I'd like to come back to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's ruling on safeguard measures. It's generally acknowledged that safeguard measures are a temporary initiative to give the industry time to recover. I toured the Raleigh plant in Waterloo. They now use robots to do welding, but it all takes money, and time. In my view, it is reasonable to give this industry a chance to compete against Vietnamese and Chinese industries.
You've decided to side with distributors, and that's your choice.
The furniture manufacturing sector is now lobbying for safeguard measures of its own. What message are we conveying to this industry? Regardless of whether you successfully argue your case before the CITT, these measures will never actually be enforced. In fact, no single safeguard measure recommended by the CITT has ever been enforced. We might just as well say that Canada does not apply the international rules that it could to temporarily protect its industries. You're sending a very negative message to our manufacturers.
I for one was extremely disappointed with this decision. Obviously, it's never very pleasant to take safeguard action, but I would imagine that furniture manufacturers are quite worried about the prospect of having to hire and pay for legal counsel, knowingly full well that ultimately, even if they win their case before the CITT, it's unlikely any safeguard measures will ever be applied.
What would it take for you to follow through with a Canadian International Trade Tribunal ruling? Your answers will always be truthful. Enforcing the ruling will mean higher prices for consumers wanting to purchase a bicycle and distributors won't be happy. The same holds true for the furniture sector. Clearly, distributors enjoy the wide variety of products available from China. So then, what would it take for the government to implement safeguard measures?