Debates of Nov. 26th, 1998

Special Import Measures Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before getting into debate I will give the Speaker's ruling with regard to Bill C-35 and the grouping of the motions.

There are seven motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 3 to 6 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: (a) Motion No. 3 will be voted on separately; (b) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion Nos. 5 and 6; (c) on the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 4 necessitates the question being put on Motion Nos. 5 and 6; and (d) a vote on Motion No. 5 applies to Motion No. 6.

Motion No. 7 will be debated and voted on separately.

I will now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6, and 7 on behalf of my colleague from Repentigny.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, for Mr. Benoit Sauvageau]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-35, in Clause 15, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 10 the following:

“(3.1) In determining whether the complaint is properly documented, the Deputy Minister shall not take into account representations received from parties other than the complainant.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

As Bloc Quebecois members have already indicated, we support this bill. However, since we have some reservations about certain aspects of this bill, we are proposing today in this House a number of motions in amendment to try to improve it.

These motions result from a study of the Special Import Measures Act done by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and by the finance committee.

The interventions of Bloc Quebecois members during this study have already led to a few important changes and substantial improvements. We suggested, for example, concrete measures allowing small and medium size producers in Quebec and Canada to have fair and equitable access to the redress procedures provided by the current legislation.

We also proposed improvements to the way the Canadian International Trade Tribunal operates.

The Bloc Quebecois also proposed that the cumulative effect be taken into consideration by the tribunal when assessing damages. Furthermore, the amendment of section 76 of the Special Import Measures Act, requiring the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to assess the cumulative injurious effects of dumping or subsidizing in the context of interim reviews was consolidated as the result of our interventions.

I therefore present to you the motions that we disagree with.

First of all, Motion No. 1, which reads as follows:

That Bill C-35, in clause 15, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 10 the following:

“(3.1) In determining whether the complaint is properly documented, the Deputy Minister shall not take into account representations received from parties other than the complainant”.

A number of witnesses expressed concerns during committee deliberations. The Bloc Quebecois shares the concerns of these witnesses, which include the Canadian Steel Producers Association. It is asking Revenue Canada to ignore the spontaneous presentations of parties other than the complainant before the start of an investigation.

Under this measure, Revenue Canada would take into consideration only the information of the complainant and would not therefore be obliged to take unsolicited observations into account. This measure seems reasonable, since it would apply only in the period preceding the initiation of an investigation.

Unfortunately, the government does not seem concerned about our requests or those of an industry of such importance to the Quebec and Canadian economies as the steel industry. It therefore rejected this proposal, which does not appear in the wording of the current bill. This is why we propose Motion No. 1.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Churchill, Aboriginal Affairs.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-35 at report stage. This has to do with Canada's Special Import Measures Act and the legislation that would represent. Essentially it is countervail and dumping duties.

In a perfect world I do not think we would require either of these, but as we know it is never quite perfect. I think we simply have to keep this kind of legislation at our disposal if we need it.

With the advent of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and then the expansion into NAFTA many integrated industries have developed. The auto pact was one that developed prior to the free trade agreement but there are others now. The steel industry has become quite an integrated industry in North America. I am thinking of the cattle industry where there are two way flows of product.

In many of our industries there really is no dumping in the true sense. There is movement across the Canada-U.S. border every day with trucks bringing in products. But there are other countries that dump into Canada. In some cases it is shiploads of steel and other types of products.

I think we want to keep this legislation at our disposal. There has been an important development in recognition of a public interest component in Bill C-35 to be discussed today as well. I welcome that.

I think we have to look at public interest especially where Canadian industry sometimes is in a shortage situation for a period of time when Canadian suppliers cannot supply products and Canadian importers need to purchase on a short term basis in order to fill their needs.

In the public interest section as well I think we have to look at where Canadian producers are inefficient and do not supply much of the market. Perhaps dumping is not such a big problem because the Canadian public consumer can benefit a great deal.

In particular I want to deal with Motion No. 1 which we are discussing today. If a Canadian industry or company decides it is being harmed by a dumping action, the process starts by filing a complaint. If it can document and prove its case there is a process that kicks into gear to determine whether there is injury as a result of that and whether there need to be duties applied to stop that dumping process. At the end of that process the public interest hearings could kick in if there is a requirement for that.

But the case being made today is that only the complainant should provide the documentation material and the appropriate government department would consider whether it is adequate documentation. No third party should be able to interfere in that process. The Reform Party agrees with the motion being proposed by the Bloc to correct this.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of our critic for international trade, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act, SIMA, and the Canadian Trade Tribunal Act, CTTA. Unfortunately my colleague is ill but he has asked me to speak on his behalf and I am quite honoured and proud to do that.

With reference to Motion No. 1, I wish to advise the House that we are in support of the Bloc's motion and to provide the position of the New Democratic Party on this bill.

We opposed the bill at second reading on September 25 due to the fact that in our opinion it may well weaken our anti-dumping system, in particular as it compares to our major trading partner, the U.S., the lesser duty provisions being the chief example.

Canada has repeatedly stuck its neck out and been hurt in its headlong embrace of trade liberalization measures i.e., support for our farmers, FDA, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization. It is our belief this is not the time to do so again.

Recently we have been hearing in the media concerns about agriculture and why we find it so difficult to support our farmers in terms of any kind of subsidy because of what it may do to countervailing duties from the United States or other nations we currently trade with. I find that appalling and I am sure farmers in Canada would find that appalling as well, to know their government would be hesitant to help them because of the reaction from other countries.

I am sure that is the last thing on farmers' minds as they see animals being shot because they cannot be looked after or the fact that we have grain and seed rotting away because there are no storage facilities. Farmers are leaving their farms in droves as our fishing people have done in our coastal communities as well.

We are a party that opposed the MAI which is an extended version, we believe, of the NAFTA arrangement. Some European nations recently have denied the MAI's going further. Unfortunately the MAI is stalled at the present time. We would like to drive a stake through its heart because of the fact that it was modelled on the NAFTA. European nations are saying quite publicly who in God's green acres would sign the NAFTA deal. Canada puts up its hand and says we did. They found a lot of problems with it. We in the New Democratic Party and our partners throughout the country have found a lot of problems with it as well.

We oppose this bill but we accept and support Motion No. 1 by the Bloc.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I am smiling, Mr. Speaker, because a twist in parliamentary procedure has my colleague from the NPD supporting a motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois while opposing the bill. Or else this is an aspect of the NDP philosophy that escapes me.

Our position is clear: we are in favour of Bill C-35. I do not want to get into a long speech on this bill. As you know, we support any legislation that will provide better safeguards for Canadian industries.

We are currently debating Motion No. 1, dealing with the possibility of initiating an investigation. When a complaint is received, it must be determined whether the information may be shared or not, for the purpose of establishing the validity of the complaint.

There is a risk in checking, as the Bloc Quebecois pointed out in committee; it can alert competitors across the country and abroad. The Bloc Quebecois tried on several occasions to convince the committee to approve this recommendation.

We still have concerns. In the various laws and regulations governing the antidumping tribunal, there are two provisions outlining a number of safeguards designed to ensure that complaints will not be discussed too openly.

We have strong reservations about this. From the reports, I gather that the hon. member for Repentigny approved clause 15, albeit with dissent on this recommendation. I am not sure that this change will improve Bill C-35. We may be taking something away from the tribunal or the government to allow an investigation to go further. Still, the complainant would be protected under two provisions contained in the legislation.

I will get in touch with my colleague from Repentigny. We tried to reach him today, but unfortunately he too is very busy. For the time being, we will be voting against Motion No. 1.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also speak on Motion No. 1.

The WTO requires that countries avoid publicizing the receipt of complaints until an investigation is actually launched. As well when we look at what Canadian industry actually does, it also does not publicize its complaint. From that perspective one can generally avoid third party submissions. In effect it is the industry that in some sense controls whether third party submissions actually appear.

Revenue Canada considers relevant third party submissions that it may receive consistent with its WTO obligations. That is quite explicit in the anti-dumping and subsidy agreements. It is required to examine the accuracy and adequacy of information that may be contained in a complaint prior to initiating an investigation. By following this process it can be advantageous in some respects to the complainants who can actually rectify any possible deficiency that one may have in the actual complaint they are putting forward.

The department does not solicit such third party submissions before the initiation of the investigation.

For the reasons I have indicated, the government does not support Motion No. 1. I have heard from the other parties. They have indicated that they do support it. It is for the reasons that I have previously indicated that it is not something that occurs generally because of the process being followed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now go to Motion No. 2.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, for Mr. Benoît Sauvageau]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-35 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois considers that Bill C-35 should not contain provision for the minimum duty.

We think it is premature to include the concept of a minimum duty in the Special Import Measures Act.

We think the government should stop approving policies that reduce the protection afforded Quebec and Canadian businesses when our main trading partners are not doing the same thing.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommends including the concept of a minimum duty in section 45 of the legislation on public interest. However, clause 27 of the bill incorporates the concept of a minimum duty by amending section 45 of the existing legislation.

Thus, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal may, on its own initiative, or on request, initiate a public interest inquiry if it is of the opinion that the imposition of an anti-dumping or countervailing duty, or the imposition of such a duty in the full amount provided for by any of those sections, in respect of the goods would not or might not be in the public interest.

As a result of a public interest inquiry, if the tribunal is of the opinion that the imposition of a duty might not be in the public interest, the tribunal shall without delay do two things. First, it shall report to the Minister of Finance that it is of that opinion and provide that minister with a statement of the facts and, second, it shall cause notice of the report to be published in the Canada Gazette .

In addition, in that same report, the tribunal shall specify either a level of reduction in the anti-dumping or countervailing duty provided for, or a price or prices that are adequate to eliminate injury, retardation or the threat of injury to the domestic industry. It is through this last measure that the concept of minimum duty is introduced.

That is why we are moving Motion No. 2 to have clause 27, which introduces this concept of minimum duty, deleted.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset that Reform is opposed to this clause largely because it contains the public interest portion in the SIMA legislation that is so important.

There are cases before the panel right now that have to do with public interest perhaps not being served by duties that were applied to baby food supposedly being dumped into Canada. The result of those duties essentially has made one company into a monopoly supplier of baby food. We think it is important to have competition. Therefore, we need the public interest section and the lesser duty aspect of it in order to maintain competition.

Speaking of the lesser duty itself, the question is, why would we want a duty above and beyond what is required to actually stop the flow of goods when they are being dumped?

My understanding in some cases is that duties as high as 40% are being applied when it would only take 5% to stop the product from coming in. Therefore, we think the lesser duty idea is a good improvement and we would like to see the public interest portion of this bill actually reviewed after a few years to see if it is serving Canadian consumers to the extent that it should.

A joint committee of finance and foreign affairs and international trade reviewed the SIMA legislation. They received a number of representations from companies that asked for a lesser duty. This change is a result of those representations.

While overall we are supportive of Bill C-35 and the need for some kind of rules regarding countervail and dumping, in this case the public interest component is a very important component and we would not want to lose it. Therefore, we will not support Motion No. 2.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the consideration of the public interest was a key issue, as my hon. colleague mentioned, in the parliamentary review of the act.

Clause 27 essentially gives effect to the parliamentary subcommittee's recommendations which the hon. member mentioned. It gives effect, in a sense, to clarify and improve the public interest provisions that are presently in the act.

In this regard, clause 27 is really a key component of the bill. It is really integral to the overall balance sought by the subcommittee. The balance is struck by the proposed legislation.

More important, among those Canadian industries that seek protection under this act and certainly other Canadian stakeholders that may be adversely affected by the application of duties are organizations like the steel producers and, if someone looks downstream, the auto parts manufacturers as well.

This government is really interested in ensuring that the interests of those who may be seriously affected by the application of SIMA duties are properly taken into account in our trade remedy system.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

That is a really good idea.