International Trade Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

If you don't mind, Chair, I'd like to clarify my comments and my colleague's comments as well.

We, again, very much support the intent and the spirit of this motion. We think it's well written; we just want clarification.

The first was a friendly amendment, which I appreciate your support on. The second had to do with clarification with respect to the International Trade Tribunal recommendations. All I want to know is what those recommendations were. If by chance you don't have that information available at the present time, that's understandable. Maybe we can defer this discussion and have those included in the motion. If you have them, that's great. That's all I wanted clarification on.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, on the question of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, you know how it works. Companies that believe they have suffered damage and think that foreign products have been dumped have to apply to the tribunal. The measures we wanted to include in Bill C-411 were specifically intended to prevent this situation and to allow for a speedy determination of whether dumping was occurring.

At present, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal rules on applications by companies or industries. This has happened several times and it is extremely expensive. The companies have to prepare, and do analyses and studies. They practically have to do the work of various government agencies. Take the example of Raleigh, which makes bicycles. It spent over $300,000; the Canadian International Trade Tribunal found in its favour, but the government did not impose the additional duties that it was entitled to impose.

You will remember that the Minister, Mr. Bernier, said this was not a problem. Those may not be his exact words, but nonetheless jobs were going to be lost because we were going to sell fewer bicycles. Certainly it was not a problem, because we were going to pay less for them. He may be a bicycling enthusiast, but the industry was a victim of dumping.

When we have tools, institutions like the tribunal and the Canada Revenue Agency, which can do analyses and make findings that support the company, why does the government not simply act on those findings?

This is why these measures have to be taken. When the tribunal finds for a company, it would be reasonable to apply those measures and rule in favour of the industry, particularly when the company has paid $200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000 to have studies done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you. That's very helpful. I think that solves the second phrase.

What were you intending when you said “including trade measures to support these sectors”? Are there any specific ones you want to note?

Is that your question, Mr. Bains? Are you satisfied?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I appreciate the effort made. There are some still outstanding questions, and I'm not sure if we can have a debate like this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're going to get to it anyway, so it would be quicker to do it this way.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I have just one clarification. It says here, “implement the recommendations”, so all I wanted were the specific recommendations. I appreciate my colleague illustrating a particular case of a tribunal decision, but I'm not sure if that's a recommendation. That's more of a decision on a particular case. Was he referring to the decision, or certain recommendations they made? Was it the specific case he highlighted, or other recommendations? That's what I want clarified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur Cardin.

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

I would like to add something. Bicycles were mentioned. My colleague is absolutely right: these companies are in trouble and they are spending large amounts of money — we are talking about $300,000 and $400,000 — to defend themselves against what they consider to be unfair competition, and they are winning on that point. They have proved that dumping was going on.

Take another example, the furniture industry, which has done the same sort of thing. The Canadian Trade Tribunal was asked to do something, but ultimately those companies gave up. I was in contact with the Quebec Furniture Manufacturers Association, for example, and they had spent between $300,000 and $400,000. Ultimately, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal sent them away and told them to do their homework because it did not find that the documents submitted met their requirements. When the people in the association saw that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal made recommendations in favour of the bicycle companies and that ultimately the government did not implement its recommendations, they backed off. But the companies in the furniture industry knew that they had other recourses, such as imposing safeguards in a situation where an industry is believed to be temporarily threatened in order to support it. You know that this is permitted by the WTO. It is not new, because there are countries that do it. At present, there are major job losses happening.

When you speak to the Quebec Furniture Manufacturers Association, those people say they don't believe in it. They spend huge amounts of money to protect their businesses, and the government does nothing.

There is a problem. Do you understand, Mr. Bains?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Very well, and God bless translation. My French is not up to par.

Again, I understand the point you're making. You're citing specific cases, and that's fine. Those are valid points you make. It says here in the motion that you want to implement recommendations. So all I'm saying is, what recommendations? That's all I want clarified: what are these recommendations? You cite cases, which is fine. I just want to know which recommendations you were referring to.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

They are general in nature.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has said that it was easy to see that companies here were having a lot of problems and were suffering considerably from the entry of a large number of new products into the market.

I would call that a recommendation, but the tribunal held that this meant that duty could be charged for a maximum of five years. This is an example of what the government could do and it is a recommendation by the tribunal. I also suggest that the government follow all of the tribunal's recommendations, that duty can be charged for five years.

If it did only that, the government would be making it possible for a company facing what could be described as dumping to reposition itself and invest in technology, if that is the immediate need.

This is a very specific example of recommendations made by the tribunal that we want the government to apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think your intent is becoming clear, but I think what is written in your motion suggests the government should implement every recommendation of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal across the board. Is that your inten, that the government automatically accept every recommendation of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, or are there specific ones you wish them to accept? If that's the case, I think we need a little work on this line.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Generally speaking, Mr. Chair, if the tribunal rules on a question it means that a thorough analysis has been done by the industry and other analyses have been done by the Canada Border Services Agency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur Cardin, we're covering ground over and over. I'm asking you the question, simply yes or no, are you implying you want all recommendations of the CITT to be accepted per se by the government?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would say yes, off the bat, because all of the analyses have been done.

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

That is what the motion says: "...especially those regarding safeguards...". Safeguards have to be put in place when a business is truly threatened.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Allison.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you.

I'd just like to speak against this motion and to my Liberal colleagues, not only because I don't think it's clearly outlined but also because similar motions have been put forward at another three committees right now. I don't think it hurts us to delay at this point. They've got a similar motion in front of the natural resources committee, a similar motion in front of the industry committee, a similar motion in front of the finance committee.

My suggestion is, if they're going to debate that in the finance committee, let them do that, and let's hear what happens, because all we're doing is going in this parallel universe where basically the same motion is being put forward in four different committees. So my suggestion to the Liberals is it's not clearly outlined what those definitive things are, so it won't hurt us to delay this for a period of time and find out what the finance committee comes up with. That would be my suggestion, because now we're going to debate this motion, just like the finance committee, just like the natural resource committee, just like the industry committee, and waste all our time here when we've got work to do with Korea. It doesn't mean that if you're not happy with what happens in the finance committee we can't deal with this another time.

So that's my recommendation for putting a fork in this thing today so we can move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

I thought another colleague was on the list before me, but I....

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

For clarity, again, if you want to be on the list, you have to get the attention of the clerk. I don't keep the list. The clerk keeps the list.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

No, it's okay. I was surprised.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

You're responsible for the clerk, Mr. Chair. It's your fault.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Isn't it great that there's nobody responsible for you, Mr. Pallister?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Just echoing my colleagues' comments, I wanted to clarify something because of the understanding I have after talking with my staff.

I was looking at this motion and looked at the International Trade Tribunal. We have heard from them before in our committee, but I believe they fall within the parameters of finance--a lot of this does--with regard to their recommendation.

In terms of the concern my colleagues across the way had mentioned about the recommendations, I'm trying to get clarification about whether it's all trade tribunal recommendations or one specific one. There was one that was very concerning, that right now the legislation gives flexibility for the tribunal and our government to decide on balancing the interests of business and consumers—Mr. Cardin had mentioned the one situation with the bicycle company—and that whenever there are safeguards, you look at the long-term solution for the industry. I believe we need to allow that discretion to be provided for government for maximum flexibility, and if we were imposing the recommendations of the trade tribunal we would have our hands tied and we wouldn't have that ability. It would be lost if we implemented that.

I understand what my colleagues across the way were alluding to, as far as clarification of the recommendations is concerned. Generally, there's some support on the motion, but that is a concern. But there's also the fact that one part of the motion is about having studies on the impact of ongoing trade negotiations in the manufacturing sector. I thought that's what we were trying to do with this committee. Specifically, we're dealing with South Korea and the trade talks and how we can help manufacturing, allow open doors to other countries and export markets. So the sooner we can move this off the agenda and move it to a committee that's more appropriate, we can get on with the committee business at hand and allow this committee to do what we're supposed to and provide more opportunities for our manufacturing sector so they can be prosperous, not only in their own province, but across the country.

I also wanted to mention the forestry sector and the concerns in my own riding. I met with one of the forestry industry representatives, a large company, Tolko. They have taken advantage of the accelerated capital cost for depreciation of equipment and invested over $13 million and have now increased their efficiency to number one and two within the operation.

So there are some ways that we already have implemented, and we want to continue to see those increases through efficiency of operation, through investment of equipment, without having to impose regulations and subsidies and putting ourselves in jeopardy in the world trade agreement.

I would say that the way it's worded right now, I have problems. If we can make some amendments, as my colleagues from the Liberals have mentioned, we can look at that, but the way it stands right now I couldn't support the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.