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.