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.
