Charlie Penson

[Publishing Industry, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will try that again. Bill C-55 will prevent Canadian companies from advertising in American split-run magazines. But here at home Maclean's magazine actually relies on American and other foreign companies for over two-thirds of its advertising budget.

How long will our magazine industry survive if Americans enact mirror legislation? If Canadians cannot advertise in those American magazines, perhaps they will not allow their companies to advertise in ours.

Can the heritage minister please explain how that will help Canadian publishers?

[Publishing Industry, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55 will prevent Canadian companies from advertising in American split-run magazines. But here at home Maclean's magazine actually relies on—

[Grain Industry, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-19 was brought in to deal with the grain handlers strike a couple of years ago we argued that the government could not legislate the problem away in a piecemeal fashion.

Because of the number of unions and companies involved in grain handling we suggested a process called final offer arbitration. Final offer arbitration works this way.

When workers and management reach an impasse that could result in a strike action an independent third party is called to intervene. Both sides make a final offer and a third party decides which of the two is the most reasonable.

That is supposed to be what is in place. Yet just two weeks ago western farmers were again held ransom as 70 weighers and samplers walked off the job at the grain terminals in Vancouver.

Although the rotating strike is now ended it may only be temporary. That is because the dispute between labour and management remains unresolved.

Farmers in Canada are demanding that this government get its act together in labour-management relations.

[Trade, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this minister just does not get it. This is about jobs. She really should get it because it is this type of answer that cost her her job as deputy prime minister in the past.

Bill C-55 is a time bomb waiting to go off. What assurance can this minister give that workers in the steel industry, wool suits, wheat and agriculture will not be threatened just to boost this minister's ego?

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have already outlined the concern I had that this was introduced in the Senate. As the parliamentary secretary said, it is a more efficient process. It might be a more efficient process but it lacks the legitimacy it needs. The reason is members there technically have the right to introduce this legislation. But it becomes a matter of legitimacy. I believe that institution has discredited itself so badly with the Canadian public that it really is a matter of how it is viewed, whether there is legitimacy in legislation coming from that body. I suggest there is not.

I believe the public does not believe there is any reason that legislation needs to be introduced in the Senate. This is the institution where the public has the chance to elect and not re-elect members after a term of office. It has the ultimate say as to whether members of parliament are in place as a result of doing good work or bad work after a period of time. That does not happen in the other place. There is an opportunity for the Senate to become a legitimate body if it were elected and equal. I would welcome that.

The United States Senate was not always elected either. It did not happened until 1910. Oregon was the first state that made a major initiative. It wanted to elect its senators. It was a very strange request at the time. Others thought it would not work. It took about five years and then the entire process led to an elected senate in the United States. It has the legitimacy needed.

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak in the debate on Bill S-21, the anti-corruption initiative that was taken at the OECD roughly a year ago. The memorandum of understanding was signed December 17, 1997.

What I am concerned with in that regard is not the content of the bill necessarily, although I certainly would like to have had some time to call witnesses and hear what they had to say. My concern is more that this was dropped on us on very short notice. I cannot understand why that would be.

The government had almost a full year to introduce this as a bill. It did not do it. It dropped the ball. It requires five major economies of the OECD to sign this to bring it into effect so that it does not all fall apart before the end of the year.

Four other countries, including the United States, found time to bring it through their legislative process. I assume they are pretty busy.

All of a sudden there is a panic these last few days. I know our committee ended up with this bill, looking at it last Tuesday afternoon. Liberals told us the reason it had to be started in the Senate as opposed to the House of Commons was that they did not think they could get it through in time, that they knew they could rush it through the Senate and get it on to the floor for debate.

The comments of the parliamentary secretary in that regard were that it is a more efficient process to have it introduced there, therefore the need to bring it through that process rather than through the elected officials of the House of Commons.

It may be more efficient from some points of view but not more efficient in terms of making a better bill. One reason it may be more efficient there is that the people appointed to the Senate do not have to go out and consult with constituents as we do.

I recall being on the foreign policy review, a review conducted jointly by the House of Commons and the Senate. I found that many of the senators involved were completely out of date on the issues. It took them several months to get them up to date in terms of what was happening in the country.

I suggest it was a good process for them because it gave them the opportunity to find out what the current thinking across Canada was. I see it is a problem because they do not get out and regularly consult. They do not need to. They are appointed until their 75th year.

I agree with the concept. I was on the subcommittee that examined small and medium size enterprises. We had a very good committee report. We heard a lot of things from businesses that came to make presentations to our committee.

Among them were the reasons that kept them out of the export business. They were not competitive outside Canada largely due to factors like high taxes, a great deal of regulation that is very difficult for small businesses to comply with, proportionate costs to the small businesses doing that and things like interprovincial trade barriers. They hurt their ability to get into the export business.

Those in the business did identify that bribery in the whole process of doing business outside Canada in some third world countries made it very difficult to do business. I can quote from the OECD document: “Considering that bribery is a widespread phenomenon in international business transactions, including trade and investment, which raises serious moral and political concerns, it undermines good governance and economic development. It distorts international competitive conditions”.

That is what they were telling us at committee. I suggest that, to some extent, the OECD initiative came out of those SME recommendations.

We agree with the concept that we should make it illegal for our public servants and businessmen to bribe foreign officials. The OECD plus a few other members have signed on to that convention and therefore will be bound by it when they sign the legislation.

I welcome that. It means that all of us who belong to the OECD, including Canada, including all our businesses, not just the private sector but our crown corporations, have to adhere to that as well.

We know that selling nuclear reactors around the world in the past got some Canadian officials into hot water in that area. We see AECL having to be subsidized to build these nuclear reactors. We have to subsidize the sale of them through export credit through the Export Development Corporation and in the past we have needed a finders fee, and in some cases I suggest it was beyond that, to grease palms of member countries that were considering buying this.

It certainly did lead to what has been identified at the OECD, serious moral and political concerns. It undermines good governance and economic development and distorts international competitive conditions. I agree with that.

It is a move in the right direction and we should move forward with it. Our party intends to support it and will be happy that third reading takes place today.

What about the consultation process the parliamentary secretary talked about in some detail? The subcommittee on international trade and trade disputes was just about to start the process of calling witnesses. We were denied that opportunity by a government that could not manage its own affairs. It left this until the last moment before dropping it on us and then expects first, second and third reading to take place in one day. There was no consultation.

The committee was to consider the hearings and invite witnesses to tell us whether they thought it was a good deal or not. We are not allowed to do that. We had to railroad it through the Senate process in order to ram it through. What about the consultation process? The parliamentary secretary told us there was consultation with businesses this summer. Where were they? Who were they? I guess we will find out in due course but it was not available to us.

Has the government learned nothing from the whole MAI process, that ordinary Canadians need to be consulted, not just its friends and special organizations, not just the industry groups but Canadians themselves? They want to be involved in something of the magnitude of the MAI. Apparently the government does not recognize that as an important process.

We went through some kind of facade of a consultation process over the summer apparently when the House was not in session. Parliamentary committees did not really count for much. We wanted that process of having witnesses. We did not have that opportunity.

There is a problem. Members over there have to get their house in order and understand that they had a full year to introduce the bill. Here we are in a last minute turmoil, a last minute rush to go through today before the House rises for Christmas.

I still have some concerns with the act itself although it is a start in the right direction. It makes it a criminal offence to bribe foreign officials by any members who sign on, and Canada will be signing on. That is the right thing to do but there is still the matter of a facilitation fee.

My understanding is that even though the United States has adopted a similar concept with its foreign corruption practices act there still is the business of recognizing that a facilitation fee is allowed.

It seems to me facilitation fees might become pretty large in the next few years and then what of the countries that have not signed on to this pact? Only 29 OECD countries have. I think there are four or five others that will sign on as well, but there are a lot of others out there competing for business around the world. Are they not going to adhere to the same code as the rest of us? Does this not need to go further, into the World Trade Organization and try to incorporate it into the 135 member countries that make up the World Trade Organization? It seems it does. There is no further plan to do that in this legislation but we are happy to make a start.

It is a step in the right direction. We will support all three readings today in the House of Commons as a result of this initiative.

[Agriculture, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is rather interesting because two things simply have not changed. The government's so-called deal with the Americans on Friday did not change the fact that Americans blockaded our border two days afterward. It did not change that we are still subject to high subsidies by Europeans and Americans.

When will the minister get out from under his desk and do something to help Canadian farmers?

[Agriculture, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.

The continued blockade of our border by American farmers this weekend shows pretty clearly this government's so-called trade agreement was nothing more than a public relations exercise. It is full of nice words like consult, exchange of information and increased dialogue, but no action and no concrete agreement to protect Canadian farmers.

When will the minister stop finding nice words and get tough with the Americans with their subsidies?

[Special Import Measures Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-35, a bill which amends the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

This bill has been a long time in the making. Two and a half years ago a special subcommittee was struck to conduct a mandatory review of the SIMA legislation. I was a part of that subcommittee, as well as a former member of this House, Mr. Herb Grubel.

We agreed with the main components of the report, but we also issued a dissenting opinion. The reason for it will be outlined as I walk through this process today.

Just before the House recessed for Christmas two years ago the subcommittee brought down its report which made a list of recommendations, most of which are included in the bill today. I am not sure why the bill was delayed so long, but I welcome its appearance and I think it will help to clear up an area that needs to have more clarity.

The Reform Party supports this bill, although we have raised some minor concerns with it. We hope that, despite having our amendments struck down in committee, the changes to the SIMA legislation will strike the right balance in protecting producers and manufacturers without unduly hurting consumers, importers and downstream producers. To that end, I certainly want to talk about the public interest component of SIMA, an area that we tried to strengthen in committee with an amendment that was not allowed. Be that as it may, we are in general support of the bill.

I want to take a moment to explain what this bill is all about.

Under World Trade Organization rules all countries are permitted to impose duties on imported goods if those goods are being dumped into that country or if their production is being subsidized at home.

SIMA is the framework legislation which allows Canadian companies to request that anti-dumping and countervail duties be imposed against imported products which are found to be sold at too low a price or imported goods whose production is subsidized.

The steps that need to take place to arrive at these duties are clearly laid out in the bill. First, a Canadian company must file a complaint with Revenue Canada. Once Revenue Canada is satisfied that the complaint is properly documented, it initiates an investigation. The department then sends investigators to countries against which complaints have been filed and these investigators look into the books of those companies to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to establish whether or not there has been dumping or subsidization.

It is the job of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to conduct inquiries into whether dumped or subsidized goods are actually causing injury to Canadian producers.

In the past, the CITT did not begin its job until Revenue Canada had determined that dumping had occurred. This caused delays and allowed preliminary duties to be collected before the CITT ruled that injury to Canadian companies had actually taken place. That process has been changed to the better. The new legislation under SIMA changes that. In future, the CITT will begin its work immediately and I fully support that process. I think it will help to speed things along.

I said earlier that I was concerned about the public interest component. After all, even though products are being dumped into Canada, there are times when I believe, in the public interest, that should be allowed to happen. The basic concern I have with this legislation is that the interest of the public is not taken into account soon enough in the process.

A good example of this is in the recent baby food case. Earlier this year Heinz, an American company with a subsidiary in Canada, charged Gerber, another American company, with dumping. Heinz took its case before Revenue Canada and the CITT and won its case against Gerber. Gerber had a 60% duty slapped on it which effectively forced it out of the Canadian market. That is one thing, but it left Heinz with a monopoly on baby food in Canada.

In the meantime we have parents of babies in Canada who do not have time to prepare their own baby food and as result are left with only one brand of baby food. My office received information that some babies could only be fed Gerber products because they were allergic to Heinz baby food products. With Gerber pushed out of the market, the parents of those babies found that their interests had been overlooked. This is only one example of how dumping duties hurt consumers.

If we create monopoly situations or lessen competition, that is a problem. I want to make sure that this public interest component is taken into account and reviewed down the road.

There are also instances where dumping duties have hurt downstream producers and importers. It is not just exports that create jobs in Canada. Imports create jobs as well. Carpet distributors and importers in Canada have long complained that the entire dumping procedure has hurt their business.

Because carpet distributors have so many types of carpets coming into the country, with different weights, fibres and finishes, they are always unsure at the border what the dumping duty will be. Therefore, these distributors find it difficult to bid on large contracts. It is bad enough having to deal with exchange rate uncertainties and problems in Canada in terms of being competitive, but when duty fluctuates by 10% or more profits can often turn to losses in no time.

Downstream manufacturers are also hurt when the cost of imported inputs suddenly rise because of dumping duties. I have quite an active and aggressive company in my riding that imports a lot of components for the finished product they manufacture. Those components come from the United States. They are a big part of the total package, something like 65% or 70% of the end product. This company imports those products. Dumping duties often hurt companies such as that.

I was given assurances by the drafters of the bill during briefings that there was enough flexibility built into the bill to consider the public interest in a timely fashion. But I believe this component should be examined again in a few years' time to ensure it is working properly. It must balance the interests of those companies that require protection with those that will ultimately pay the price.

In an ideal world, which everyone knows we do not have, dumping duties would not be necessary. I would like to see the U.S. trade remedy law and this particular legislation rescinded down the road. Canada's provinces do not have dumping duties against each other's products and, ideally, Canada and the United States should not have either because we have become very much an integrated market on many commodities.

We have sectors such as steel, beef and the automobile sector that essentially conduct cross-border trade via train and truck every day. We are not talking about a typical example of dumping with 50 million metric tonnes of dumped steel arriving at a Vancouver port from an Asian country.

The trade between Canada and the United States is regular trade between a supplier and a business that requires that product on a daily basis. So it is very hard to see how dumping duties do anything to satisfy that. On the other hand, the United States continues to keep its trade remedy law, including dumping, and it uses it very aggressively. As long as it does that, we have to keep that protection.

It is interesting that the first country in the world to ever use dumping was Canada. We introduced the measure 80 or 90 years ago. Now it is coming back to bite us. Eventually I would like to see it phased out.

At the next round of World Trade Organization talks I would like to see a better definition of dumping and a better subsidies code to make sure we can all play with the same rule book.

I recognize that a duty free world is quite a long ways away, but I would suggest that a duty free world between Canada and the United States is not that far away. We should be working to see if something can be done in the integrated industries, as I said earlier, to make dumping and countervail duties unnecessary.

The Reform Party supports this legislation which has been a long time in the making. We trust it will prove to strike the right balance that we are seeking to protect manufacturers and also to provide openness for our consumers and our downstream producers and importers.

We support this legislation and would like to see it move along fairly quickly.

[Points Of Order, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question I asked, the Minister of Natural Resources referred to an agreement that was signed between Canada and the United States and read from that agreement. I would ask that the agreement be now tabled in the House.