oil, there was a general inquiry, and we made a number of recommendations to the government of what should be done in this matter.

Second, the government asked us to rule on the tariff classification for goods coming into the country. The tribunal looked into the matter and made a decision regarding the classification of the tariff item. The tribunal has never ruled whether this had a harmful effect or not.

With respect to the furniture industry, it is true that we were consulted. We studied the matter, and we requested some additional information from the individuals involved, but unfortunately, they were unable to give us enough information so that we could undertake or sanction an inquiry.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

One of the reasons the people from the furniture industry put forward was of course the fact that the government had just turned down a request for safeguard measures for bicycles after the company had spent $300,000. Industry representatives were therefore somewhat discouraged at these results.

Another reason was that they did all the research and the inquiry themselves, but their work did not meet the tribunal's requirements. They say that they would have liked some feedback before the end of the process, before they had spent $300,000.

Does the tribunal provide some support to companies that ...

[Pierre Gosselin]

In this case, we were in contact with the plaintiffs to try to provide them with as much guidance as possible. However, we are a tribunal, so we cannot be biased. We told them what type of information we needed in order to proceed. Unfortunately, in this case, they were unable to provide this information, and we did not proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Monsieur André.

Now we will go to the government side, but not for a full five minutes. Mr. Obhrai, you have about three minutes.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you very much.

Could you quickly give me a rundown of the procedure? I received an anti-dumping complaint about rebar coming into the country from China. This is because the east coast industries complain when there is none, yet on the west coast, where they have no rebar, they import it from China. How does the tribunal look into this to balance this thing out? What can this constituent do?

[Pierre Gosselin]

What has to happen is that your constituent has to have the support of the producers of rebar in Canada to initiate a complaint.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

What would this constituent do? He's from the west coast.

[Pierre Gosselin]

Is he a producer?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

No, he's an importer of these things, and it's impacting on his business.

[Pierre Gosselin]

Why would he be complaining about this?