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.