Debates of Nov. 24th, 1994

World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have seen such a thing and I am somewhat surprised, I admit. I shall try to continue my speech without laughing too much about what just happened.

[An hon. member]

Many things here are out of date.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

So I was saying-Someone whispered that not just the previous amendment was out of date, but I have respect for our traditions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I told you earlier that I would quote some of the 24 promises made in New York about respecting children's rights in the world. I have only three to quote so that you can understand why international conventions should have priority over wording that says "under 16 years". I shall read you commitment 18 made by Canada and about a hundred other countries that signed this international agreement. Article 18 says that children's welfare requires political action at the highest level. I think that means us here. We are determined to take such action. However, it does not say when. But there was no political will to act on it.

Commitment 19 says that this declaration is a solemn commitment to give high priority to children's rights, survival, protection and development. This would also ensure the welfare of all societies. I repeat, it mentions a solemn commitment to give high priority, but it does not say when. It still has not happened today.

Commitment 20 is divided into several points. I will tell you about part of the seventh one, which refers to helping child refugees establish new roots in life. States would also strive to ensure the social protection of children who work and promise to abolish illegal child labour. Efforts would be made to prevent children from falling prey to the scourge of illicit drugs. This part also attaches the greatest importance to children's rights.

Where my text would amend article 38 of the Child Labour Convention is in item 1. You do not have to look very far in the Convention to find where it states that State Parties shall adopt a national policy to effectively abolish child labour and to progressively raise the minimum age for admissions to employment or work at a level that would allow teenagers to reach their full physical and mental potential. Yes, children can work, but only in conditions where they will have hope and be able to physically and mentally develop. They should never be exploited.

Earlier this week, we had some good news. We learned of the creation of the International Children Tribunal, and one of the two co-founders of this Tribunal said that she saw last summer a movie where children in chains were producing goods. We saw an excerpt of this movie on the news when the creation of the Tribunal was announced. We saw children in chains working to produce luxurious goods currently in use in Canada and the United States. So, we have to ask ourselves: Can our supposedly developed society allow countries to exploit children and make them work in awful conditions to produce goods we will use?

So, I support this bill, with a minor change to the motion, because we should keep our words and fulfil our commitments.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on the motions amending Bill C-57 and in this case, Motion No. 9. We are happy to consent to the change made by the hon. member from the Bloc who spoke thoughtfully in support of not only his amendment but of the motion. I am very pleased to know of the growing support for the idea that has been put forward here.

The purpose of the motion is to ensure that as Canada joins the World Trade Organization, it creatively addresses the problem of child labour, one of the most troubling aspects of the new international trading order.

It amends the Export and Import Permits Act to allow the government to introduce regulations to restrict the importation of goods made in whole or in part by children, contrary to international guidelines.

Many observers of the trend of globalization have noted that the more we leave the multinationals to seek out the lowest labour costs in the unregulated labour markets of developing countries, the more globalization tends to become a race to the bottom. Armies of young children around the developing world already find themselves at the very bottom. They work long hours at punishing work in atrocious conditions for a pittance. They are thereby deprived of an education which is their right under the UN charter.

In many instances, such children are indentured into virtual slavery. The numbers of children involved and the conditions they face are staggering. It is estimated that 300,000 children work at hand knitting carpets in India while two-thirds of the workforce in Nepal's 600 factories producing rugs for export are children under the age of 15.

According to the International Labour Organization half the children in Pakistan's carpet industry die of malnutrition and disease before they reach the age of 12. Girls 10 years of age work in China's special export zones in toy factories for $10 a month.

In Indonesia, after relaxing its regulations on child labour in 1987, some 2.8 million children are working in factories. The most revealing fact is that child labour has been growing in tandem with the liberalization of world trade.

These children produce rugs, textiles, garments, shoes, toys and other light manufacturing products for export markets. The

multinationals that manufacture, trade and retail the products of child labour often claim that they do not hire the children directly but they never acknowledge that they knowingly subcontract out parts of the manufacturing process to employers that do.

Child labour has become an integral part of the new world order of trade liberalization and gives the lie to any glorification of unregulated world trade as a force of progress. For the pathetic armies of children in the developing world, market liberalization means a regression to the brutal exploitation that we in the developed countries have not permitted for more than a century.

Because it has become part of the fabric of the new international economy, child labour implicates all of us as consumers. On any visit to the local mall, unknowingly we are likely to buy for our own children clothes and toys made under conditions that would horrify us if we imagined our own children in their situation. Here is a case where we must let our basic human sympathy, our sense of solidarity with children around the world move us to act. Some have argued that when developed countries today restrict trade in goods made by child labour they are forgetting the role that child labour played in their own development and acting to deliberately restrict the development of new economies.

We in the developed world have indeed had our own experience with child labour, which was as much a part of European and North American industrialization as it is now in many developed societies today. We must remember that government regulations prohibiting the use of child labour were among the earliest public interventions to tame a predatory industrial capitalism. The fact that the same predatory capitalism has returned with a vengeance, its leaders boasting of their ability to operate outside the regulatory reach of individual states, does not relieve us of our duty to protect the most vulnerable members of the global village.

The multinationals like to talk about the need to establish a level playing field. Let us establish one between them and the children whom they now exploit. The elimination of child labour will be a long and arduous process that takes place on many fronts. The International Labour Organization has a program that has been in place for years to study and propose measures to address the problem. Canada should actively support this program.

The ILO secretariat has also recommended that the WTO should adopt a social clause to enforce basic labour rights on member states, a strategy that would go a long way to eliminating child labour. This is why we proposed a separate amendment earlier today that the government chose not to support, that the government commit itself to such a policy of developing a social clause for the WTO.

Some individual governments of developing countries are making efforts to introduce regulations to help children and some of these programs, such as the one in Hong Kong, have met with success. Many developing countries do not have the resources to police regulations on child labour, however well intended those regulations may be. That is why the developed countries like Canada have an obligation to help the governments of developing countries prevent multinationals from trading in goods made by children.

That is why we are proposing this amendment today to Bill C-57. It would put the burden of proof on the large importers and retailers to establish that they have not imported goods made with child labour and apply the resources of the Canadian regulatory regime to police the problem.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting motion, one that in spirit I would agree with but in practicality is going to be very difficult to deal with. That has been recognized by the countries that have been negotiating this GATT agreement for the past seven years. That is why it is not in the current GATT agreement.

The intent of this amendment is certainly good. It is to end child exploitation, especially in third world countries. The difficulty is that a multilateral trade agreement is not the forum for this. Children's rights are protected under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child through the United Nations.

Some of the difficulties were outlined by the member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake when he said that individual countries do not have the resources to police this kind of intervention.

I would like to pose a question for the member: Do we have the resources? In other words, on every article of clothing or textiles that come from some third world country, how would we prove that this is not made using child labour? It is very, very difficult. I think we have to work through the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and encourage these individual countries to stop the exploitation in those areas.

Just another interesting little sidelight. It also raises some questions about practices that we have at home, practices that I think are actually quite good.

I have a grain farm. We have four children who all worked on that grain farm prior to reaching the age of 16. They learned responsibility at a very early age. They learned how that business worked. There are literally hundreds of thousands of businesses in Canada that have children of the owners working and learning the system, learning how to conduct business in those businesses. Would that not also raise the question of our own practices at home? I do not think those are bad practices.

I have to oppose this. The spirit of it is I think right, but we have to pursue it through the proper avenues.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge the need for programs and initiatives to deal with child poverty. That is precisely what this government is doing with the initiative of the human resources ministry. There is something now before the public and we welcome their ideas. To agree to this proposed amendment would be almost like changing the game half way through or after it has already been played.

First, we are raising the issue of relationship between the international trade regime and social and labour standards. The purpose of the bill is to implement the World Trade Organization agreement. There is nothing in the agreement that deals with this subject. It was not the object of any negotiation and no obligation needs to be implemented in this respect.

The proposed amendment would represent a major departure from the position taken by Canada on several occasions. This issue should be addressed in multilateral negotiations rather than by taking unilateral actions. It is one of the areas that was identified truly in Marrakech as potential subject matter for future negotiations. Canada is now participating in discussions on this subject in the OECD as well with the ILO.

Nevertheless, we agree with the spirit of the motion, but unfortunately, technically speaking we will not be able to accept it. We are recommending rejection of the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-57, in Clause 185, be amended by adding after line 22, on page 124, the following:

"(6) Section 97 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

"(3) The Governor in Council shall, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, make regulations prescribing the factors that shall be considered in determining whether the dumping or subsidizing of any goods has caused any injury or retardation or is threatening to cause injury, which factors shall include, among others,

(a) unused production capacity;

(b) any increase in imports;

(c) any adverse price effects;

(d) inventories;

(e) any other demonstrable adverse trends"."

Mr. Speaker, as we say: Last but not least. I do hope that the government will be more open-minded than it has been so far.

I find it somewhat despicable that the government would oppose the previous amendment, which merely sought to ensure that Bill C-57 take into consideration Canada's international commitments in other sectors, particularly as regards the issue of children's law.

That being said, I want to discuss Motion No. 10, which we proposed and which is the result of representations made by Canadian steel producers who appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade late last Wednesday, to tell us about their concerns.

Those concerns are essentially that, when comparing the Canadian and American bills to implement the Uruguay Round Agreement, the steel industry notes that the American bill is much more precise regarding the identification of the causes of dumping. Consequently, the association has come to the conclusion that, for its members to be able to compete with their American counterparts, the Canadian legislation also has to be more precise regarding the issue of dumping.

The steel producers informed us of their findings. Mrs. Van Loon, the President of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, told us that, given the rather special relations between Canada and the United States regarding the steel trade, if the Americans were giving themselves a baseball bat in their legislation, as she put it, the least we could do was to give ourselves a baseball bat too, even if it is a smaller one.

Consequently, we are asking that the Canadian legislation be amended so as to allow our industries to compete with their American competition.

The next day, we were conducting a clause-by-clause review of the bill, which means that the Canadian steel industry only had a few hours to propose amendments or changes. I must say that they worked diligently and in a professional manner, since the next day, at dinner time, we had a series of very specific, comprehensive and to-the-point amendments concerning the steel industry's expectations.

I gather that the amendments proposed by the steel industry were far too specific and well designed for the government party to accept them. We were told that the vision the Americans have of the Uruguay Round Agreement as reflected in their legislation is not right, that our vision of the Uruguay Round Agreement as reflected in our legislation is better and that, consequently, we cannot do the same thing as the Americans nor support their point of view.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say that I find this position rather too meek and legalistic, since we have to deal with a powerful and, if I may say so, intrusive trade partner, that is, the United States. We must be able to work along the same lines, with the same means, on a level playing field.

Since our colleagues did not see fit to acknowledge the accuracy of the arguments presented by the steel industry at the committee stage, the steel industry agreed, in response to concerns expressed by our colleagues and in particular by the hon. member for Rosedale, to give more thought to another amendment which is far more precise, in fact, shorter, if I can say, far more general in the sense that it applies not only to the steel industry but also to several other industries, several other sectors of our economy.

Our friends from the steel industry have begun consultations with parliamentarians from both sides of this House in order to make their expectations known. Not knowing if our colleagues from the government, the Reform Party or the New Democratic Party would bring forward the amendment proposed by the steel industry, we placed the amendment before us on the Order Paper. Motion No. 10 does not come from the Bloc Quebecois, but from Canada's steel industry. We are merely bringing this amendment forward on behalf of the industry because nobody else would.

Clause 185 of Bill C-57 deals with the way the Canadian International Trade Tribunal must evaluate complaints related to dumping. For this tribunal, it is imperative not only to prove that dumping has indeed taken place, but also that such dumping has caused injury to the Canadian industry.

Moreover, the bill in its present form stipulates that the tribunal can determine injury only if the circumstances causing such injury are clearly imminent. We have to recognize that, on one hand, this is much too restrictive and, on the other hand, it is much too vague. The bill also stipulates that the Governor in Council may, if he so wishes, make regulations to give the Canadian International Trade Tribunal detailed information on acceptable evidence and on the general interpretation of the new conditions with regard to dumping.

As I was saying earlier, the Americans have gone a lot further in giving their tribunals much more detailed information on the interpretation of these new conditions and on the evidence that can be presented. This means that Canadian producers are clearly at a disadvantage compared to their American competitors because they have no indication as to how they must prove that they have been victims of dumping.

It must also be understood that injury has to be determined before any anti-dumping measure can be taken. That is the whole point. Getting back to the Canadian steel industry, I think it is important to put it in context to show how important it is.

The Canadian steel industry generates $8.6 billion worth of sales each year, including $3 billion worth of exports, and provides 33,000 jobs, including 10,000 to meet export market requirements. To show how important it is to have legislation similar to the United States, or to give us a level playing field, I will point out that 90 per cent of our steel exports go to the United States while more than 60 per cent of our steel imports come from there.

Canada is the largest steel export market for the Americans. In the steel industry, the need for a level playing field in both countries is essential. What is more, our industry must be able to ward off blows, to get ready for any threat of dumping, as the Americans are doing. If the rules are too vague on this side of the border only, our industries will not be able to take advantage of the benefits resulting from agreements such as the GATT agreements.

So, this amendment seeks essentially to ensure not that the Governor in Council be allowed to make regulations on what should be considered as dumping but more particularly that the Governor in Council be required, rather than leaving it up to him, to make the necessary regulations setting up guidelines to be followed by the courts when making determinations about dumping.

This amendment also seeks to specify the kinds of evidence to be considered among the factors described in the regulations. Finally, those regulations will have to be made on the joint recommendation of the Minister of Finance, as provided in the bill, and the Minister of Industry so that the industry's competitiveness will be taken into account in decision-making. We all know that the Minister of Industry is often in a good position to understand the rapid changes in market conditions at that level.

I urge my colleagues of all political parties to support this amendment which meets the expectations of the Canadian steel industry, and of thousands of workers in steel mills in Quebec and throughout the country.

It is imperative that Parliament pass this amendment that does not take anything from the bill, nor detract from its substance and its importance. It will in fact make it more specific and give it more teeth for the sake not only of the steel industry, but also of many other industries in the Canadian economy.

I know those issues are a matter of deep concern to our colleague for Hamilton East, who is also Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment. She was with us yesterday, when we met with the Minister for International Trade, members of the steel caucus, and spokesmen for the Canadian steel industry and unions in that industry. She seemed quite anxious that Parliament consider the amendment suggested by the Canadian steel industry.

I hope the wisdom of the Deputy Prime Minister prevailed in discussions with her colleagues and that they will deem it useful and relevant to pass this amendment that is critical if Canadian industries, including the steel industry, are to compete successfully with our major trading partners and competitors, especially the United States.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a very short intervention in this regard.

For those members of the Chamber who were away on business or whatever this morning, or for those who are tuning in on their television sets to this debate for the first time this afternoon, I simply want to remind the House that earlier today the member for Regina-Lumsden on behalf of the New Democratic Party put on record the concerns of the Saskatchewan steel industry. I believe he quite nicely brought together the views of our caucus on behalf of the Saskatchewan steel industry and the steel industry in general with regard to the motion before us.

I also want to respond to comments the parliamentary secretary made on the last motion dealing with child poverty and the exploitation of child labour. I can state his words fairly closely. He said that the government was not prepared to take unilateral action in this regard.

I remind the parliamentary secretary that the government is already taking unilateral action with regard to the WTO and agreements reflecting on the GATT. The parliamentary secretary should recognize that as a government it seems prepared to take unilateral action to penalize western grain farmers but is not prepared to take unilateral action to protect children. I think that is just shameful.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my friend in the NDP has a tendency to bend the statement I made a bit. I said that the government was taking action and that the minister responsible for human resources was taking action on the whole question of child poverty.

I said that we could not change the game halfway through. I suggested that the issue was not agreed to in Marrakech. What we signed did not include that issue. A future agreement or a future debate might take place around the issue. I think the hon. member would suggest that it would be unwise for us to take a unilateral action as a country and add a new amendment to our legislation; but for him to say that we are not concerned about child poverty is not fair and not warranted.

I go back to some of the comments made concerning the whole notion of dumping and anti-dumping. The new disciplines on the treatment of dumped goods will not impair the Canadian ability to respond to exporters that dump goods into the Canadian market when such dumping threatens or causes injury to Canadian industry. The new discipline should however reduce the scope for the harassment of Canadian export interests resulting from unfair dumping duty actions by our trading partners.

I also add that our existing dumping action will be continued under the new system as if it had been made under that system. Any continuation of an injury finding will be made in accordance with the new anti-dumping agreement. It is not expected to put an increased burden on Canadian authorities. They already operate in a system which for the most part conforms to the new rules.

There was a reference to the American legislation. I assure the House and Canadians that we are examining, have examined in the past and will continue to examine all moves and changes or proposed changes to the American legislation in terms of language or statement to ensure that they are consistent with the NAFTA as well as with the World Trade Organization agreement.

Should Canadian interests be harmed for whatever reason by any provisions which are inconsistent with our right under the international trade agreement we will take appropriate action. Two wrongs do not make a right. If somebody has gone beyond the agreement in introducing changes to our laws and regulations to divert from the agreement does not mean that we should be doing the same. As a government and as a society we have to fulfil our commitment under the World Trade Organization agreement.

The proposal suggested by the opposition member is inconsistent with the World Trade Organization. First, pursuant to article 3.7 of the agreement, implementation of article 6 of the act, the anti-dumping agreement, and article 15.7 of the World Trade Organization agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures, the specific factors listed in the motion are threat or injury factors. Adoption of the motion in our opinion would extend the application of these factors to injury and retardation in a manner inconsistent with the World Trade Organization specifically. Article 3.4 of the anti-dumping agreement and article 15.4 of the subsidy agreement require examination of a much larger list of factors in the broader determination of injury.

Second, with respect to the threat of injury, a list of factors will be set out in regulations being prepared under the authority of the new subparagraph 97.1(1)(a) which allows for full consideration of the factors set out in the hon. member's motion.

Third, the reference to the Minister of Industry in prescribing injury or causation factors should be deleted since he is nowhere else specifically mentioned in SIMA and the regulation making authority under SIMA is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

For these reasons and what I clearly stated earlier we are recommending rejection of the motion.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are being asked in Motion No. 10 to consider factors such as dumping, foreign subsidies and putting extra regulations into Bill C-57, an act to implement the World Trade Organization.

I am afraid I am going to disappoint the member for Verchères who has asked us to support the motion. It is not that I am unsympathetic to the discussions he outlined about the steel industry or any other industry undergoing trade actions.

The bill calls for minimum compliance to try to move these disputes forward quickly to the World Trade Organization. It has better mechanisms to resolve these disputes than is currently available in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement for steel, for example. A lot of regulations have been built up over the last several years and we still had several dozen trade actions on steel alone last year. Surely that is not the best approach.

The best approach is moving disputes to a forum such as the World Trade Organization where all factors will be taken into account by a panel that hears disputes. The panel will not just take into account things like unused production capacity, increases in exports and inventories. It will consider all relevant factors as it should.

We should not try to build up a big regulation wall. The steel industry said at committee that it wants us to build a big regulation wall like the United States is doing with the ultimate goal of tearing it down at the World Trade Organization. We should not take the same kind of action that the United States is taking. The World Trade Organization panel will consider the type of regulations that are being built up in the United States in its implementing regulations. The panel will take that into account when it hears these disputes.

There is a process. It is a better process. We have to put our faith in it. It is going to work. Placing undue emphasis on the factors that were outlined just a few moments ago by the hon. member for Verchères might put undue emphasis on factors that would benefit things like supply management. It would also cause injury in some other sectors of our industries.

That does not say we do not have some problems. I outlined them during discussion of Bill C-57 at second reading. Those problems are internal trade barriers, high debt and deficit, our inability to trade. The Western Grain Transportation Act needs revision. There are problems with the tariff rate quotas. I do not believe we should have them. There is the problem with the sale and allotment of quotas but that is for a different day. Those problems have to be worked out in the next few months.

What is important is getting through the minimum compliance and have the World Trade Organization come into effect. Let us start hearing some of the disputes such as the wheat dispute that has been bubbling for the last year and the other disputes that have been talked about such as steel. Let us put the World Trade Organization to the test and it will come out with flying colours.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the steel committee for several years. Recently, you had the opportunity to meet the people from the steel industry, at the steel committee, and also on two occasions at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, where we had the opportunity to hear their claims.

I want to tell you that what we are proposing in our motion is exactly what the steel industry is asking for.

I cannot understand the government on this issue. It seems to be stubborn. I cannot understand it. Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary talk about this, and I still do not understand why he does not agree with the amendment that we are proposing, all the more so since I do not agree either with the Reform member who just spoke on the same subject regarding dumping.

It is clear and obvious, and we heard that several times, including just last week or two weeks ago. The president of the Steel Producers Association came to the committee and clearly explained to us that, as for our protection mechanisms in dumping and steel trade between Canada and the United States, among others, the United States had regulations this thick, which she did put on the table before us, while we only had a few pages of regulations to protect us.

It is not I nor my colleague from Verchères who said that, it is the Canadian Steel Producers Association who said it several times. It is for these reasons that we have a lot of difficulty, this afternoon, understanding why the parliamentary secretary and the government did not amend this bill.

The steel industry is very important, particularly for Quebec. In my riding and the riding of the hon. member for Verchères, there are many major industries producing steel pellets. Steel trade is very important in Quebec, and that is why we are very concerned by the government's lack of attention towards the steel producers who came several times to explain to us, in great detail, their claims.

Once again I strongly hope the government will change its mind because, once this legislation is tabled and sanctioned, we will be facing major problems. That bill will have a negative impact on the steel industry which, it seems to me, is still quite dynamic and full of promises for the future of Quebec and the rest of Canada.

That is all I wanted to add. I do not want to get into the specifics, but I urge the government to listen. It said it had reviewed the issue. On what basis? The parliamentary secretary said earlier that they had reviewed the question, but on what basis and on whose advice?

We have heard the exact opposite and, once again, the government is not listening. I really wonder where we are headed. I think we will continue to sink further into a terrible deficit with that type of regulations that do not protect industries, that increase unemployment and add to the problems of Quebec businesses, particularly in the steel industry, one that I know very well.

I beg the government to accept this motion.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this motion as a past chair of the steel caucus. This is a caucus of all members of the House who have joined together to support the Canadian steel industry. My colleague from Oakville is the present chair, having taken over yesterday. She will guide steel issues through the House with the co-operation of all members.

The hon. member for Verchères, who put this motion forward, is a very active member of that committee and has taken almost word for word a proposal that was put forward by other members of the committee that represent steel industries.

Let me speak briefly about the intent of the motion. The steel industry felt it was important for it to send a strong message to the Americans that the present situation in which anti-dumping and trade actions are brought against Canadian steel industries is not acceptable. If we are going to have fair, open and free trade, if we are going to belong to an organization like the GATT, the World Trade Organization, the WTO, then we need to follow similar rules. The steel industry in North America is so integrated that we need to have similar rules on both sides of the border.

The intent of this motion is to make sure that there are similar rules on both sides of the border.

Yesterday we had the opportunity to speak with the Minister for International Trade. I want to thank the minister for coming to the committee. We discussed this very issue. Unfortunately he only saw this after he walked into the meeting and did not have the opportunity to look at it. It was his view that the intent of the motion could actually be handled by regulation.

Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to listen to the parliamentary secretary but I am sure that is what he meant when he responded to the hon. member. The minister gave us his commitment yesterday that he would look at this issue very seriously, make sure someone in his department would respond to our concerns and would work with the steel caucus so the intent of this motion is carried through. When Canadian steel companies or for that matter other industries want to do battle in trade disputes with companies in the United States they should have the same arsenal to work with.

I agree with the hon. member that the arsenal is not balanced now. Not only steel producers but other producers will tell you that it takes a heck of a lot longer to deal with a dispute in the United States than it does one in Canada. When they go to the United States they have to take a truckload of documents with them. But when Americans come here to deal with a dispute they just have to carry a briefcase full of documents.

If the values and the intent of the World Trade Organization is to bring down these sorts of barriers, then certainly industries, particularly the steel companies who employ thousands of workers in members' ridings across the country should have an opportunity to have fair trade.

I know that is the intent of the motion by the member for Verchères. I support the intent of his motion. We will work with the minister and members of the steel caucus to make sure that that intent is put forward as strongly as we can, and to work to make sure that through regulation the intent is carried on.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now on the last amendment presented by the Bloc Quebecois. The purpose of this amendment is to amend, improve and clarify the bill to implement the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. Although the parliamentary secretary does

not agree, I still believe that the hon. member for Verchères proposed an excellent amendment.

The amendment is an attempt to provide the basis for certain rules on what constitutes injury, with respect to dumping. At the very least, what I have to say may expand the horizons of the parliamentary secretary. During the past few weeks, through the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we were able to consult many Canadians and Quebecers.

They admitted their concern about the lack of clear provisions in Bill C-57 with respect to dumping. A number of people said they were afraid that imported goods would be sold on the Canadian market at prices below those prevailing on national markets and, in some cases below cost.

Bill C-57 already contains certain provisions on the evaluation of complaints about dumping by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. An attempt is made to determine whether certain unlawful acts would harm the interests of Canadian and Quebec producers.

However, the bill provides that the tribunal cannot recognize the existence of injury unless the circumstances causing injury are clearly perceived and imminent.

These provisions are not only extremely restrictive but also extremely vague. The bill contains no detailed instructions for determining what constitutes clearly perceived and imminent injury. It does not define the type of evidence that may be considered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Furthermore, it is simply left up to the governor in council, on the advice of the Minister of Finance, to establish regulations, if necessary. If he feels like it, as the hon. member for Verchères said. We think it is important that the Minister of Industry, who is in the best position to know about the problems facing Canadian businesses, should also be able to make recommendations to the governor in council on factors to be considered in determining whether there is a case of dumping. More should be done, however.

Our American neighbours have issued clear and detailed instructions on approaching tribunals with complaints about dumping and on the evidence to be considered by those tribunals.

It is therefore imperative that Canada provide clear and specific guidelines on the factors that would be admissible as evidence before the tribunals. Without these guidelines, Canadians and Quebecers, when they lose the advantage as a result of unlawful acts-I am thinking of steel producers, for instance-will not know how to argue their case to obtain justice.