Evidence of meeting #10 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jacques Lahaie

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Order.

We are prepared to debate Mr. Cardin's motion. I think everyone has the written text of the motion in both official languages.

Monsieur Cardin.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Will the comments I made when we began discussing the motion be included in the business section?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

I can't be sure of that, so we'll let Monsieur Cardin begin again.

Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to introduce a motion.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

I'm sure it is. It's our pleasure.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

It is my pleasure to introduce this motion, but that pleasure is tinged with some disappointment, given the urgent situation that has existed for several years now in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. One by one, the Conservative and Liberal governments have tried to implement measures that have unfortunately proved to be inconclusive. What has happened is that the forestry and manufacturing sectors have continued to lose jobs, and there is a risk that this situation is going to get worse.

Yes, the government has presented a program, or a foundation, that implements certain things, but that does not reflect the urgency of the problem. The decision is being postponed until the budget. But there are people who are in real need of this program. It is fine to help the communities — and we think the money is inadequate — but we also have to provide assistance to the manufacturing and forestry industries directly.

That is why this motion is being made. I assume that everyone has read it. I can read it again, if necessary. The motion contains several things that may generate debate. I will be pleased to debate it with my colleagues, but I am satisfied that if all of the recommendations made to the government were applied the result would be that the manufacturing and forestry sectors would be able to come out farther ahead than they are now.

The notice of motion reads as follows:

Given the seriousness of the crisis rocking the forestry and manufacturing sectors, that the Committee recommend that the government introduce as soon as possible an improved aid package for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, including trade measures to support these sectors; systematically implement the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, especially those regarding safeguards; bring Canada's trade laws into line with the those of the United States and the European Union with respect to anti-dumping measures; carry out open and thorough studies on the impact of all ongoing trade negotiations on the manufacturing sector, and report the adoption of this motion to the House at the earliest opportunity.

So there are a few things in the motion that could stem the hemorrhage occurring in the forestry and manufacturing sectors and that would give those two industries the boost they sorely need.

I am prepared to debate the various elements of the motion with enthusiasm, and most importantly with the hope that my colleagues will pass this motion.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Thank you.

You've heard the motion. We'll resume debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Thanks you very much, Mr. Chair.

I support Mr. Cardin's motion, particularly because since the softwood lumber agreement was implemented we have seen 10,000 jobs lost throughout Canada, including in Maniwaki, in Témiscamingue, in New Westminster in my province, British Columbia, and in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. Since the softwood lumber agreement — some might call it the softwood lumber betrayal — was implemented, the forestry industry has lost huge numbers of jobs. We have to act. Mr. Cardin's motion very clearly sets out the kind of measures that should be taken.

I'd like to add that this is an emergency. It's a structural jobs crisis. It's estimated that we're losing 200 jobs every single day in the manufacturing sector, in the softwood sector, the forestry sector. So 200 jobs every day means that every single day there is a delay, another 200 families lose a breadwinner.

I would hope that members in all four corners of this committee, representing all four parties, would support this motion unanimously so we could then move forward into the House and have the debate that needs to take place.

This is a crisis. It takes emergency measures, and I think Mr. Cardin's motion helps guide the government to the measures that need to be taken immediately.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Maloney.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON

Mr. Chair, I'd perhaps like some clarification on what in fact the intention is. For instance, concerning an improved aid package, is this subsidies to the sectors, which could in fact violate our existing trade agreements?

As to the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, what specific recommendations are being referenced, all the recommendations? He references definitely those regarding safeguards, but it could include anything and everything that has ever been recommended. I wonder whether that could be tightened up a little bit.

Those are my comments.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Thank you.

Mr. Miller.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, everybody here wants to see every one of our sectors, no matter what it has to do with, do well. From that sentimental part of it, it's not hard to support a motion like this.

The reality of it to everybody here, and Peter, is that the softwood lumber issue is not the reason that lumber is in the shape it is today. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Without that deal, it would be a lot worse. This was something that was accepted and recommended by the majority and certainly all the large lumber-producing provinces and industry.

It's affecting mine out there, right now, but the reason it's doing so is the amount of lumber and trees that we're trying to salvage in your part of the world, which is the right thing to do, but it also puts a strain on demand. Right now, you can't give away a pine bush in my part of the world. That's the reality of it. It's not the softwood lumber agreement that has caused it, and in other sectors that are out there.

The Canadian dollar is another issue that's probably, if not the top cause of the stress on all these industries, certainly number two. Governments can't deal with that.

I know they're always looking at ways to help our industries, but I can't support this motion in the order in which it's put forth. Let's tell the truth on it, on what some of the causes are and what you can actually do and what you can't do.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Monsieur André.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Of course I support the motion by my colleague Mr. Cardin.

The manufacturing sector is important to us in Quebec. You are aware of the situation. We have lost nearly 150,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector alone. This is a serious crisis. We believe that we can support this industry. We have seen what happened in the textile industry: whole plants have shut down. The same thing is now happening in the furniture industry, for example.

This industry very simply needs to have more support. We do not want protectionist measures to be applied: we want to have a plan to assist innovation and research put in place for this industry, so that it can become more competitive internationally. We believe in these industries. We have done the math: if the government does not implement support measures and the current losses continue, there will be no manufacturing industries left 15 years from now. They will have disappeared.

I believe we are capable of supporting them. In my riding, there are very productive industries that still need support for design and research, for example, to become more competitive internationally. We have to be capable of preserving these industries. If we leave it to the free market entirely, there are going to be closures. The manufacturing sector may disappear. In the case of the auto industry and other industrial sectors, we can see that support is needed. We have to act. We have to support these industries, while of course complying with international, trade and other laws.

The motion says we must "bring Canada's trade laws into line with the those of the United States and the European Union". Those countries have also been facing competition, and they have taken measures to support their industries. They have enacted laws to provide greater protection against dumping. We are not opposed to equal competition, but when it comes to exports, we note that China's currency, for example, is undervalued. We have to take measures, enact trade laws and improve our laws on trade. We are prepared to deal with competition, but it has to be between equals, human rights have to be respected, the dollar must have a fair value, and governments must not intervene directly in the production of goods to support business.

I believe that the government and the committee have to consider this issue. If we do not act, the manufacturing sector is going to disappear. This is a crisis. We have to act.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Thank you, Mr. André.

Mr. Bains.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to respond very briefly to what Mr. Miller said. I do disagree with Mr. Miller's remarks with respect to the softwood lumber agreement. I think that does compound the issue. You're absolutely right when it comes to the high Canadian dollar; you're absolutely when it comes to the U.S. housing market playing a role in the crisis faced by our forestry sector. But the fact that the government can virtually do nothing with the industry presently because of the way the softwood lumber agreement is structured is problematic. I think the fact of the $1 billion fund just being announced, and the fact the government has given more assurances to the U.S. on the forestry sector, saying that it won't violate that agreement, speaks to the concern about specifically helping the forestry sector.

I think this motion speaks to a concern in that industry, and it's about investment and infrastructure and R and D. It's not a handout. It's about how we transition and become more competitive.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

It doesn't say R and D in there anywhere.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

I'm just saying that's the concern with respect to softwood lumber. That's my concern here.

I also want to echo the comments made by my colleague with respect to a concern about the wording of this motion.

If I could make a friendly amendment to get further clarification, there are two points I have concerns about. One is the fourth line, starting with “including trade measures to support these sectors; systemically implement the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal”. Can we get more clarity on what these recommendations are? I have a concern we are supporting a motion that doesn't outline what the specific recommendations are. I would like clarity on that.

If you continue to read that motion all the way up to the point where it says “bring Canada's trade laws into line with those of the United States and the European Union with respect to anti-dumping measures”, the friendly amendment would add “consistent with WTO guidelines.” Then we can continue on with “carry out open and thorough studies on the impact of all ongoing trade negotiations.”

So it's a friendly amendment that would clarify that particular change in our approach to anti-dumping measures.

I would also like to ask Monsieur Cardin for clarification on what specific recommendations he is referring to when he talks about the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Okay.

Monsieur Cardin, I'm going to ask you to consider this, first of all, as a friendly amendment—or we'll have to consider it as an amendment to your motion.

Before you respond, we might as well deal with them at the same time.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

If I understand correctly, you are really talking about a subamendment.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Mr. Bains has—

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

To begin with, Mr. Chair, I will say that the recommendations made in this motion do not contravene the WTO rules in any way. That is why we can add the words "consistent with WTO guidelines" without a problem. That goes without saying. We are a member of the WTO and we certainly intend to act in a way that is consistent with its guidelines. While we may not like some of them, I hope that one day we will be able to assert ourselves at the WTO and get things changed. There are some guidelines that really should be changed.

To answer what Mr. Maloney seemed to be asking before, I will say that these are the terms, in my opinion. If it is not inconsistent with the agreements made with other countries, and it does not automatically contravene the WTO guidelines, there are several ways of providing assistance that we could more or less describe as indirect. For example, the government cut taxes, and automatically it was said that this was direct assistance to the forestry and manufacturing companies. I am not talking about money.

Mr. Miller is correct: there are other reasons why the manufacturing and forestry sectors are having problems, for example the value of the dollar, equipment and the need for technology. Money could be made available to companies for those purposes without contravening the WTO guidelines. That is possible. You all know it. We are also talking about bringing trade laws up to the standard of the United States and the European Union.

I am going to refer — and my colleague may go into this topic further — to Bill C-411. We have never understood why some people opposed it. Perhaps it was misinterpreted.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

I wonder if we could just ask you to follow, first of all, the points Mr. Bains requested.

We've dealt with that. You said you were okay with “consistent with WTO guidelines”.

Could I ask you to revert now to the other point he raised, the other recommendation? That was about “including trade measures to support these sectors; systematically implement the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal”. I think Mr. Bains, not to put words in his mouth, was asking you to clarify that. If we could just do that, then we could proceed with the debate.

Thank you.

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Chair, it isn't that I want to speed things up. I was considering all of the comments that were made. I was coming to this point. This is precisely why I referred to Bill C-411.

In that bill, we were calling for measures to be implemented to make it possible to clearly identify occasions when other countries were engaged in dumping. Our words may have been misinterpreted: people may have thought that overall it was about protectionist measures against China. But we specified that we simply wanted to adopt measures that would be up to the same standard as what the United States and the European Union have on antidumping rules. We were not talking about unhealthy protectionism in this case; this is in fact an accepted practice.

In their trade with other countries, the United States and the European Union apply antidumping criteria to certain products, and when those products do not meet the criteria, they charge duty. This kind of process would help our businesses, at least indirectly. We do have to play on the same field as our competitors if we want to be competitive at a certain level, at least when it comes to establishing prices. There must not be exploitation, on either side, and of course the WTO guidelines must be respected.

In other words, we do not want to see the government taking measures that directly contravene the WTO guidelines. We do not want it to be described as protectionist. Even though our neighbour is particularly protectionist and does everything possible to protect its market, we do not want to act that way.

If you need any clarification, I will be happy to provide it.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson

Thank you, Monsieur Cardin.

I think, with respect, that it was very clear at the outset when we agreed to go with “consistent with WTO guidelines”.

What we didn't respond to was Mr. Bains' question, and that was about what you meant by “including trade measures to support these sectors”, and “systematically implement the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal”.

I think he asked you to expand on that to determine whether or not he could, in fact, support it.

Is that correct, Mr. Bains?