Debates of Sept. 25th, 1998

Petitions

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I have two other petitions, Mr. Speaker. The petitioners call upon parliament to enact two strikes legislation requiring that everyone who is convicted for the second time of one or more sexual offences against a minor person shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility of parole or early release whatsoever. There were 333 individuals who signed these two petitions.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition dealing with the pedophile registry. These citizens of Canada call on parliament to enact legislation to establish a pedophile registry. They are concerned about making the streets safer for our children. They consider the sexual abuse of our children or anyone in society to be intolerable. They are opposed to any early release of sexual offenders and Pedophiles. There were 147 petitioners who signed this petition.

The last petition I have, Mr. Speaker, also deals with the convicted pedophile.

The petitioners call upon parliament to eliminate the right of a convicted pedophile being let out of jail on bail pending his appeal. They consider this early release as a further threat to their community. There were 149 petitioners who signed this petition.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given Canada's historic role as a supporter of peace, a mosaic of different cultures and an international proponent of democracy incorporation, the petitioners feel it would be fully appropriate for Canada to join the ranks of peace blossoms worldwide with the symbolic designation as a peace nation.

These petitioners call on parliament to officially endorse Canada as a peace nation through the Sri Chinmoy peace blossoms project.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present three petitions on behalf of my constituents of Cariboo—Chilcotin from the communities of Williams Lake and 150 Mile House in the central interior and from the west coast community of Hagensborg.

The first petition is calling for public hearings on the multilateral agreement on investment prior to ratification.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls for public hearings to be held prior to any board or group removing or confiscating natural herbal supplements.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls upon the government to repeal changes to the Firearms Act as passed in Bill C-68 and to redirect that money to programs that reduce violent crime and improve public safety.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 37 citizens of Oxford. They call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 275 of my constituents who ask that parliament raise the age of consent for sexual activity between a young person and an adult from the current age of 14 to the age of 16.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Special Import Measures Act

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the NDP with respect to Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act, SIMA, and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, which is sometimes referred to as the CITTA.

Our position is one of opposition to this bill. We support the bill insofar as it improves and clarifies SIMA. SIMA remains one of the few mechanisms left that can effectively regulate trade and protect Canadian industry and jobs in our ongoing trade wars with the United States and in the increasingly liberalized global trading environment.

Certainly we do not have to be reminded this week of the fact that in spite of the free trade agreement, the promise of which was that we would not have trade wars with the United States any more, we continue to have such trade wars. This week we see the American governors in the northern states violating the rule of law, violating these trade agreements and making it difficult for Canadian grain and other Canadian agricultural products to make it into the United States.

Where we find the locus of our opposition to this bill is in the measure to adopt the lesser duty provision. We feel that to adopt the lesser duty provision at this time of global instability would be to weaken SIMA as a protection from unfair trade. Since the U.S. has not implemented such provisions, incorporating them at this time puts us at a further disadvantage with our major trading partner.

Here again we see a pattern that emerges time and time again in Canadian trade law and in Canadian trade policies. Whenever there is some liberalization to be done or some weakening of a nation-state's ability to protect itself, Canada is always first to do so. Canada is always eager to play the game, so eager that we leave ourselves vulnerable to other nations, in particular to the United States.

I do not know how many times we have to learn this lesson. How many times do we have to leave ourselves vulnerable to the fact that whenever the United States feels like it and when it suits its purposes, the United States has absolutely no respect for any agreement it enters into. The United States is the last country to amend its laws in such a way as to conform to whatever other nations may be doing in order to liberalize trade.

Here again we have the government moving ahead of the United States. The U.S. has not adopted this lesser duty provision, but no, we will be the eager ones. We will be out there leading with our chin. Go ahead, hit us again. Teach us one more time because we Canadians are the unteachable when it comes to this kind of thing. We love punishment. We are the trade masochists of the world. We just cannot get enough of being screwed around by other countries and being the first to hail it as some kind of testimony to our free trading spirit.

Well this is a free trading spirit that the NDP has been critical of from the very beginning. We are not against fair trade. We are not against trade agreements that incorporate into them real, meaningful and enforceable protection for workers, for labour standards, for environmental regulations and for the continuing ability of governments to act in the public interest.

However, we are against the kind of trade agreements and trade policies that this government has adopted over the years, particularly since 1993 when this Liberal government after its election in 1993 signed on to NAFTA, after it campaigned against the free trade agreement in 1988. We have now seen the Liberal government become the most uncritical, simplistic, check your brains at the door cheerleaders for free trade agreements all over the world, whether it is signing on to NAFTA, the Canada-Chile free trade agreement, free trade with the Americas, the multilateral agreement on investment, or the WTO.

The Liberals have become totally uncritical. It is one thing to plead certain kinds of arguments but they do not even do that. They have just become completely uncritical. They have become evangelists for the very thing that they deplored when they were in opposition.

Many Canadians have a right to feel utterly betrayed. With respect to certain other parties, at least they have been much more upfront about their approach to these kinds of issues. But not the Liberals.

This certainly gives me an opportunity, in the context of debating a trade bill, to say that not only are we opposed to this bill, Bill C-35, we are opposed to the entire approach that the Liberal government has pursued with respect to trade. The most recent of course has been its pursuit of a multilateral agreement on investment which would include the investor state dispute settlement process. This summer it was revealed to us just how inadequate it was.

I asked the minister of trade a question in the House the other day referring to the fact that Ethyl Corporation had sued the Liberal government pursuant to chapter 11 of NAFTA in respect to the government's ban on MMT, a gasoline additive, and that the government had backed down from its position on MMT and not allowed that suit to be carried forward under NAFTA. It was thus admitting, from our point of view, that it is not able under NAFTA to enact environmental legislation that particular corporations do not like, in this case Ethyl Corporation.

In our view, the reason the government did not allow that case to go forward was because it did not want the fundamental flaw of NAFTA to be exposed. Instead, it withdrew and made a settlement out of court with Ethyl for $13 million and hoped that maybe no one would notice. The government tried to attribute its backing away from that to a dispute having to do with the internal trade agreement among the provinces. Well that just will not wash.

What the government was trying to do was to avoid revealing the flaw that is in NAFTA and the flaw that it wants to replicate over and over again, 29 times at the OECD if we were to get an MAI that included that same investor state dispute settlement process.

When I asked the minister that question in the House the other day, he got up and either because he does not understand NAFTA or he was trying to avoid the question, he said “Oh well this never even went to a NAFTA panel”. I never said it went to a NAFTA panel. I said it went to the investor state dispute settlement process. Those are the words I used in the question. Does the minister not even know about the investor state dispute settlement process? Is he that stupid or was he trying to avoid the question?

The fact of the matter is that we have seen how insidious this investor state dispute settlement process is. And this is a government that wants to replicate that at the OECD and in the MAI and presumably some day at the WTO in the form of a global agreement on investment that would enshrine this investor state dispute settlement process that gives corporations the status of governments.

Prior to NAFTA, prior to the trade agreement that the Liberals betrayed their word on, the only way that trade dispute settlements could be dealt with was if the governments of particular countries decided to bring a certain matter to the level of dispute settlement.

Now corporations can do that on their own, thanks to the NAFTA, and would be able to do so much more often and from many more vantage points if the MAI were to be implemented.

The government's trade policy is fundamentally flawed. It is playing into the hands of those who would like to see the role of parliaments, of governments, of nation states and of citizens further and further devalued. It is playing into the hands of those who would like to see the power of the multinational corporations increased beyond what it is already, and it is already at an unacceptable level. The government does this all in the context of a trade policy which completely ignores human rights.

I do not think I would have anticipated that I might be able to say this, but the Liberal government has made the Conservative government which preceded it look good on human rights. The one place where that government was good on human rights, and I am willing to admit this, was with respect to fighting apartheid. Prime Minister Mulroney has rightly been given credit for the role that he played in that, along with other prime ministers going back to John Diefenbaker.

This government, and not just in respect of APEC and the disgraceful events that took place there, in which we have every reason to believe that the Prime Minister and his staff were directly involved, has adopted a trade policy going right back to 1993 which has basically said “Money first. Exports first. Opportunities to invest in other countries first, regardless of what may be going on in that other country”. In doing so it has not been reflecting the values of Canadians.

Instead of it being true, as the Liberals argue, that if we trade with these people they will become more like us, it seems that we are becoming more like them. This is a legitimate concern, not just in the context of Canada, but in the context of globalization and the WTO.

Once everybody gets into the WTO the democracies will be a minority at the table, in spite of the growth of democracy that we have seen in the world in recent years. It is not too hard to imagine all these non-democratic delegations and leaders saying to the leaders of the democracies “Why do you put up with all of this? Why do you allow things like elections and the wishes of the people and the well-being of your citizenry to get in the way of these agreements? What is with you guys? Be like us. We do what we want to do, when we want to do it and to whom we want to do it. We do so with the approval and the support of the global corporate sector because they love to take advantage of our weak labour laws. They love to take advantage of our lack of environmental regulations. They like to take advantage of our low taxes because we do not like to use public money to pay for health care and things like that. They like to take advantage of all those things. Why do you guys not do that? Why do you not get with it?”

In fact we have been getting with it. We have been slowly, as a country, conforming to the model that the multinational corporate sector would like all countries to conform to: a country in which there are lower and lower corporate taxes; a country in which there is a smaller and smaller public sector; a country in which more and more of what used to be done by the public sector is privatized; a country in which more and more workers who used to be covered by unemployment insurance are not covered by unemployment insurance. The list goes on of the ways in which, since the adoption of the free trade agreement in 1988, we have slowly but surely begun to conform to this model.

Unfortunately, that has happened with the collaboration of almost all the political parties and political traditions in this country, with the exception of the NDP.

I say this particularly to my colleagues in the Bloc who sometimes fancy themselves as social democrats. They, more than anyone else, with the exception of the NDP, who think of themselves as social democrats, should have been on their toes as to what the effect these agreements would have, not just on Canada but on the ability of the government of Quebec, or any other government for that matter, to act in the interests of its own citizenry.

With respect to macro trade policy and with respect to Bill C-35, I thought I would put those few thoughts on the record.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather enjoyable that I rise to speak to Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act.

As the hon. member of the New Democratic Party indicated, major changes have taken place in international trade since the Special Import Measures Act, SIMA, was passed in 1984. The Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the NAFTA and the WTO agreements are but a few of the major changes. Quite frankly, it was the Progressive Conservative Party which recognized that globalization and global trade was absolutely necessary. If Canada was to retain its high standard of living, it could only be done with rules of trade being set for our trading partners.

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to reflect the changes that have occurred in international trade, especially relating to the anti-dumping measures which protect Canadian industries against potentially unfair practices by our trading partners.

In 1996 a special joint committee on the review of SIMA was struck between the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Both the Bloc and the Reform have written dissenting reports.

It is ironic that the Reform Party's minority report states “We urged the government to resist the demand for getting tough measures with the Americans”. I find that terribly ironic for the simple reason that we are now dealing with a very specific trade dispute in agriculture with the Americans. That same party, which suggests it represents not only the west but agricultural producers, is saying not to go with Bill C-35 and, if we do, let us make sure it is not very tough on our American trading partners. If this is true, the Reform Party must be suggesting that we do nothing about the situation affecting western Manitoba and South Dakota.

I believe we would not have to get tough with Americans if this Liberal government had some influence with its American counterparts. Trade is not a science, it is a relationship that has developed between our trading partners. It makes sure that we have a good two-way line of communication. It makes sure that we have relationships developed with those trading partners and the officials of those trading partners to recognize when there are problems and to resolve those problems without having to go to the NAFTA or the WTO. That is obviously playing a bit of political hardball which, unfortunately, this government does not understand and does not know how to achieve.

The Ministry of Finance responded to the committee in April 1997, accepting about 16 of the recommendations by proposing Bill C-35. Changes to SIMA and the CITT act are intended to rationalize the investigative functions of Revenue Canada and the CITT to better reflect their respective areas of expertise. That was a very good recommendation and it is a very good suggestion within the body of Bill C-35.

Bill C-35 will also allow expert witnesses to play a more effective role in tribunal inquiries. Once again, that is a very positive way of developing trade defences within our systems.

Bill C-35 will also harmonize the way Revenue Canada and the CITT treat disclosure of confidential information. This is to enhance procedural fairness and transparency. It is a very good proposal within Bill C-35.

Bill C-35 will establish new penalty provisions to deter any unauthorized disclosure or misuse of confidential information provided in the SIMA investigation. Bill C-35 will make several housekeeping changes aimed at clarifying existing positions of SIMA and the CITT act, to name a few.

As the fathers of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and the NAFTA, obviously our party is in agreement with the broad thrust of bringing SIMA up to date to reflect the current realities of international trade. Since we know that dumping and subsidization are measures still used by foreign governments, we see that there is still a need for SIMA to protect Canadian industries from unfair practices by our trading partners.

However, we have to ensure that laws such as SIMA are reviewed periodically to ensure they achieve the purposes for which they were passed. Rapid developments in international trade can make these laws obsolete and counter-productive very quickly.

More specifically, we are happy that the government agreed to recommendation No. 2, which requests Revenue Canada to take concrete measures to ensure fair and equal access to the SIMA process by small and medium size Canadian producers. This is extremely important as the majority of our economy and the jobs developed in this country are done by small and medium size businesses. That will be implemented through improvements to administrative practices and I appreciate that in fact this bill speaks to that.

It is rather interesting that we are discussing Bill C-35, changes to international trade and corrections to our defence mechanisms because today we are dealing with a very specific issue of trade in western Canada.

Agricultural products in western Canada amount to in excess of $10 billion per year for western Canadian producers and Canadian producers in general. Currently we have a situation in western Canada where there are a number of northern states which are impacting Canadian trade going into the United States of America.

I am very disappointed that the Reform Party in its dissenting report would say “Let us not get tough with our American trading partners; let us politically try to work this out”. Obviously that has not happened because of the ineffective politics that have been practised by the Liberal government.

There are currently non-tariff barriers that are being set up by some governors in the United States. This can be dealt with in fashions other than going through the very lengthy process of the dispute mechanism, going to the WTO and the NAFTA, which the government has been waffling on for the last six months. As of yesterday the minister responsible indicated, by patting himself on the back, that yes we have now filed with the WTO and the NAFTA. The minister indicated that this would be a 10 to 15 day process. That is not factual truth. That simply gets the complaint to the table. There is a long term process with this particular dispute mechanism and it could take months to resolve it.

Western Canadian producers do not have months. They have only days. They sometimes have less than that in order to make sure their product gets to market.

I am very disappointed that the rules which are already in place are not being upheld by our American trading partners. But what it does speak of is the fact that we need rules. It would be terrible if we did not have international trade rules which we could follow. Sometimes people break rules. Sometimes trading partners break rules, as has been identified over the last couple of months with the South Dakota situation.

What we need are rules. Bill C-35 provides a substantial number of those rules on which we as Canadians can depend to protect not only our industries here in Canada, but our exports outside the boundaries of Canada.

I am very pleased to say that Canada has developed global trade. Unlike my colleague from the NDP who suggests that the NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. trade agreement were the worst things that ever happened, I would disagree with him. Because we were not only a partner to those agreements but we were the authors of them, Canadians have a higher standard of living, with the exception of more taxes being paid to this particular government. But I will not get into that particular area.

All of the dollars that are being generated seem to find themselves in the coffers of the federal government, which is not the best place to have them, but that is a debate for another time.

There are 32 million to 35 million Canadians and we require international trading partners in order to sell what we produce outside our domestic marketplace. There is no question that if it was not for the international marketplace we would not have what we have today.

However, if we are to open up the international marketplace there must be rules to that trade. The rules to the trade must be very specific. We have done a very good job with the NAFTA, the Canada-U.S. agreements and the WTO of setting the rules so that Canada will be the benefactor. We have done it very well. I am very pleased to say that happened, in most cases, because of the previous Progressive Conservative government.

Canada must provide its business community with the tools it needs to face international competition. Most important, our ultimate efforts should support the efforts to move forward, eventually making such trade remedy unnecessary. It would be very nice if everybody followed the rules. Ultimately, hopefully, all will follow the rules and this act will not be necessary.

We need to continue trade negotiations with our partners. The South Dakota trade dispute is one recent example which clearly shows there is a need for more work to be done in our trade relationships. In 1999, with the WTO negotiations, we will have a window of opportunity to achieve trade success. If the government develops a comprehensive plan and does not leave things to the last minute, as it did with Kyoto, success can be achieved if there is the political will to do so.

This party supports the amendments put forward in Bill C-35 to amend the Special Import Measures Act.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Surrey Central.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, the Special Import Measures Act. This morning my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap made an excellent eloquent speech and I wholeheartedly support what he said. He brought up excellent points on international trade and very eloquently showed the shortcomings and the shortfalls of the government.

Canada as a nation is a willing and active participant in the increasing globalization of the world's economy. Canadians have the education, innovation and motivation to prosper in the global economy. There are literally hundreds of thousands of successful stories of Canadian participation in the world economy, whether in business, communication, the arts, science or technology. Canadian companies have made their mark on the world stage not with production and subsidization, but with brains and hard work.

Participation in international trade has provided many positive benefits for our country. However, we must also be vigilant. Trade disputes will inevitably occur. They may be over fish quotas, computer parts or National Hockey League teams. Therefore, it is our job as legislators to ensure that protection mechanisms are in place when they are needed and only when they are needed.

The Special Import Measures Act is one such protection for Canadian industry that is adversely affected by product dumping or subsidies. Again I repeat, this act is protection for Canadian industry that is adversely affected by product dumping or subsidies.

In fact, the Special Import Measures Act is the principle legal instrument which allows Canadian companies to request and get anti-dumping and countervailing duties against imported goods which are found to be sold at too low a price or whose production is subsidized.

Revenue Canada and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal are responsible for administering the system while Revenue Canada is responsible for policy and legislation.

The process is technical in nature but is essential to determine if there is a threat of material injury to the domestic industry. If an investigation determines that an injury has occurred trade remedy actions could be applied.

Actions will include eliminating the dumping of goods by foreign exporters by introducing a duty or in trade remedies against a foreign government for unfairly subsidizing a product or commodity. The injury investigation is clearly the most critical component of this process.

Under existing international rules authorities must determine if dumping or subsidization of goods has caused damage to a domestic industry of the importing country before duties can be imposed.

It is at the preliminary stage where the investigation is most important. Careful consideration must be given to all parties involved. Therefore the appropriate balance must be maintained between the right of the industry to seek trade remedy projection and the rights of those who may be affected by such measures.

This must include the effects that any anti-dumping measure could have on downstream processors and on consumers. At present considerations are given to downstream repercussions after a final determination of injury by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Let me give an example of a recent case involving Gerber baby food. The residual effects of the trade tribunal's decisions were not considered and the public interest was not protected.

U.S. baby food manufacturer Gerber Canada says it will have to abandon the Canadian market because of the ruling by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal that forced the company to increase the selling price of jars of baby food.

The ruling has sparked an outcry from various public interest groups and concerned parents across the country. A 60% increase in Gerber prices has effectively eliminated Gerber from the Canadian market and created a de facto monopoly for Heinz, a company which already holds 80% of the market share.

This threat of a monopoly by Heinz has attracted the attention of the Competition Bureau with the aim of reversing the decision of the trade tribunal. Clearly the system is not perfect. Often we cannot predict all the consequences of a decision.

However, it is crucial that we structure the process to ensure that the interests of downstream producers and the public interest are examined before any decisions are made if the effects could greatly harm an industry and have a negative impact on the public.

Canada is intrinsically tied to the world economy. Participation in NAFTA and WTO and numerous trade agreements between individual nations ensure Canadian companies have a place to sell their goods and services.

Similarly, foreign countries look to Canada as a potential market for their goods and services. This is healthy competition but as long as the rules are fair for all competitors. When the rules are broken legislation like Bill C-35 must be in place to offer remedy to those harmed by unfair trade practice.

I support the proposed changes to the Special Import Measures Act introduced in this bill, but with some reservations. I support that the existing legislation and the proposed amendments to this bill abide by agreements already in place with the World Trade Organization anti-dumping and countervailing duty agreement.

I support the attention given in this bill to administrative and economic efficiency, procedural fairness and transparency in decision making.

However, I would like to see an amendment to this bill that would ensure a more comprehensive examination of injury at the preliminary stage. This to safeguard the interests of all parties involved and to assess the impact right down the line on the public and on downstream producers.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on his thorough comments on the bill. It reflects very much the constructive way in which the members from his party participated in the discussions which we had on this matter before the trade committee when these proposals were originally being considered.

The member was not a member of that committee but he may recall that his party, as was pointed out by the member for Brandon—Souris when he spoke earlier this morning, filed a dissenting report to the committee's report with respect to the bill outlining the recommendations made to the government.

Curiously enough, the Reform Party's recommendations drew to the attention of the committee and thus to the House, when it was filed here with the House, the fact that when dealing with the United States it is important that we deal with it in a calm, measured and appropriate way.

In the subcommittee dissent the Reform Party pointed out that getting tough with the Americans could be a strategic error. Its report states: “And since we rely so much more on exports than do the Americans, the damage to the entire economy in such a process of escalating SIMA type trade disputes could damage seriously the entire Canadian economy. Thus getting tough with the Americans would be a mistake. Rather we should work through proper channels. We share this opinion and urge the government to resist the demand for using tough measures with the Americans”.

What was good about that is good about the process where we are dealing with the Americans today over transborder transfer of grain and meat into the United States. It is exactly the same problem.

This government is suggesting we work through proper channels. We use our legal remedies. We are not going to sit and be shouted at and told we have do something dramatic or crazy. That was the position of the Reform Party in that. I suggest it should be its position today. What does the member think of that?

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can deny the fact that our economy is tied very heavily to the United States and Mexico with NAFTA. I do not think the Reform Party was off track when we said we need a balanced approach when dealing with one of our most important trading partners. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, it has to be fair on both sides. We are saying we should not be tough on the U.S. We do not trust the Liberal government. It can be tough on this and destroy the good relationships we have. What we are asking for is a balanced approach, a balanced view.

That is most critical. They are our important partners. We have to recognize that. This is where most of our trade is. Therefore I do not think there is anything wrong with the dissenting report.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central once again to support the amendments to Bill C-35, the Liberal government's proposal to amend the Special Import Measures Act, SIMA, and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, CITTA.

SIMA legislation governs procedures under which two types of duties are imposed on imported goods, anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

Under world trading rules, every country is permitted to impose these duties on imported goods in two cases, if these goods are being dumped into their own country, or if the production of these goods is being subsidized in the country of export.

Before we proceed further into the debate, I want to explain that dumping occurs when goods are sold to importers in Canada at prices that are less than their selling price in the exporter's domestic market or at unprofitable prices.

Countervailing duties are a tax put on imports to offset the subsidy used to produce the good in the exporting country.

Let me read to the House an example from my own constituency. Last month Bed-Roc Industries scored a victory against an American competitor who was dumping tiles in British Columbia and Alberta.

Bed-Roc Industries has been manufacturing in my constituency of Surrey Central for the last 10 years and suffered material injury when Custom Building Products imported and underpriced its wonderboard tile, damaging Bed-Roc's business. Bed-Roc was forced to cut prices and lost sales to maintain market share.

The American company Custom Canada was charged with weighted average margins of dumping at 36% and Revenue Canada imposed duties for five years.

If dumping had taken place on its part in the first year when it started, Bed-Roc would have been out of business. While I congratulate the management of Bed-Roc, I shall say thanks to SIMA and CITTA and NAFTA.

Chapter 19 of NAFTA, which contains virtually all the provisions of the free trade agreement, addresses at length restrictive trade practices including anti-dumping measures and anti-subsidy measures.

SIMA passed into law in early 1984. Since then, to comply with the new international obligations, this House has passed many statutory amendments to SIMA, mainly with respect to the definition of a subsidy and the determination of injury and the matter of establishing dumping margins.

Since 1984 SIMA had not been reviewed to determine whether it continues to meet the expectations of the Canadian business community or whether it is consistent with the international environment.

The House of Commons subcommittees that studied SIMA recommended 16 improvements and 64 technical amendments and corrections that we are debating in this bill today.

I have mentioned all this because the bill is fairly complex. Since time will not permit extensive debate on this issue, I will summarize the overall assessment.

Canada must provide the Canadian business community with the tools it needs to face international competition. To cope with dumping and subsidizing, SIMA and CITTA are essential instruments. Passage of the proposed amendments will make these tools really effective. Globalization and the nature of the complexities of international trade will force further reviews in the future.

The official opposition is satisfied with the proposed changes but would like to see the assessment of public interest brought in earlier in the process. That is very important.

Any negative impact than an anti-dumping duty would have on downstream processors or on consumers is not considered until after an assessment has been rendered.

A final determination of injury by the CITT and downstream repercussion of injury should be considered much earlier. For example, in the famous case of U.S. baby food manufacturer Gerber, it was charged with dumping baby food in Canada.

The resulting 60% increase in Gerber prices for the next five years has eliminated Gerber Canada Inc. from the Canadian market and caused the loss of all its customers to it almost sole rival H. J. Heinz Canada Ltd.

Heinz already had 80% of a $70 million a year market share and now enjoys almost a monopoly.

The decision sparked an outcry from Canadian public interest groups, including the Canadian Pediatric Society and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. If public interest had been considered prior to the duties being rendered, the parents who had been feeding their babies with the Gerber brand and who were satisfied with the suitability and taste of the food and found no allergic reaction would not have suffered.

However, the consumers buying Gerber were not considered and they suffered injuries, even though the duty was imposed to protect them on the other hand.

In talking about countervailing duties, there is another side to the story. The economy of British Columbia is in or near a recession. The British Columbian government has imposed a 70% stumpage fee on softwood lumber. The government has now created such a bureaucratic situation that the lumber industry is in trouble. If the government reduces the stumpage fee, the Americans on the other side will think we are giving subsidies to the industry. This will cause a problem because the rules and regulations are not laid out clearly. If the stumpage fee is reduced our industry suffers and if it is increased our industry also suffers.

Canadian businesses and consumers are supportive of the measures we have to ensure that in the Canadian marketplace we have a level playing field.

Our federal government can and does take measures to ensure that the competition in our marketplace is conducted in a fair manner. However, there are other examples. In the salmon fishery, the agricultural industry and with dairy products the rules are not clearly laid on the table.

The Special Import Measures Act ensures fairness. So far the Liberal government has acted like a blood sucking parasite on the thin skin of small and medium size businesses in our country. We just saw the largest tax hike in Canadian history, a 73% increase in CPP premiums. Can anyone believe this?

About 90% of jobs in this country are created by small businesses. The government has to have a fair attitude and a fair marketing environment for our businesses to grow so they can create the jobs we need. It is a good thing our Canadian firms have the means to lodge complaints.

We support a comprehensive effort to realign Canada's economic policies to be consistent with our international trade requirements. As the official opposition, we can support this bill if it is amended. We ask for one amendment only. As the official opposition's international trade critic, the hon. member for Peace River, has said, we are satisfied with what the bill will accomplish but if we go one step further we on this side of the House will support, with amendment, the effort that Bill C-35 represents in terms of meeting the expectations of Canadian businesses.

What we are offering is an opportunity for the government to consider what we are asking for and we are looking forward to its co-operation at the committee stage so that this bill can be supported by the official opposition. It is up to the Liberals. Our demand for a simple amendment along the lines that I have described is not unreasonable. We shall see if the Liberals are willing to accommodate us so that we can contribute the best intentions to strongly support our small and medium size businesses.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on Bill C-35. It seems to me that we are bringing in a fix for a problem here that was not properly thought out when the agreements were struck. It strikes me also that this is not an unusual problem.

As we talk about the Canada pension plan, we are involved with short term planning with the determination that there will not be long term planning. We can understand why that is. The government is in such a financial mess that it cannot look farther down the road than perhaps two or three years so we are stuck with a mess, planning from day to day how we might get out of that mess.

We see the problems with the medical plan in Canada, largely as a result of not thinking and planning and preparing as we go down the way, thinking into the future. We see this in the trade, as the hon. member talks about.

Countries like China which have come out of terrible situations with large populations and an economy that was doing nothing for them have been able to plan, to put money in the bank, have trade surpluses and provide for the long term future for their citizens. It should be possible for a country such as Canada with the wealth of resources that we have had and have squandered to be able to do some long term planning as well.

The commodities, the agricultural products, the mining, the petroleum, the wood, the forests have kept us in the secure position we have had up to the point we are at. These have been our treasures, but these are no longer going to carry the weight for us in this modern technological age.

I am dismayed that there is no long term plan for the future of Canada. We are going day to day and year to year. I believe the government has a serious responsibility to begin planning in a way that protects the future of our citizens.

Many of us are here for the benefit of our grandchildren, and yet we see such a small and limited future for our grandchildren in the scope of planning as it exists today. I not only call on the government to begin thinking things through for the long term and not for the present day, but I also want to ask my colleague if in his estimation these changes that are being instituted are going to serve us well into the future, or is this just an immediate short term plan for the shortcomings of the day.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

He is right when he talks about the mess the government has created. The other day we were debating the gun legislation. The government is always focusing on the wrong thing. It does not focus on the people who are killing people, it focuses on the people who are shooting ducks.

Another example is the APEC scandal about which we were talking in the House. The government, the Prime Minister and the bureaucracies are focusing on the rights of brutal dictators and not on the rights of peaceful protesters.

There are a number of examples where the government has focused wrongly, but in this case there are many examples, with globalization and the complexities of international trade, that things are changing in the world. It is a very dynamic field we are talking about.

In the past there were some improvements needed, some where the government failed to address the issue at the time, some because of the change in the overall global business environment. These changes were to be brought in, which they have been. I am expecting the government to listen to the amendments by the official opposition this time so that we can make it effective.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this today. I would like to say, as my other colleagues have said before me today, that the basic principle of the bill we do support.

Certain measures obviously have to be put into place. The clearer it is and the more explicit it is, the better that bill will be. It never hurts to reiterate to the government the one proviso which we have said at considerable length today to ensure that it understands exactly where our level of support is coming from.

When I first came to Ottawa I said that I was not here to oppose for opposition sake. I do not care about the statistics or how many we support, how many we reject, whether we support a government that we would ultimately like to replace. If it writes good legislation I will be the first to congratulate it. If it writes legislation that I think has some merit but that could be made better, rather than criticize we will try to show alternatives to amend it so that the bill which is possibly supportable could be made better. It could be something that we maybe are having a little trouble supporting which could be made into something which we could support. It would still be its legislation. It behoves the government to listen and carefully consider the amendments put in by the official opposition or another opposition parties. The bottom line is to get good legislation.

The chief thing we have asked for in this legislation is a measure that will take into consideration the downstream impact of what this bill might put into place. Something that we consider will show how it is going impact on industries in Canada and whether it is going to create a problem for some of those industries, and how is it going to impact on the consumer. It may be extremely well intentioned to put some countervailing duties or tariffs in place in terms of the fairness of the concept of it because it thinks that, in the case of the Gerber baby situation, it needs to be dealt with. It is irresponsible to put something like that into place before considering the impact on consumers. That is a glowing example for the government to look at. There are a lot of other examples out there.

It would be relatively simple for the government to move an amendment or to accept our amendment to ensure that these concerns are dealt with. I believe that all reasonable people, regardless of party, who look at this and give open minded consideration to our proposed amendments in this area will see the merit of them.

I would like to deal with one other aspect of this. We talk about downstream benefit, impact on people and other considerations with this legislation. We also have to look at and balance the other side of this. This is dealing with import, the Special Measures Import Act. What about export? Whenever we start putting into place regulations dealing with how we are going to treat imported goods from other countries, we cannot do that unless we take a serious look at problems, regulations needed or regulations already in place that are oppressive when dealing with our exports.

Because of the nature of my resource based riding, its proximity to the U.S. border and its absence of good transportation networks to other Canadian markets, the one I am most concerned about is the softwood lumber industry. Prior to free trade and under free trade we have had one problem after another with exports of softwood lumber to the United States. All kinds of outrageous claims have been made by the American administration. It claims we had subsidized our forest industry. This is ironic as right now British Columbia, with our NDP government, has placed the cost of producing B.C. lumber among the highest in North America.

In spite of that we still manage to stay competitive but the softwood lumber deal is killing us. Every time the United States' lobby managed to get some kind of countervailing tariff in place against softwood lumber we appealed it through the process and we won. We no sooner win then it comes out with another one in a different area for softwood lumber. We would fight that one and we would win. Still the threats kept coming. I will not say in its wisdom but finally the government, the bureaucratic system, decided that we should do something different. It was proposed to the government that we should go into the softwood lumber quota system.

I have had a lot of problems with the softwood lumber quota with a variety of different companies in my riding. I have gone to the softwood lumber division of foreign affairs. I have a pretty good sense of how this whole thing has come into play and how it works. Those people have been quite candid with me and I appreciate that because they have to work with what they are given.

When the quota system came in they did not have the slightest idea how it was going to work. Companies in my riding were told “we have no idea what your quota is going to be, just keep on shipping and keep track of everything, we will sort it out somewhere down the road and we will figure out how it is going to work”.

I can tell members how it works, terribly. One company in my riding basically shut down. People were shipping and using their number and softwood lumber could not even track it properly. We played the greatest numbers game for a year and a half. They operated from hand to mouth never knowing from one day to the next or one week or one month whether they were going to be able to sell anything they manufactured, whether they should even try to buy timber in order to turn into lumber because everything has to be done ahead. The last thing you need is an inventory of logs if you cannot cut it into something you can sell.

On the other hand, it does you absolutely no good to win on the softwood lumber quota war and find out you do have quota but you do not have any logs because you did not dare put in the kind of financial outlay that was necessary in order to have the inventory when you did get it sorted out.

We no sooner got sorted out with one company when another one, the biggest timber supplier and manufacturer in my riding, was told on each of three successive years that the quota it has will be held and it will not get any further cutbacks, and in each successive year it gets more cutbacks. It is a big operation with three locations in my riding. It has been told that the latest cutback that it was promised in the previous year would not happen is equivalent to the amount of output from its main centre operating in the riding. That means the company would shut down the entire operation in one city in my riding. It affects over 100 people.

This is not the kind of balance we need. When we start talking about import acts we had better take a very serious look at our export requirements as well because they go hand in hand. I am not pointing fingers at any party but in the past Canada through successive governments and bureaucrats negotiates with the United States on bended knees. That is not a Clinton joke.

We have to start dealing with a little more strength. We have to start saying that there is a quid pro quo. If you start doing unreasonable things with us we are going to make sure our act allows us to balance that out. We cannot have deals where maybe it is good for one area or region of a country and we say we will let this in because it is good but we do not care what is happening in another part of the country. Or we will balance it out by letting something good happen in that part of the country but which is maybe not good for the first region. That is not the way we should be working in this country. There should be an open fairness. The quote system does not provide that.

The way we have dealt with the United States prior to the softwood lumber quota does not do that. I do not see how we can enter into a new act to lay out the rules so that all the people who export into Canada know exactly what the rules are and those rules are perfectly fair. That is very utopian. Why are we providing other countries like the United States with a clear set of rules saying what we will do and how it will work? Then they can look at that and say now they know how to work the system but they also still get to turn the screws whenever they do not think something is quite right in coming into their country exported from Canada.

I think we have to come up with some way of saying this is what we are proposing to do but we have some problems with what you are doing to us and we have to resolve those first.

I remember going down to the United States as part of the Standing Committee on Transport a few years ago. One of the things we were talking about was the St. Lawrence navigation system into the great lakes, the locks, where we have this incredibly unbalanced system. We end up paying the majority of the cost of operating the lock system into the great lakes even though the American shipping system gets 65% of the economic benefit of making use of it. I believe that what is fair is we either at least split it or better still that we pay for it based on the economic advantage gained.

We had a meeting with some of the American big boys in Washington, D.C. and their reaction was that is the way it has always been and that is the way it is going to be. What are you going to do about it, close it down?

I think if somebody puts that type of bluff on the table we have to call them. When I was having that conversation I was getting more and more irritated talking to this American good old boy. My response to him when he put that idiotic question to me was obviously we do not want to shut down the navigation system of the great lakes but obviously you do not want it shut down either because you are getting more advantage out of it than we are. If you leave us no other alternative I guess we are going to have to look at that, and I walked away.

I think we need to deal fairly with these other countries but we need to deal with a little more strength. Internationally Canadians are known as those nice people who never raise their voice, those nice people who never argue, those nice people who when you hit them turn around so you can get a good shot at the other side.

I am tired of that. So are my constituents and so are the employers in my riding who are hurt by some of these acts that we come out with without thinking of the full ramifications, and employees especially, the everyday constituents in my riding who are impacted by these things, whether import or export.

In another part of my riding I have a tremendous agricultural area, the south Okanagan, and every year they fear the dumping of the American apple crop into the south end of my riding.

Yes, we need things that lay out clear rules we are going to follow in terms of imports but by God we had better have some very clear rules that go hand in hand with these things dealing with our exports as well. I do not think we can come in and put this all in place and say there, see how nice we are, don't you want to follow our example. They will say no because they never have in the past.

I believe we had better take a good hard look at this before we finalize it. By all means let us move on but let us do it cautiously. Let us put the amendments that have been talked about today in place with proper consideration for people who are going to be impacted by anything we do as a result of this act.

Then let us stop before we make that final passage and start dealing with the export side of it as well because any time we are laying out all our cards and being incredibly fair to our competitors without the competitors showing some evidence of fairness and laying their cards out as well, we are dealing with a blind hand and, as any poker player knows, we will lose every time.

I trust the Liberals will consider what is being said not to oppose them and not to run them down. It is being said very seriously to ensure the legislation passed in this House, not the Liberal legislation, the legislation passed collectively in this House, is good legislation and that everybody who participated in it can feel satisfied.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is touching on something peripherally which has bothered me for a long time. I would like to ask him about it.

Bearing in mind that we are the largest trading partner of the U.S. both ways, import and export, I would expect in the normal course of business affairs that we should have some influence down there but we do not seem to have much.

The reason is that we are so eager to play by the rules, to lie down and let people walk all over us. Sure, we have these trade disputes and we win almost every time but the hearings go on and on and on. We will win a dispute but they come back at us immediately on the same matter and do it all over again. In the meantime producers, employers and employees in this country are being crucified because we do not as a nation have the huge economic base to fall back on that the United States does.

There is a situation right now in my riding and in neighbouring ridings. Exporters of agricultural products are being subjected to what can only be described as harassment by the governments of the border states. They are using state troopers to stop goods which have legally entered into the United States at the border crossings. We have complained. We will go to NAFTA and the WTO. This will take weeks and months before it is resolved. I think we will win but in the meantime there are people who are really hurting.

I wonder if my colleague would give his opinion on my suggestion that when we are bitten we should bite back. Every week thousands of tonnes of American beef cross the border coming north into Ontario and Quebec. Why do we not find a pretext similar to the ones that are being used by the governors of North Dakota and Montana and say “Sorry fellows, but the packages are the wrong colour. We are not going to let that garbage into the country until you straighten up your act”. I think we would find that the border problems on the other side of the country would very quickly be adjusted. How does my colleague feel about that?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good example by my colleague and I think it is one we do need to deal with. The one thing I would caution when we do this is not to be subtle. Subtlety is a hallmark of Canadians. We like to tiptoe around and are always afraid we will offend somebody.

The example he gave is excellent. But if we do that, make sure people understand exactly why we are doing it. Do not just simply do it and let them put two and two together and maybe come up with what we are up to. Make it absolutely clear. Do this to us and here are the consequences. We talk about that in the criminal justice system. We talk about it with almost every example one can think of. It is consequence of action. Whenever something is done there will be a consequence for what is done.

We talk about it in our own lives. Let us start talking about it with the Americans as well. Let us say “Here is what we think is fair. Here is what we are prepared to do. But if you do not want to play by this rule, if you do not want to be fair, above board and completely open, then know now that if you start messing with us, we will retaliate. We will not get carried away in doing it. We will do it in the best Canadian tradition to try to do it in balance with what you do”. But make sure they know we are going to do it. If we lay that out, do not back down when the time comes. Make sure they understand when they take an action, if it is an unfair action, there will be a consequence and we will indeed follow through on it.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague for the speech he has given.

As a nation we have been facing serious economic difficulties for a long time. It is interesting to hear how economic leaders in other parts of the country talk about Canada. When they are asked what is wrong with our economic system in their eyes, they point to things that we talk about consistently in this place. They say first of all “Your debt is way too high”. Second they say “Your taxes are way too high”. Third they say “You have not had a plan for 25 years. You do not know where you are going”.

I listen to my colleague talk about the softwood agreement, the quota system, a system that has affected mills in my constituency, particularly the newer mills but now even the large traditional mills are complaining about the difficulties of this agreement. It strikes me that here we are again in a situation. Two years ago when we were talking about this quota agreement and I was raising objections, I was being told this is the answer to our problem. Clearly this is a matter where long term planning was not brought into effect. Less than two years after this agreement has come into force, our mills are in trouble with it.

It is the issue of long term planning that I am raising again, an issue that affects us in every sphere of this government's jurisdiction and rule. Whether it is health care, whether it is our pensions, whether it is our trade policies and trade agreements, we lack a vision of the future which takes into account the needs of our children and our grandchildren.

The difficulty now is that we have come to a point in the technological advance of the world where simply having forests that have not been harvested, mines that have not been opened up, oil wells that have not been drilled is not enough. We have to have a plan on the table. We have to have a future in mind. And we have to be able to direct our people and our companies in a way that they can take advantage of the opportunities that lead to that future.

Does my hon. colleague see in this legislation the long term planning that is necessary to rationalize the agreements that they affect, or are we simply stumbling along from day to day as we have so frequently in the past? Is this just another example of that?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed as my colleague implied in asking his question, there are serious implications in the lack of long term planning and long term vision in this particular bill. As has been addressed on a number of occasions today during the debate, there is not proper consideration for the impact. We look at the short term closely in impact on this but we do not look at the long term in terms of how it is going to affect other manufacturers, employers and producers in this country, how it is going to affect and impact on the consumer in this country.

Again, I cannot help but draw the comparison between this and the softwood lumber quota system. When we talk in terms of a long term plan, I have spent a lot of time on this and in my opinion there was not even a short term plan in terms of the softwood lumber quota. When it came in it was as if the Americans said “Here is your overall quota. Here is your total quota that we will allow to come into the United States under no fee, then under the low fee base and then under the upper fee base”. They did not have the slightest idea as to how they were going to implement that, how they were going to monitor and track it, how they were going to assign it out. It was something that they made up as they went along.

This particular bill is not quite that bad. I think we can fix some of the things in it but the problem is we have to fix them before we pass the bill. We cannot keep making things up as we go along, trying to determine whether or not we have done enough, or gee, we have problem, so let us put another little fix in here.

Once the legislation is passed it becomes much more difficult and onerous to try to impact further changes down the road. The government should go nice and slow, make sure that it makes the amendments that make sense according to what it has been hearing, make sure that it has considered the things that we have said. Also I would ask that the government take a very serious look at the balance I mentioned, the need to make sure that not only do we have our import house in order but also to make sure that exports are dealt with so that we have balance between what we take in and what we export out and the rules which both sides are going to play by.