Bill C-2 (Historical)

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the bilateral agreements between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation signed at Davos on January 26, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the bilateral agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General for Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the bilateral agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the bilateral agreements.
Part 3 of the enactment provides for its coming into force.

Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again on this matter.

Before I came to this House, I was a member of the Durham Regional Police Services Board. When I was there, I had the opportunity obviously on a regular basis to talk with officers around the changing technologies and the fact that our laws simply had not kept pace. People were committing fraud online or hiding behind anonymity on Internet service providers and performing serious crimes, and the police simply could not follow them.

I was first elected in 2004 and when I came to Parliament, I was pleased to support the work of the then Liberal government to create what was the modernization of investigative techniques act. That bill which was introduced in 2005 is ostensibly what is before the House today in both bills, Bill C-46 and Bill C-47, which is now being debated. Unfortunately, in 2005 the Conservatives precipitated an election and that killed the bill.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine then reintroduced that as a private member's bill in the next session and again that bill was killed when the Prime Minister walked to the Governor General's office and then killed that legislation.

In this session of Parliament that same Liberal member of Parliament introduced that Liberal legislation yet again. We had to wait until the end of the last session before the Conservatives finally introduced it.

As I said, just before we began question period, it is a little rich to me that the Conservatives would be going on about the imperative need to pass the bill and how much it is needed for police and how critical it is when they in fact have had four years to introduce it and are the ones responsible for killing it in various stages at various moments in time.

When they finally did introduce it, they introduced it in the last week the House was sitting before summer when there was no opportunity to debate it, there was no opportunity to move it forward. Now, it has been left until the end of October before we are finally dealing with the bill.

It shows that the Conservatives' commitment to the bill is fragile at best. In fact, we have seen what they do on criminal justice matters. They introduce bills and let them languish on the order paper. Then they wait for a scandal or a problem to hit and then they seek refuge in those same crime bills, suddenly bringing them back with great urgency saying they need to be dealt with immediately and any opposition party that dares to ask a question on them is somehow soft on crime.

The facts do not measure up. The facts are that they have allowed these things to languish for years and something that should have been dealt with, the Liberal legislation that was introduced so long ago, has meant that those people are committing online fraud and the police officers who need those additional investigative techniques and tools have been left without them as the government has completely failed them.

I think it is important to note as well that this is not the only area where we have seen this problem with the government. I spoke a great deal yesterday about the importance of these new investigative techniques for police. My intention is not today to repeat all of those comments but to make a comment more generally on the direction the Conservatives are heading on crime.

Today, in the public safety and national security committee we had a couple of different witnesses. One of the witnesses was Dr. Craig Jones who is the executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada. His insights into the direction in which the government is heading on crime I think is very telling. I will quote from his comments today. He said at the beginning of his statement:

My second audience is the future. I suffer no illusions that I will be able to alter the course of this government’s crime agenda--which legislative components contradict evidence, logic, effectiveness, justice and humanity. The government has repeatedly signalled that its crime agenda will not be influenced by evidence of what does and does not actually reduce crime and create safer communities.

What we heard as well from Mr. Stewart along with Michael Jackson, who wrote a report about the government's broken direction on corrections and crime, is that we are walking down the same road that the Americans embarked on in the early 1980s, when Republicans came forward and presented the same type of one-type solution for crime, which is incarceration, more incarceration and only incarceration.

If we did not have that example and the example that was in the United Kingdom, perhaps the Conservatives would be forgiven for thinking that would work. The reality of the United States is that this is a catastrophic disaster. In fact, the governor of California is now saying the state is being crushed under the weight of the mistake of these decisions, that the prisons are literally overflowing. The supreme court of California had to release thousands of offenders into the streets because the prisons simply had no room for them.

We also see that these prisons become crime factories. Minor criminals go in often for drug-related crimes, break and enters or smaller but still serious crimes, but instead of getting help for the addiction or mental health issues they face, they get sent into prison environments where they learn to be much worse criminals. We could make the analogy of putting in a butter knife and getting out a machine gun.

In fact, in committee today the director of the John Howard Society quoted an individual who deals with aboriginal inmates and said that our prison systems are turning into “gladiator schools”. He stated:

So our federal prisons have become “gladiator schools” where we train young men in the art of extreme violence or where we warehouse mentally ill people. All of this was foreseeable by anyone who cared to examine the historical experience of alcohol prohibition, but since we refuse to learn from history we are condemned to repeat it.

Everyone can imagine that as we continually overpopulate these prisons and do not provide the services to rehabilitate people, it has to come out somewhere. Where it comes out is in a system that continually degenerates.

In California the rate of recidivism, the rate at which people reoffend, is now 70%. Imagine that, 7 out of every 10 criminals who go into that system come out and reoffend, and those offences are often more serious than the ones they went in for first. In other words, people are going into the system and then coming out much worse.

We have to remember that even when we increase sentences, over 90% of offenders will get out. We can extend the length of time they are staying in there, but at a certain time they are going to get out, and it is the concern of anybody who wants a safe country or community that when people come out of these facilities, they come out ready to be reintegrated, to contribute to society and not reoffend.

The other fundamental problem with the Conservative approach to crime is that it waits for victims. Conservatives think the only way to deal with crime is to wait until somebody has been victimized and a crime has occurred, and then to punish the person.

Of course, we believe in serious sentences. We have to have serious sentences for serious crimes, but that is not nearly enough. If it were enough, if simply having tough sentences were enough to stop crime, then places like Detroit, Houston and Los Angeles would be the safest cities in North America. We know that is certainly not the case.

What the Conservatives are doing is slashing crime prevention budgets. Actual spending in crime prevention has been slashed by more than 50% since the Conservatives came into power. They have cut programs.

I have gone to communities like Summerside and talked to the Boys and Girls Clubs or the Salvation Army in different communities. They said they have either lost funding for community projects to help youth at risk or, instead of being given the power to decide how to stop crime in their own communities, they are prescribed solutions from on high in Ottawa, which is disconnected and often does not work in those local communities.

The net result is that the community, which has the greatest capacity to stop crime, has its ability removed of stopping that crime from happening in the first place, which means even more people go to these prisons, continually feeding this factory of crime the Conservatives are marching forward with.

When we look at the costs of all of this, not only does it not provide a benefit, not only does it make our communities less safe, as has been proven in the United States, but there is a staggering cost to these policies. Pursuing a failed Republican agenda on crime that not even the Republicans would subscribe to any more in most states and most quarters in the United States comes with a staggering cost.

The Conservatives are refusing to release those figures. The minister has been refusing to tell us what exactly the price tag is for all of these measures they are putting on the table. That is why I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to take a look at all of these measures and their approach on crime, and tell us just what the cost is.

That bears some important questions to be asked. Where are the Conservatives going to get the money to build these new super prisons that they are talking about? Where are they going to get the money to house all of these additional inmates? Presumably, they would provide programs and services to make these inmates better. Where is that money going to come from?

If the example in the United States is any evidence, or if the example of the Conservatives' own action in slashing crime prevention budgets is any example, then we know that they will cut from the very things that stop crime from happening in the first place. Imagine the irony of that. To pay for prisons, they are going to cut the very things that stop people from going to prison. It is a backward philosophy under any logic. Upon examination of more than a minute or two, one would recognize that it is a recipe for disaster.

If that were not bad enough, and I think that it speaks directly to this bill, the Conservatives have also betrayed police. I have talked with the Canadian Police Association about the government's commitment to put 2,500 new officers on the street. That association has called that broken promise a betrayal. However, we also know that, with respect to the RCMP, the Prime Minister went out to Vancouver where he made a solemn commitment to RCMP officers that they would get the same wage as other police officers and that they would receive parity with other police officers.

Right after making that promise and signing a contract, he ripped that contract up and broke the promise. Worse, as if that was not enough of an insult to the men and women who are our national police force, the government then challenged in court the right of RCMP officers to have the choice of whether or not they wanted to have collective bargaining. The government decided to challenge a right that is enjoyed by every other police force in the country.

At the same time, the government has ignored call after call by public inquiry after public inquiry for proper and adequate oversight. The reports and conclusions of Justice Iacobucci and Justice O'Connor made it clear that new oversight mechanisms were critical to ensure that public confidence remained in our national security institutions and our national police force, yet the government ignored it. In this example, it ignored for four years Liberal legislation that had been put forward to give officers the tools that they needed to do the job of keeping our communities safe.

In all of this, the government's response is to skew the Liberal record and be dishonest about what exactly Liberals have done on crime. Here is an inconvenient fact that it does not like to talk about. For every year the Liberal government was in power, crime rates went down. Every single year that we were in power, Canada became a safer place. The communities were safer and that is because we took a balanced approach to crime.

However, the government also says that we have blocked its crime bills. That is incredibly disingenuous. Here is the reality. Maybe I will go over a couple of bills just from this session. These are bills that the Liberal Patry not only supported but moved to accelerate and tried to find a way to get passed as expediently as possible in the House.

The government caused an election, so it killed all of its own bill. When it brought back Bill C-2, it included Bill C-10, Bill C-32, Bill C-35, Bill C-27 and Bill C-22, all of which we supported. We supported and looked to accelerate Bill C-14, Bill C-15, Bill C-25 and C-26.

That is the record of Liberals in this session of Parliament on crime, not to mention the Liberal record of reducing crime every year that we were in office previously.

Today I was doing an Atlantic radio talk show with a Conservative member of Parliament who ascribed the motive to the Liberal Party that we did not care about crime, that we are soft on criminals, and that we like to let people get away with things. I will say one thing about the Conservatives. I think that they believe what they say. I think that they honestly believe that these policies will work, even though they have failed. Even though Republicans have tried them and they have been utter disasters, I do believe that the Conservatives think they will work.

However, to ascribe motive to this side of the House and to say that we somehow care less about the safety of our communities is disingenuous. To say that I care less about the safety of my children, family or community is unacceptable. This debate needs to be about who has the best approach to crime.

I would suggest that we have the best approach to stop crime before it happens, to build safe communities, to ensure we strike the right balance between being tough on those who commit serious crimes, but, most important, working with every ounce of our bodies to ensure those who begin to turn down dark paths have people who step in and intervene to ensure they do not commit those crimes in the first place. That is the type of approach we advocate on crime and it is one that I am proud of.

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find that comment by the member opposite very curious. I will start my comments by saying that I think he has forgotten who caused the last election. It was in fact the Prime Minister who walked over to the Governor General's residence and precipitated the last election, therefore killing every bill on the order paper, including a bill dealing with this very matter which was introduced by the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I find the member's comment curious that he is blaming the frequency of elections, every single one of which the Conservatives precipitated in the last two instances, and using that as an excuse for why this was not adopted.

A point that bears mentioning is that in 2005 the Liberal Party introduced the modernization of investigative techniques act, which is essentially the same bill that we are working with here today. With very minor modifications, it is essentially the same legislation, so why would it take four years essentially to deal with the same bill that we had written so many years ago?

The member talked about things like voice over Internet protocol in terms of changes to Internet service provisions. All of those things were present four years ago when that work was done, yet the government refused to introduce it. Even recently, when this was brought back, the decision that was made by the government was to bring it in at the end of the last session. It was in the last week immediately leading up to the summer recess when suddenly this was a priority put on the order paper. It languished there for months and months and now the government is bringing it back. And the Conservatives have the audacity to try to talk about us delaying bills. The Conservatives themselves have had their crime bills sitting on the order paper, not only for months but in some instances for years, only to bring them back when they are a hit politically.

What they do is when there is a scandal, the most recent one being the cheque scandal, they decide to resurrect their crime bills that they have been ignoring for months on end. Suddenly it is an imperative national priority to deal with whatever particular crime bill they put on the table at that particular moment, when we all know that the real objective is to change the political channel away from whatever political troubles they are having. In this particular instance, it is the cheque fiasco. As this bill has been ignored and ignored and left to languish and we have been calling again and again for it to be dealt with, we can know that is essentially what their strategy is.

Now they have come to this bill and said that it is important to deal with it but only after we have been pushing for it for four years. I hope something does not distract them and we do not find this bill suddenly being lost yet again.

It is important to mention that the bill we have been advocating for the last four years is badly needed by police. Technology has changed and evolved in many different ways. While criminals have evolved with it, our legislation simply has not. For the last number of years while the Conservatives have been sitting on this, whether the criminals are involved in cyber fraud or are using technology like BlackBerries in the commission of crimes, to which the police cannot get access, the criminals have had a huge advantage against the law enforcement agencies.

One of the areas in which they have had a great advantage is in their anonymity. People are able to do things on line and police are not able to uncover who exactly they are, even if they know they are committing acts of a criminal nature. Police have been calling on us for years to change that and only now are the Conservatives bringing something forward to do something about it.

I have had many conversations with police, not just about things that were mentioned by the hon. member, but about other things, such as child pornography. Obviously child pornography is a deep concern and we want to root that out and give police every tool to be able to go after those individuals. I have also spoken with the police about instances where a criminal is known to have a particular phone and his whereabouts cannot be ascertained. The police want to be able to use the GPS tracking device in that device in order to figure out where the individual is. The current laws do not allow the police to do that.

I was talking to the chief of police in Calgary who was expressing deep frustration at the number of dial-a-dope operations. Individuals are using cell phones almost like a pizza service to deliver drugs to people's doors. When the police find these cell phones they are unable to access them because of the encryption software. The maker of the device is under no obligation to help open it up to reveal all of the phone numbers and the client base. It is a crime that is almost impossible to catch someone doing because it is locked behind that wall of encryption. That has been going on for years and the Conservatives have been refusing to give the police the tools they need to deal with it, even though solutions are present.

At the same time, it is important to mention that one of the things we are going to have to look at and study in committee is to ensure that there is balance. A number of people have expressed concerns that a law of this nature could be misused to allow access into people's searching history and people's personal messages or could be used maliciously by somebody to gain access to people's Internet search records and history. We have to ensure that balance exists. We have to protect individual rights to protect people's freedom to do what they want without somebody being able to go through willy-nilly, without warrant, their information. At the same time, we have to provide police with the opportunities to chase those individuals who we have reasonable grounds to believe have committed a crime.

It is worth mentioning as we talk about this bill, that the Conservative approach to crime is, I think, in general, disingenuous. We listened all day today to speeches by members about how the Liberal Party had held up a variety of bills. Of course, factually, that is entirely incorrect.

If we were to talk about the Liberal Party record in this session of Parliament in terms of bills that we have supported and helped to accelerate, I can list the following: Bill C-2, which was an omnibus bill which included provisions from Bill C-10, Bill C-32, Bill C-35, Bill C-27, and Bill C-22; Bill C-14; Bill C-15; Bill C-25; and Bill C-26. It is important to mention that in every instance we tried to get those bills accelerated and pushed forward.

That does not stop the Conservatives from talking about other parties holding up their crime bills. The problem is the facts do not match their rhetoric. In this specific instance and many others, the reality is the exact opposite of what they have said. In many instances, the Conservative crime bills have been languishing on the order paper, forgotten. They are sitting there waiting to be implemented. The Conservatives are not waiting for the right time for the public interest, not waiting for the right time to ensure there is adequate information to get the bills passed, but they are waiting for the right political moment to put the bills forward to try to turn the political channel.

If that were not bad enough, the other reality is that they are fundamentally letting down the Canadian public by only offering one solution to crime, and that solution invariably is to lock up people.

I do not have any problem with the notion of tough sentences. We have to have harsh, stiff sentences for people who commit serious crimes. However, if tough sentences were the only answer, then places like Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and Detroit would be some of the safest cities in North America. In fact, we know the opposite to be true.

The reality is that places with the stiffest sentences are more often than not some of the most dangerous cities in North America. Why? The Americans are being crushed under the weight of their own correctional system. They are literally in a position where there are so many people pouring into the prisons that they cannot possibly keep up with the costs of building all of the prisons, let alone the programs and services to ensure that people do not repeat offend. In fact, in California the situation has become so bad that its rate of recidivism is now 70%. They are creating crime factories. People go in for a minor crime and come out as a major criminal. It is like putting in a butter knife and getting out a machine gun.

That is the strategy the Conservatives are trying to bring here: a failed Republican strategy in dealing with crime that we know as a fact does not work. They are trying to apply it here to change the channel, to use it as a political game changer. If they are in trouble with the cheque fiasco, they talk about locking up people longer. If they are in trouble because a minister is caught in a fiscal indiscretion, they talk about locking people up longer. That is what they do.

I think most of them, I would hope most of them, realize that it is a disastrous strategy, that it leads to less safe communities, that it leads to billions of dollars in additional costs, and that it is exactly following down the road that even Republican governors say was a huge mistake to walk down. If anyone doubts that, I will point quickly to what has happened specifically with incarceration in the United States compared with Canada.

In 1981, before the United States began a similar agenda on which the Conservatives are now embarking, locking people up longer and longer, the gap between the rate of incarceration in Canada and the U.S. was much narrower. In Canada, 91 per 100,000 people were incarcerated, while the figure in the United States was 243 for every 100,000 people.

By 2001, Canada's rate had grown only slightly in terms of the number of people who were incarcerated, to 101 incarcerated for every 100,000 people, while in the United States that rate had soared to 689 for every 100,000, a rate almost 700% higher than that in Canada. In that same period of time, Canada and the U.S. had the same decline in their overall rate of crime. Imagine that.

The United States' rate of incarceration went up 500% over ours, and yet over that same period of time we had the identical reduction in the amount of crime. The only difference was that 500% more individuals were being incarcerated per 100,000 people, and it cost billions of dollars more.

In fact, if we continue to follow this model suggested by the Conservatives and we extrapolate to the same path that the Republicans took the United States, where they put them right to the brink, we are talking about roughly $9 billion a year in additional costs to have the same rate of incarceration.

As for the difference for public safety, well, unfortunately, I wish I could say it just kept it the same, that the only impact of that was the loss of $9 billion a year, but we all know that that $9 billion a year has to come from somewhere. We have already seen where the Conservatives' priorities are on crime. Let us take a look at the crime prevention budget.

Since 2005 the crime prevention budget has been slashed by more than 50%. That is actual spending. At the same time as they are increasing sentences and chasing after a failed Republican model, the Conservatives are slashing the money that is given to crime prevention. It is crazy. Anybody who would look at it objectively would say that this is a path to disaster, and yet that is exactly the road they have decided to head down.

There are opportunities here to be smarter on crime, to listen to police, to talk to them about what the real solutions are, to invest in prevention, to invest in making sure people turn down the right path instead of the wrong one. I had the opportunity to go around with the former chief of police in Regina and see a neighbourhood which is designated as one of the most dangerous in Canada. He was able to show me a home that had no septic system, no heat and where the child in that home was going to school hungry. That same child predictably, just scant years later, could be committing his or her first crime by starting to get involved in drugs.

For more than 60% of our inmates, addiction is the root cause of the problem and yet they do not get help. They get thrown into prison and forgotten about, and they come out worse because the core problem was never addressed. In this case it would be an addiction problem that sent them there. They go in for a minor crime, usually break and enter, and they have an addiction. They go into a system that is not providing them any rehabilitation services, and they come out and commit worse crimes. So goes the cycle. It is a constant cycle of things getting continually ever worse.

When we look at our prison system and we ask where these criminals come from, not often enough do we take a hard look at that. Imagine. Sixty per cent of those in prison face addiction issues. Over 10% face serious mental health issues. Not only are our prisons turning into crime factories, but the Conservatives are trying to use them as hospitals, by sending people with serious mental health issues into prisons. The prisons are so ill-equipped to deal with them that they are putting them in solitary confinement. They are often released directly from solitary confinement into the general population, only to reoffend again. Whether it is the facilities in St. John's, Grandview or different facilities across the country, we see this time and time again.

The reality here is we have a bill that has been called for by police for years. The government is only now finally bringing it forward, after its having been on the table since 2005. It is trying to use crime as a political game changer, misrepresenting what crime is really about and how to stop it, and at the same time it is taking us down a path that has been tried and failed before in the United States.

We need to do better than this. We need to be honest on crime and offer real solutions.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

This bill is an interesting mélange of initiatives that many of us have been pushing. You referenced reforming the NCC in your opening comments, which I certainly want to see. I applaud the government when it does the right thing, including the initiatives of Bill C-2, as you mentioned in your opening comments. I think it was important to separate the function at the top, so I concurred with the government's direction on that and supported it when Bill C-2 was going through the House.

I note also in this bill that a large focus--and again, it is something that I and others have certainly been pursuing--is on protection of Gatineau Park. I'm just curious--and this is sheer curiosity--as to why you decided to put all these things in one bill.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you to our guests. It's good to see you again.

I wanted to start off with the fact that the record almost seems to be too good. I say that not because I'm looking for things that don't exist, but because I think it's interesting.

I'll get into a little bit of some of the points you made about how you see your office and its mandate.

I was on the committee for Bill C-2. For the record, I don't steer away from the word “whistle-blower”. I understand why you have it in your legislation. Many of the people I've worked with consider themselves whistle-blowers, and it's not a pejorative term to them. In fact, it's something they did for the public interest and they don't see it as a negative; they see it as something they did with integrity. So I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, perhaps.

You mentioned and enumerated the cases and what happened with each of them, and what direction they went, and I appreciate that. But I just find it unbelievable, to be frank, that we have no cases of wrongdoing to date. As I said, I think of this in terms of the fact that we've had an office in operation for not quite two years, but one that has being ongoing. I appreciate that it's new, but I just find it strange that we don't have any cases of wrongdoing.

So my question is, do you find that strange?

Royal Assent

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

April 28, 2009

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Thomas Cromwell, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General] signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the schedule to this letter on the 28th day of April, 2009 at 4:59 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Dorothy Grandmaitre

for Sheila-Marie Cook

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Marine Liability Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-7. It is a subject which I have spoken on in the last Parliament. I do not think this bill is an easy read at all.

As a preamble to this, I would like to indicate to members that when bills like this come before us and they have consequential amendments to other acts, it takes a fair bit of work. I think the other acts to which this bill would make some changes are probably another 200 to 300 pages worth of legislative material.

Some of the changes here are referred to as “consequential” changes. To consider a consequential amendment to another act means that one has to have an understanding of the context in which the changes are being made. More often than not, it would be something that members would have to consult upon.

With that bit of preamble, the conclusion is that this bill has some fundamentals which I think members will understand and they will look to their critics for some explanations. There are some subtleties within the bill which have some important ramifications.

We have just heard the debate on Bill C-2 where we were talking about a free trade agreement and one of the industries being impacted was the shipbuilding industry. Of course, there are many other industries which would have some favourable or unfavourable impacts depending on the sector that one is looking at. It is difficult.

There is no perfect solution, no perfect trade deal, but certainly we are a trading nation. I hope that members will consider that in the same vein that I hope they will consider the provisions of Bill C-7, which is an act to amend the Marine Liability Act and the Federal Courts Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

This particular bill clarifies the liability rules and regulations with respect to pollution damage from marine vessels and marine transport of passengers. It will provide greater protection for Canadians in the event of marine accidents.

Most of the changes in the act will codify commitments that we have made to international conventions, and there are many. For instance, in my years on the environment committee, in dealing with the Great Lakes and marine liability with regard to alien invasive species, even that isolated issue turned out to be very complicated when dealing with the international joint agency that deals with matters which occur on waters that are shared with the United States.

Issues such as liability of adventure tourism and adequate coverage in the event of marine oil spills are issues that we believe will need to be examined further by the committee.

Members will know that this is a bill which requires listening to what the experts have to say to get the basis of the areas of concern, the interpretation of some of the consequential amendments, and to look at the precedence as well as some of the risk areas which Canada faces. Certainly, in our history there have been some very serious matters with regard to marine liability issues as they relate to the federal courts.

This bill proposes to clarify and update the liability responsibilities of marine transport with respect to the carriage of passengers and oil pollution damage. The changes proposed will make our marine laws consistent with the international protocols.

Specifically, as I fan through the bill, the critical area is changing the liability limits for commercial and public purpose vessels carrying passengers to a capital limit of $350,000 per passenger. The amendments further invalidate waivers or any other contracts that might relieve operators of their liability to passengers. The bill also introduces regulations that may require operators of commercial and public purpose vessels to maintain insurance to cover liability to passengers.

As one can see, we can very briefly capsulize the significant changes that are being introduced in this piece of legislation and understand that once we have looked at the legislation in other jurisdictions and the protections referred to in various international covenants or protocols, we can understand why this is an important area for us to update our marine liability legislation.

The changes do make some exceptions for vehicles rescuing shipwrecked or distressed persons, inflatable vessels and vessels using paddles or oars, such as those used in adventure touring. These changes make our legislation consistent with the international convention of liability for maritime claims.

The bill also amends the Marine Liability Act to implement the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution. Compensation funds can compensate those damaged by oil spills up to $545 million per incident. The damage from oil spills, however, can be much greater. Bill C-7 allows Canada to join the international supplementary fund protocol that increases the maximum compensation for oil spill damages to $1.5 billion.

This is obvious in today's world with some of the history that we have had with regard to the transport of cargo, which has environmental risks, such as oil spills. We have seen the implications not only to marine life but in fact to whole ecosystems. The cleanup required is tremendously expensive. This bill would provide the mechanism whereby there would be the so-called insurance to take care of the extraordinary costs that may be incurred.

The international funds derive their funding from levies placed on ports importing oil. Canada's levies would increase to approximately 28¢ per tonne of oil received. So there is a participatory cost, but it is effectively like paying insurance. I believe this is probably a very important element of the bill which I think members would understand should be supported.

Bill C-7 also includes changes such as including damage compensation for bunker oil pollution and amending provisions related to administrative and enforcement of offences.

In the bill the proposed amendment will result largely from a maritime law reform discussion paper that was released by Transport Canada in May 2005 and the subsequent consultations that took place with many stakeholders in all sectors of the marine community.

Just as a side note, I should indicate that we have a large number of pieces of legislation which have had some false starts in this place, not being able to get through all the necessary stages of the legislative process. It is unfortunate because we do have important legislation which in fact is way behind where it should be.

A couple that are very dear to my heart are from our own Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Both the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act are 25 years old and have not been updated. With regard to the Privacy Act, and knowing the problems with identity theft and other cyber crimes, it actually came in when the best computer we could get at the time was the Commodore 64.

We need to be very vigilant about allowing legislation to languish because of Parliament having difficulty in keeping itself focused. We must ensure that essential changes that come before Parliament are dealt with expeditiously, as necessary, and get to committee in order to deal with some of the substantive questions that members will have and should have.

However, when it gets down to it, we cannot afford to delay legislation in this place, particularly when it has had false starts in the past.

With regard to the importance to Canada, Canada does have some of the busiest waterways in the world. For example, each year our waterways pass through 365 million tonnes of international cargo, 7 million tonnes of oil, 7 million tonnes of domestic cargo, 40 million passengers, 16 million automobiles on ferries and 1.5 million people on cruise ships. The liability provisions and the insurance provisions are extremely important to have in place for the protection of all stakeholders, individuals and businesses alike.

The intent of the legislation, according to Transport Canada officials, is to set limits on liability and establish uniformity by balancing the interests of shipowners and other parties. This is something that we come across all the time. It is very rarely that there is a linear approach to any bill. There are usually other stakeholders who have different forces on them. We saw that in the debate earlier on Bill C-2 with regard to the trade bill. There may be some benefits to one industry, like pharmaceuticals, but the shipbuilding industry would be at a disadvantage.

Balancing the interests of the stakeholders is always very difficult and it takes some time to understand the basic principles. However, in this regard, it is fairly straightforward. I know we will hear from other members about the importance of securing and protecting our transportation obligations with regard to safety, security and protection for all all stakeholders involved.

The government has presented this bill as an environmental protection act. In fact, it is not exactly that. In the event of an oil pollution spill, civil liability of the owner of the vessel, combined with Canada's participation in the international oil pollution compensation funds, can compensate those damages by oil spills by up to $545 million per incidence, as I said. Damage from the oil spills, however, can be greater and, of course, the supplementary protocol fund can provide that protection up to $1.5 billion. However, this may not be adequate for oil spills. The Exxon Valdez oil spill, for example, cost an estimated $2.5 billion to clean up. It was an extraordinary amount of money but in a very sensitive area. We can understand why there are still other considerations for us with regard to even the coverages that are available. Are they reasonable and does it make for good government?

The government seems to feel that this bill would better protect Canadians from oil spills and assure polluters actually pay for what they do. However, in the real world, whenever there are costs, like the levies for the international protocol and the supplementary coverage, those costs of a business are ultimately passed on to the users of the service and therefore passed on to Canadians. We cannot isolate this and somehow consider, as we often have, that all of a sudden the owners of vessels who transport people or goods and materials are somehow the bad guys and we can dump all the problems off on them. In the real world they exist because they are providing goods and services in the best interests of Canada, which includes in the best interests of its people.

I am not really buying in very strongly about how this would protect Canadians from oil spills, et cetera. It is not an environment bill but it would help to, I guess indirectly, provide the coverage to ensure there is a mitigating factor in terms of being able to remediate any of the damage that may be caused by some of the incidents referred to in the bill.

The last section has to do with amendments that provide for some exceptions to vessels using paddles and oars, such as those used in adventure touring. It is an interesting area and something that is somewhat frivolous but these kinds of vessels are a thriving industry in many regions of Canada. To impact them when the risks associated with high liability impacts by some accidents is out of line with the kinds of things that are contemplated by the bill and what motivated the bill itself.

Those are just a few of the issues on which I am sure members will be commenting. I hope members will be supporting the bill to go to committee where we should look at some of the issues related to the coverages and the consequential amendments to other acts. This is something, admittedly, that is very difficult for a member at this stage, at second reading, to have been able to do the kind of work that is necessary. Bills come flying through the House to us and to access those bills and look at the consequential amendments in the context in which they are meant makes it very difficult for an individual member.

We have good critics who take the time to do this work and have addressed the legislation and the number of schedules and annexes. I notice that there are some areas within the bill that would be enforced immediately on royal assent, but there are other sections that would be deferred or delayed until order in council comes up, which means there will be some regulations made that will need to be dealt with.

It is an interesting issue. I have often thought that members of Parliament are asked to vote on bills that require extensive regulations and yet those regulations are not even prepared or exposed to the members until after the legislation passes at all stages in both chambers. That is why there is a scrutiny of regulations committee. Every regulation that is made must be pursuant to an enabling provision within the legislation and it should not be a case of backdoor legislation, as it were, changing the intent or adding new elements to the bill that would constitute making law through regulations. Some refer to it as cabinet made law.

The scrutiny of regulations committee's job is to ensure that, as regulations come through, they are checked to ensure the regulations are properly enabled within the legislation. Therefore, members should not be overly concerned about that.

However, I would make one recommendation to hon. members with regard to regulations generally. In an area where it is unclear in the legislation as to the scope or the intent of the amendment to the legislation, members must have the opportunity to make either the recommendation or an amendment to say that such amendment must go to the appropriate standing committee for its comment or perhaps its approval if it is serious enough. It is something that has happened in the past with regard to the reproductive technologies act that we spent a lot of time on pursuant to the royal commission on reproductive technologies. It was going to take two years to do the regulations and all those regulations had to go through the health committee before they could be gazetted and promulgated.

We can see that if there are areas in which there are potentially serious consequences to regulations, members should make every effort to seek from officials clarification as to the timeline, the importance, the significance and whether there is other information that may impact our assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed legislation.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my friend and colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, on all the hard work he has done on this issue.

At first blush, when we talk about a free-trade agreement with countries like Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, many Canadians might be a bit confused and wonder how we could have a problem with it. In fact, the countries I just named are very close to us historically and in many other respects. My colleague said as much, and another colleague from Halifax was able to prove it: Bill C-2 will destroy Canada's shipbuilding industry. Although I congratulate my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, I also want to thank the people across Canada, from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, including the people from the Lévis shipyards. In fact, these shipyards are still known as the Lauzon yards, even though the City of Lauzon amalgamated with Lévis quite some time ago.

It is sad to see how the Conservative government is incapable of paying attention to detail in its work. It is as though once something fits with its ideology, the government refuses to believe that there could be any problem. In fact, this bill poses a major problem, even though other members who will vote for it to support the Conservatives said there were good things in it. Obviously, every time we can look at expanding certain sectors, some good will come of it. But we are able to walk and chew gum at the same time and we are able to negotiate an agreement with these countries without compromising a vital Canadian industry. And that is what we must do.

The Americans have never had any qualms about this. In the United States, ships had to be built there in order to access domestic waters. Some would call this protectionism, but the Americans think it is only normal, and this is part of what is protected every time the Americans sign an agreement in this matter. How is that Canada is the only country incapable of including a similar provision to protect itself, in light of the evidence that Norway in particular will take the lion's share, while we lose thousands of jobs in a sector that could be strategically important in the very short term?

It is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-2. I congratulate my colleague, the member for Parliament for Burnaby—New Westminster, for the titanic job he has done on this, and there is no pun on the word “titanic” as we talk about shipbuilding.

As people hear us speak on this issue today, they will be as surprised as we were that the Conservatives were unable to listen to the voices of the men and women who work in shipbuilding across our great country. Canada is the only country in the world that people can talk about stretching from coast to coast to coast because it borders on three oceans, the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic. Shipping and shipbuilding have been integral in building our country.

We realize that shipbuilding industry in Canada, from British Columbia all the way to Nova Scotia, passing by Lévis-Lauzon, where the Davie shipbuilding operation is located and recently bought by some Norwegians, is in a great deal of trouble. That is why it is so disappointing and surprising that the government would be selling out our industry in that regard.

It is often heard, when we deal with trade issues, that some parts of the bill will be good, particular when one rhymes off the list of countries involved. In fact, it can raise eyebrows when we say that we find offence with the treaty with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. However, the government is throwing out a very important industry. It will be killing our shipbuilding industry if this agreement goes forward, notably to the profit of Norway, which has become a powerhouse in this field. This is most disturbing.

We know Conservative ideology. The argument of the Conservatives is any trade agreement is good in and of itself and we do not have to look at the details. However, that is precisely what we are called upon to do in the House. We are here to look at details, see how things will affect Canadians, go forward when they meet a certain number of criteria, including the fact that it will not take away Canadian jobs, and hold back when it will produce an undesired result such as the one I just described. However, they are not doing that. They are pushing it forward full throttle.

In this case, it is even more disappointing to hear that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this agreement. When we know how many jobs are involved with a shipbuilding concern like Davie in Lauzon, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why the Bloc Québécois supports the bill.

We know how many jobs are at risk and will be lost if we sign this agreement, including those at the Davie shipyards in Lauzon-Lévis. I simply cannot understand why the Bloc Québécois members are supporting this.

I listened carefully to their arguments. They claim that there are other areas of activity, particularly the pharmaceutical industry, that could benefit from a levelling of agreements with a country like Switzerland. I have no problem with that. It is probably true. However, when such an agreement is reached, we must look at the overall picture and judge accordingly. There is no overriding reason why we should destroy the shipbuilding industry and Quebec's shipyards. I just mentioned the Davie shipyard in Lauzon, but there is also the very active Ocean Group Inc., which is located just a little further downstream from Quebec City on the north shore. There is no reason we should destroy this industry in Quebec. Those who vote in favour of this agreement with the European Free Trade Association will have a lot of explaining to do later on.

It is not unusual that the Liberals would vote for it. Over the past three years—this is the Conservatives' fourth year in power—their bootlicking has defied imagination. There is not one subject on which the Liberal Party has taken a stand. It does not have principles. It does not believe in anything, except for its own opportunism.

Therefore, that the Liberals would sell out again and vote for the EFTA agreement does not surprise us in the least. They have supported the Conservative government at least 70 times. We are becoming increasingly used to their conduct. At present, they have a right-leaning leader. He is a man who used the prestige of his position at Harvard University to support the war in Iraq. In some of his writings, he attempts to justify the use of torture on human beings.

We will see what the Liberals do with the gun registry. Probably the same thing they did to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, an important Canadian law that had been around for about 100 years. They supported the Conservatives, who scrapped it, and they also voted with the Conservatives to eliminate the right of women to receive equal pay for work of equal value.

That is the sad reality of just a few months with their new leader, a rightist who has shifted to the right. He should at least be identified and named so that the public clearly knows that the party whose name sounds like the word liberty, the Liberal Party, has become a weak version of the Conservative Party with its right-leaning leader.

Therefore, we are not surprised to see the Liberals rising to vote with the Conservatives time after time. What is surprising and disappointing this time is that, despite the arguments they made, the Bloc Québécois is voting with the Conservatives to impose this new agreement on Quebec and Canada that will destroy our marine industry and crush workers across Canada in this crucial sector.

In closing, I would like to thank and acknowledge the courage of all the men and women who wrote to us asking that we keep our resolve and fight this bill. We will continue to support the workers, to condemn the shift to the right by the Liberals who systematically support the Conservatives, and to lament the fact that, this time, the Bloc Québécois is throwing in its lot with the Conservatives to the detriment of the workers in Quebec and Canada.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, for his multitude of questions.

First of all, as he indicated, today we will continue debate on Bill C-14, the organized crime bill. I would point out that it is thanks to the Minister of Justice, whose leadership this morning overcame an opposition tactic aimed at delaying Bill C-14 that we do have an agreement to move that bill forward. As a result of the minister's intervention, Bill C-14 will in fact be sent to committee at the end of today, pursuant to a special order of the House.

Tonight the House will consider a take note debate on the international conference on Afghanistan hosted by The Hague.

As I mentioned earlier, we adopted a special order for Bill C-14. Unfortunately that special order did not cover the second justice bill that is slated for debate today. In fact it is conceivable we would have already been into that debate had it not been for the delaying tactics of the opposition earlier this morning.

This is the bill that the hon. member referred to, Bill C-15, the drug offences bill. It is another key piece of our government legislation that will help curb gang violence, yet we do not see it moving quickly through the House. That said, I am hopeful we can complete the bill today or have it completed at the latest tomorrow, provided the NDP does not invoke another delaying tactic as it did this morning.

Following the drug offences bill, we have scheduled for debate Bill C-7, marine liability; Bill S-3, energy efficiency; and Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act. All of these bills are at second reading.

On Monday, pursuant to a special order adopted yesterday, we will complete the third reading stage of Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA free trade agreement bill. After considerable delay in this chamber, it will be nice to move that bill over to our colleagues down the hall in the Senate.

We will continue next week with any uncompleted business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-5 regarding the Indian Oil and Gas Act, which is at report stage and third reading stage, and Bill C-18 regarding RCMP pensions, which is at second reading. We will add to the list any bills that are reported back from the various committees.

Tuesday, March 31 shall be an allotted day.

In reference to the upcoming justice bills that the member might be referring to when he referred to the remand legislation, he is going to have to stay tuned. We will be bringing that forward very soon. I am sure he will be very pleased with the result and will want to move very quickly once it hits the floor of the chamber.

As he knows, the government is very transparent when it comes to government expenditures, including the upcoming expenditures of the accelerated economic stimulus contained in the $3 billion under vote 35. All of that of course will be revealed to the Canadian public and to Parliament in good time as we make those investments on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening's adjournment debate concerns a question I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage on February 3, to which I did not receive a satisfactory answer.

I asked about cultural programs that were cut, such as Trade Routes and PromArt, which helped our artists travel abroad.

In his budget, the minister chose to spend $25 million on the so-called Canada prizes for the arts and creativity to bring foreign artists here and give them bursaries. The whole idea struck us as completely absurd and illogical seeing as our own artists have just had their funding for essential cultural activities cut by $45 million. I will come back to that later.

Now this government is spending $25 million on bursaries—some of them worth six figures, that is, between $100,000 and $200,000—for foreign artists. That money is earmarked for foreign artists, while our own artists struggle with poor working conditions and low incomes. On average, our artists earn $22,000 per year.

What is more, these Canada prizes for the arts and creativity are the brainchild of two Toronto lobbyists who have had a great deal of influence on the government. In fact, the Conservative government's budget contains a complete word for word copy of the Luminato promotion from last summer. It is pretty amazing that the government's budget would be written by lobbyists. This government claims to be transparent, but we can see that it is not. Its first step when first elected in 2006 was to pass Bill C-2 in order to distance itself from lobbyists.

What is more, the Canada prizes project is a sham. It includes a list of so-called partners prepared to support this project and help Luminato to carry it out. Obviously, two lobbyists working down in their garage cannot set up a $25 million project by themselves. The partners, some of them as well known as the Grands Ballets Canadiens and Cirque de Soleil, had never heard of this project, or had heard very little. They were, in fact, not partners at all.

I am asking the minister to explain his logic to us. Before funding foreign artists to come here to Canada, should he not be funding artists from here so that they can go abroad? Now, and there is no denying it, there is a huge hole in this department's funding, so huge that performing artists can no longer tour outside the country.

Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I find that statement to be a bit absurd. The legislation was on the order paper for a later time. We had considered putting amendments at the report stage. The Conservative government moved the bill ahead very quickly on the order paper. In fact, it delayed the work it was doing on Bill C-2 today in order to push the bill forward so our amendments could not come forward in the proper sequence, which would have been as the bill came forward.

The question of how the bill is in front of us now is an issue. Quite clearly, in the last committee meeting, we had a lot of testimony that was not correct, and the witnesses had to agree. That is in the transcript of the committee meeting.

When it comes to offering up amendments, the hon. member across had the opportunity in the committee meetings to provide amendments to my amendment and the members chose not to even talk about it, partly because the information the government officials were providing to the committee was incorrect. Therefore, we had a problem.

Now it is in front of the House and we have to have this debate, which is fine. Canadians can hear a bit about what we are doing in the House. We are not trying to slow down this legislation.

Perhaps some of these questions would be better dealt with at a Senate committee meeting, where the Senate could ship it back to us once it had amended it.

What we should do is get the work done in a correct fashion, as I pointed out.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-2, the implementation of the Canada-European free trade agreement. The bill deals with a proposed arrangement between some of the European countries and Canada. The agreement was initiated nine years ago by the Liberal administration under Jean Chrétien. It came at a time when the ideology of free trade and the free market system was at its height. That is not the case today.

In the last 12 months, the world has seen a profound change. It has not yet played out completely around the world. It is a change that will lead us to make different choices in the future. It will lead us to situations where we must, in some cases, protect our industries. In many cases, Canadians will be obligated to take another look at free trade. For the purposes of preserving our economy, we will be obligated to better understand how the world will work.

That is what we are faced with today. We are not faced with the situation of nine years ago. We are not even faced with the situation of two years ago. We are faced with the situation that has come upon us today. If we look at the history of the opening of the liberalization of trade in Canada, for many years, we were under the guidance of a policy that said that good fences made good neighbours. In many cases, we understood that the situation in the world between countries was not open or equal. We were not in a position to allow free trade to take place. We needed to have tariffs and protection for our industries because the world was not the place it was 20 years previous.

When we started on the free trade talks and agreements that came along in the 1980s, we built them on the basis that we would open up the world economy. We were making trade and taking away barriers. We were going to create a level playing field around the world, where the best possible situation could arise for industry and commerce and permit an expansion of the world's economy. By and large, some of that worked and some did not work. Some of it was based on trade and some was based on technological advancement and many other factors.

However, today, we are dealing with where we are going in the future with trade. How do we set the path for our Canadian economy? We have seen that there is not likely to be less regulation, but more regulation. We are likely to pay more careful attention to how our industries work, not less attention.

Our amendment proposes to carve out the very important shipbuilding industry from the agreement. We do not see that this will work for our shipbuilding industry in the future. We do not see that free trade will make the kind of difference to our shipbuilding industry that we might have thought about 20 years ago. It is not the case today. This is why we are very interested in ensuring that our shipbuilding industry is protected and allowed to grow in a reasonable fashion.

Shipbuilding will have a place in Canada. We are a maritime nation. We have the largest coastline of any country in the world. A lot of that coastline is in my riding in the Arctic, among the Arctic islands. There is an enhanced interest in the development of arctic resources and arctic transportation and the use of the Arctic as the ice melts. With climate change, we see the opening up of the Arctic Ocean, the arctic shipping lanes and all of that.

It is imperative that Canada stays on top of Arctic marine shipping development. Right now that is in the hands of the Russians. They are the leaders in this field. Where are we? We are nowhere in it. We will enter into the next century of development in the Arctic, where marine transportation will be of the utmost importance, and we will have a shipbuilding industry that we have not supported and that we have not ensured has the opportunity to take advantage of this new and exciting area to work in, the Arctic.

That one factor should give us all pause. It should make us ask what is good for Canada, not what is good for the world, in our new opportunities in the new economy, which will have a very large Arctic base. Is it good simply to abandon the shipbuilding industry to the vagrancies of the world market to the kind of competition that can come not only from Norway and from that direction, but from the Koreans and the Chinese? Is that what we want to accomplish?

It is not simply about building ships. It is about all the ancillary things that go along with ships. If we are turning over the shipbuilding industry, we are turning over many of the components and technologies that can give Canada the edge in the new economy into which we are moving.

Therefore, what are we doing here? What are we trying to accomplish with this free trade agreement that was started nine years ago by the Chrétien Liberals, when free trade was popular? Are the two major parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, simply caught in their past rhetoric, in their past ideas of free trade and free markets, that they cannot see what the future holds? Can they not say that this is the direction we should go in, that this is where the new economy is, that those are the things we have to protect and that those are the things we have to create.

Is that what their problem is, that their ideology has just bound them down? They used to complain that the NDP was ideologically bound by its protectionism, by its social justice, by its concerns about the environment, so that it could not be open to the development of world trade. Times are changing and we need to respond in a fashion that is acceptable and reasonable.

When the Mulroney government got us into the free trade agreement, the allegations at the time were that the free trade agreement was supported by the Conservatives and would continue to keep our dollar high. At the time, the New Democratic Party was pushing for a lower interest rate, which would help our economy. When the Liberals got in, they actually did that. They lowered the interest rate and let the dollar fall. Under the free trade agreement with the United States, we flourished. However, was it because of the free trade agreement or because of the lower dollar? Both of those factors had to come into play.

What is happening today? We are in the midst of a major global financial crisis, which we have not settled, yet we are talking about putting ourselves into more free trade agreements, when we do not understand yet what the financial situation of the world is going to be.

When it comes to currency, what is going to happen when the price of oil, inevitably in the next 12 months, starts to rise dramatically again, when the U.S. economy recovers and when the U.S. dollar starts to fall?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important, when we look at the context of trade, that we look at the current deals that have been signed and, as part of our due diligence, to review what is happening here.

With respect to Bill C-2, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has requested the aspects to shipbuilding be carved out, which is a normal process of trade arrangements. In fact, in the history of trade arrangements they have had these elements in a series of different ways. For example, the United States has the Jones act and procurement policies with a number of different defence contracts. It also has policies in manufacturing, for example with the bus industry, where there are provisions that require content assembly in parts manufacturing in the United States. In fact, Canadian companies had to go into the United States and open up assembly plants so they could bid and win contracts for those.

As well, the United States has a buy American clause that is part of its overall procurement policy and always has been. It reached some feverish discussion in recent months but the reality is that it has been in American law for a number of years. The clause has been part of its ordinary procurement policy and has been part of the state and municipal procurement policies.

The request that is being made here is part of negotiation tactics. Unfortunately, we have a history of bad negotiations when we look at the past Liberal government and the Conservative government. This deal here was arranged by David Emerson, a Liberal minister for the Martin administration who crossed the floor after an election and continued with his policies. One of the policies was with regard to European trade and another one was with Colombia. Another deal that has not seen the light of day, thankfully, is with Korea.

If one looks at those policies, the government offered up a significant number of different iconic Canadian industries as bait to bring in trade negotiations and then it caved and gave them away later on.

One of the reasons I have been opposed to the South Korea trade deal, which some bureaucrats will admit, is that something had to be offered up. In this agreement, the government has offered up the automotive industry. It is a terrible position to start with because one knows right away where one's negotiating strength is. Unfortunately, the government comes back with deals that really sell out certain segments of Canada's industrialized capacity.

It is important to note, for example, that the United States has its own defence procurement policy and we do not begrudge it that. We know the United States has certain aspects it wants to continue to have in its country as part of its overall strategic way to deal with civil society, as well as international affairs, which is why it has the capacity to ensure it can respond to certain things.

Sadly, Canada has done the exact opposite. We have basically abandoned any type of sectorial strategy approach and only through a budgetary process year by year scrambles around to try to find some programs or aids that come and go for the aerospace, automotive or shipbuilding industries. The government does not really create concrete plans of action.

We are looking at Norway for particular reasons in this debate because it spent over a dozen years building a shipbuilding industry through heavy subsidization and a national policy. It had over a generation of public policy geared to design and build ships. not only for its domestic industry but also international industry. When Canada enters into an agreement like this with no terms and conditions to protect Canadian industry, it is at a natural disadvantage.

I have had a chance to see some of the work that has been done with shipbuilding. I have been at the Irving yards in Halifax and have spoken with the workers. Interestingly enough, the government's position has always been the issue over labour mobility. It says that if workers cannot build ships because there is no work, then they need to go out to Alberta or somewhere else to find a job.

The first thing one may say to that, even I as a young parent, is that people will do what they need to do, there is no doubt about it. However, when we have thriving communities that will continue to be there, it is important for families to be held together, which is the creation of a bond the community requires to deal with everything, including social programs, crime, education and innovation.

It is not just about workers going away for a couple of months and returning. Canadians will do those things if they need to, as they have done in my riding, but the preference would be to have a job in their own community, especially communities that historically have been around and will be around for the foreseeable future. We should be looking at building that capacity. It is about those communities with a high industrialized component for shipbuilding, for example, as we are talking about today specifically, to be part of a program and plan to create stability. We are going to win from that.

Other organizations or other countries will not be complaining about Canada being protectionist because this is done in other countries, and that is why it is important to have this component carved out and move forward with the rest of the trade agreement that would be more balanced. It would be progressive in the sense that shipbuilding would be removed, but it is not, which, unfortunately, is why we are back here today.

I will again talk about the Navistar truck plant in Chatham, Ontario, where a $200 million defence procurement offer went out to International Truck, which is located in Chatham and in Texas, and it decided to put all the work into Texas. That is not acceptable because a number of years ago International Truck was having problems and it was given a $35 million loan guarantee and for the last several years it has been producing trucks and doing quite well. In fact, when it tried to move production to Mexico, the trucks had to come back to Chatham to be audited and repaired because the quality was not up to what the client needed.

As a Canadian politician, I do not get upset when the United States buys its trucks from Texas for its military. I understand that it has a plant with people working there. If it were going to buy trucks, it would be a good idea if it were to buy them here in Canada. We are always hopeful to gain that type of business. However, I can understand that it wants to have certain segments of its military protected to be able to do procurement there because it actually gets it. It also understands that having development capacity gives it control over who gets those at what time. It actually has that in it its contracting, which means that the United States can cut the line whenever it wants, which would reduce our capability to have our own sovereignty addressed.

It is interesting to note that the plant can produce that truck for around $800,000. With the layoff of workers about to take place, we are looking at about $17 million to $19 million in unemployment insurance benefits. This makes no sense whatsoever on an economic scale. If we were actually going to have that investment, the retooling would be done by Canadians, the equipment allotted would be Canadian and the people doing the work would be Canadians. We would have the next future base of taxation policy from those who are making money in that area contributing back to the coffers of Canada. We would have a net win. Why we would send our truck development to Texas and basically backhand Chatham, Ontario, which is struggling right now, does not make any sense.

It goes to a deeper issue that ties with the essence of shipbuilding and the history we have with the water. Canadians know we have been a maritime nation serving ourselves quite capably during the first and second world wars where we had one of the largest merchant marines and navies by the conclusion of the war. We has a real sense of pride and dignity when we were able to procure much of our own development and had the capacity to do it.

People having the type of work where they actually produce something of net value and that they can relate to is such a value added component to our society. It is an extra added benefit to those who are part of the actual experience. In terms of shipbuilding, there is that element. Similar to that, in Chatham, Ontario, it is what the Conservative government has said, which is that they will not be producing ships for our men and women serving in the military, that it will be done by someone else.

Canadians miss out on that relationship of getting up every day, going to work, getting a paycheque and contributing to the Canadian development experience. It is important for people to have a job because it gives them a meaningful sense of worth. However, the Conservatives have told them that they are not good enough, that the work will be done somewhere else.

What is so important about this debate in terms of the economics behind the shipbuilding industry and how it connects to ourselves as a people is when we see the outsourcing that is going on, which becomes very frustrating. Workers and others are starting to feel the anguish. I worry about the elements that will come next. Being from the auto sector, many of the workers are frustrated that the government is not there for them and that they are having to do things on their own.

In one of the more recent cases that we have had is the issue over Aradco. I want to congratulate Gerry Farnham, president of CAW195, and his workers who fought an American company that pulled out of Canada and left 80 families out of jobs with no severance package. The workers took it upon themselves to occupy the plant and ensure they received a better severance package, which they negotiated by themselves with no help from the government. Those people are working class heroes. They are men and women, some of whom are in single parent families, who took this action to protect themselves and their families livelihoods.

The message the government should take about what happened in that one plant at this particular time is that it must be more responsible when it has the tools and the resources behind it to make a difference in this country.

Those are the reasons we should be carving out this element and protecting our shipbuilding industry and the workers who have the skills and the training, which is important. When we look at the Aradco workers, they were some of the most productive workers but, through no fault of their own, they were usurped. It is the same for the shipbuilding industry, which has some of the best trained and most experienced workers. We will abandon them in some type of an experiment that does not make any sense.

We need to turn this around. People are looking to us and at the examples that we are setting. They are asking what can we do with their taxpaying dollars that will benefit not only just in terms of the immediacy of the tax expenditure that we are doing right now but later on in terms of public policy. That is what a national strategy for shipbuilding and an auto strategy would be and all those other things where there is value and traceable elements of where the money goes to. That is what could be done in this particular element.

Workers will continue to feel frustration as they have done everything right and then they do not have the government behind them.

It is disappointing that we are here by ourselves as New Democrats on this issue. I think we will be looking back later, not only in terms of what we have lost, but in terms of a missed opportunity to reinforce at a time when there is that motivation that should be even bigger to restart an industry and ensure it will thrive. The connection to that is critical, especially when we can look at the incredible opportunities.

We can look at the Great Lakes, not only as a treasure environmentally but also a trade corridor that is significant. The Great Lake freighters will soon need to be replaced but those will all be built in China, Norway or somewhere else when they could be built here.

Sadly, we let the shipbuilding facility at Collingwood go, but we could plan this out to ensure that Halifax, Montreal and other shipbuilding areas where we still have that capacity are preserved. For those who are not aware of it, Collingwood has now become a resort. It is a very beautiful location with a lot of positive things there but we did not plan another deep water capacity port. What we have lost now is the opportunity to have a thriving industry return.

Therefore, we need to think about that in the context of what is happening right now and, with what is going on right now, this is the perfect opportunity.

It is important to look at what the message would be for Canada if we were to carve this out. It would tell the other countries that we are interested in doing this and I do not think we would have a hostile reaction. I do not think any country would challenge us.

When we look at some of the European policies for defence and other procurement, it is quite similar. When we look at the United States, it is very clear that it has decided that it is going to have this at its capacity, and we are very much integrated with the United States.

Ironically, even as we have had some of these elements, the United States has gone to the extreme where, under the Patriot Act and other types of legislation, many Canadian workers are not eligible to work on some contracts in the United States that are defence procurement.

The United States has even challenged the workers who are part of companies that are integrated. This is going to become a bigger issue because we have a number of different procurements that are going to take place over the next few months. We will hear about some of them, including search and rescue planes that need to be replaced. There are concerns already being expressed that the government is going to skew the bidding process basically to give an Italian company the contract. It is sad, because we actually have a number of different consortiums here in Canada, with up to 50% Canadian ownership, that could do that type of work. They should be part of that process.

We are going to continue to see this type of debate emerge. This is not a one-off issue. We are going to see the return of discussion of the South Korean trade deal. That is another one that I mentioned, where the automotive aspect of it is being offered up as an element that basically could be seen as the carrot to bring us in, and then later on we suffer the consequences of that.

It is important to note also that it is not just the New Democrats here on their own who are bringing this issue forward. It is interesting, because we have not only the labour aspect, which is traditionally part of our party and our relations and so forth, but we also have the associations, as well as companies such as the Irvings.

There are some interesting quotes that have come out of this debate that really reinforce the fact that it is going to be costing us as a country a lot of jobs.

One quote is from Mary Keith, a spokeswoman for Irving Shipbuilding Inc. The company has actually put this in a release, so it is not something that was just said off the cuff or thrown out in a media comment. This is an actual release that was put out, so they thought very carefully about what they were going to say.

Ms. Keith said:

The government of Canada is continuing its 12-year history of sacrificing Canadian shipbuilding and ship operators in the establishment of free trade agreements with other nations.

International trade minister David Emerson said at the time that a free trade agreement in principle had been reached with the countries of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

They were looking at it through a 12-year lens when she made that comment. I think that is significant because a number of different operators or companies out there are seeing this as systemic. When we see something as systemic, we defeat the option of other people who are interested in actually investing or moving into that field.

The people making those comments are indicating that this is not just one-off bad policy from the Conservative government or the Liberals before it. What they are saying is that if people want to get into this business, they'd better buckle up, because the ones who are in it right now are completely dissatisfied with the relationship they have with the government. They feel that not only is it not neutral, it is actually against the flow.

I want to point that out because what we have happening here is a continued pattern of behaviour, the assumption that we can just reduce trade barriers or regulations, whether it be in regard to food or other types of industries such as the airline industry, and we will see natural improvements to the consumer and to civil society. That is not the case. That has not always happened.

What we need is a carrot-and-stick approach. The carrot is good public policy, and the stick is to make sure that the jobs are going to be created here, especially when taxpayers' money is involved.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA free trade agreement implementation act.

If passed, this bill would seriously impact my riding of Halifax and could have devastating consequences for Canada's domestic shipbuilding industry. Earlier, my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, was asked by the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country what free trade agreement the NDP would support.

I would like to point out that the NDP believes that member nations of the EFTA have strong social-democratic traditions and they are actually ideal trading partners for Canada. They have great human rights records. They have great environmental records. The Canada-EFTA free trade agreement implementation act as a whole is a good piece of legislation. We welcome this kind of trading relationship with these countries. The only issue here is that of shipbuilding.

The trade agreement on which we will be asked to vote contains provisions that would remove one of the only tools remaining that protects our shipbuilding industry from being ravaged by unfair competition from foreign builders. Those same European industries were very generously subsidized until recently.

If this bill passes, in just three short years we would see import tariffs begin to be lowered, allowing an influx of foreign-built ships to enter our market. This change would sound the death knell for shipbuilding and it would significantly damage the economy of Nova Scotia. In the interest of standing up for our Canadian shipbuilding industry and the local shipyard workers whom I represent, I must voice my opposition to this bill without an amendment to protect our shipbuilding industry.

As any Atlantic Canadian will tell us, shipbuilding is not just another industry; it is tied to our nation's history. From the earliest days of Confederation, our wealth of forests and hardy labour created hundreds of wooden ships that helped bring much prosperity to Atlantic Canada. It is well known that in those days people could look out at the harbour and see nothing but a sea of white sails moving goods from the great port of Halifax.

During the first and second world wars, Canada stepped up to build hundreds of new ships, punching above its weight when the need was greatest. Between the wars and after, the industry was fuelled by domestic procurement policies to expand our fleets, and by government investment. Those investments created a robust industry and they made a lot of sense, given our enviable coastlines.

Unfortunately, the importance of the industry has not been as clear to recent governments in Canada. Add to that a series of bad trade agreements and we can see how the industry went from being a top producer to the critical situation in which it finds itself now. For years shipbuilders have been calling for a comprehensive strategy to return the industry to competitive standards. Our shipyards simply cannot compete with the heavily subsidized industries in places like South Korea and Norway.

In 2001 the national partnership project, consisting of members of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and the shipyard workers, presented a breakthrough report called, “Breaking Through: Canadian Shipbuilding Industry”, after they held a series of consultations across the country. This report is notable because all stakeholders were in agreement about what needs to be done.

In the section, “Issues and Recommendations, Subsidies and Unfair Trade Practices”, the following recommendation was made:

That the Government of Canada: ... resist any requests from other countries to change provisions of the Canadian shipbuilding policy until such time as the Canadian industry has been able to overcome the long-term effects of the subsidy and unfair pricing policies of other countries--

We must remember that this document was produced by shipbuilders and manufacturers, the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and the workers.

This change in provisions is exactly what the CEFTA is asking us to do. Norway has invested heavily in shipbuilding, making it one of the strongest in the world despite its relatively modest share of the world market. Those subsidies increased in the early part of this decade, and although they have been reduced now, they resulted in a strong industry capable of filling a variety of orders and competing on the international stage.

Here in Canada there has been a lack of meaningful investment, resulting in an industry that can only be described as being on life support. This is despite the incredible work of the men and women I represent who work at the Halifax shipyards, and that rich maritime history that I just spoke about. Bill C-2 would effectively “pull the plug” on a struggling industry by removing the only protection that exists for it.

New Democrats have called for two things: first, that shipbuilding be carved out of the CEFTA; and, second, that the government take up the challenge and bring this industry back to full health through a comprehensive and meaningful plan.

I want to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for the hard work he has done to see that this trade agreement is fair. He made every effort in committee to see that the shipbuilding section was removed from the bill. I also want to recognize the work of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, my neighbour, who continues his tireless campaign on behalf of Canada's shipbuilding industry.

Having failed to secure a carve out in committee, it is now up to the House to do what is right and take shipbuilding off the chopping block.

To turn once again to the impact of this trade agreement, I would like to reinforce the fact that good jobs are what fuel our economy. As I have said before in this honoured place, one shipbuilding job creates four spinoff jobs. A collapse of this industry, ushered in by this trade agreement, would throw hundreds out of work in Halifax alone, and with the loss of those jobs, there go four supporting positions.

We are seeing unprecedented numbers of people becoming unemployed because of this recession. We need to do whatever it takes to prevent the remaining jobs from being lost. Passing this bill would only accelerate that process.

My party has repeatedly asked government to look ahead, look to the future, and make decisions that will foster the development of a global economy, one that is sustainable economically and environmentally, and where Canada can actually play a lead role. Shipbuilding can be a part of that new economy, first by rejecting just this part of the CEFTA and then through the implementation of a national strategy on the industry that will prepare it to compete with subsidized foreign industries on a level playing field.

Just a few short months ago, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and I joined shipyard workers. We joined them along with Independent and Liberal MPs to show support for the shipbuilding industry and call for attention and investment from the government. It was a cold day in Halifax harbour but we all gathered, despite party lines, to say this was an industry that was important to us.

As we debate Bill C-2, workers are actively calling on us to take the support that was voiced in January and turn it into action by carving out shipbuilding from this agreement. As one of the hundreds of letters from shipyard workers makes clear, “All stakeholders in the industry, including owners, operators and unions from coast to coast have emphasized the need for support during the many committee meetings that were held on the use of free trade talks”.

These letters call on Liberal members of the House to withhold their support for this bill until this section is removed. I share their concern and hope that all members will fight for their jobs and for a truly Canadian industry.

In closing, I would like to share another fact about Halifax and its tradition of shipbuilding. It is a fundamental connection to the sea that we have. After the 1917 Halifax explosion decimated much of the city and its industrial sector, one of the first things to be rebuilt was the smokestack at the Halifax shipyard. Everyone could see at the bottom of it stamped “1917”. This underscores the importance of the yards to my community and the central role that community has played in our history.

Recently, that powerful symbol was torn down. At this time in our nation's history, when we are witnessing the ongoing collapse of our manufacturing and forestry industries, let us not add shipbuilding to that list by signing a bad deal. Let us not allow the tearing down of that smokestack in Halifax be a symbol for the future of the industry itself.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise in the continuation of the debate on Bill C-2.

What my colleague from New Westminster has asked for, and he has asked for it very eloquently and quite intelligently, is exactly what the United States has done.

We are about to sign on to an EFTA deal and it may have serious ramifications for a major industry in our country, namely shipbuilding.

Over the past few weeks, we have received hundreds and hundreds of letters from shipyard workers who are very concerned about their future and the future of their families in the five major yards as well as in the other smaller yards across the country. They are asking the government, quite clearly, why it would sign a trade deal that may affect this very important and vital industry.

The NDP has absolutely nothing against trade deals as long as they are fair and equitable on both sides. We saw what happened with NAFTA and the free trade concerns. We saw our wages and other things go down. We were promised that Mexican considerations would go up. It simply has not worked.

We saw what happened with the softwood lumber deal. We left a billion dollars of our companies' money in the United States. Many mills across the country have shut down and thousands of people have been laid off in the forestry industry.

We are all concerned about the shipbuilding aspects. Lately the government has spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in meetings with experts across the country on what is the best way to stimulate the economy and get the machines going and people working again so as to give them a sense of optimism and confidence once again.

We have said to the present government, and to the previous government as well, that one industry it can look at in a very positive and fiscally responsible manner is the shipbuilding industry. We said before that we had $22 billion worth of work on the books right now. Spread over a 20 years period, that can keep the five major yards singing for a long time and employ thousands of people at very decent salaries so they in turn can pay their taxes, look after their families and live in these communities. We have major yards in Victoria, Welland, Lévis, Halifax and Marystown, plus smaller yards across the country.

We honestly believe this industry has a bright future and those Canadian workers and Canadian companies deserve that opportunity.

I have said this before and I will say it once again. I know this sounds very much like a social democratic ideal, but imagine using Canadian taxpayer money to hire Canadian workers to build Canadian ships with Canadian companies in Canadian yards? Call me a rabid communist, and I really do not care, but what a novel idea to use taxpayer dollars to hire our neighbours to build Canadian vessels that our Coast Guard, ferry fleets, laker fleets and our military desperately require.

We could not help but notice that the recent budget the government announced $175 million for hovercrafts and small boats, but the request was for $22 billion, not $175 million, spread over 20 years.

It is also quite ironic that the government brags about an investment of $300 million in the aerospace industry and look what happened; a $1.5 billion contract out of Quebec to build airplanes. That is a good investment. We want the exact came attitude applied to the shipbuilding industry. The 2001 report, “Breaking Through”, done by labour and business, has five serious recommendations that would move this industry forward.

If we go ahead and sign this EFTA deal, it may have serious ramifications for our shipbuilding industry. It is not only EFTA about which my colleagues in the NDP are very worried. What happens when the next trade deal with Korea comes up? Korea has already said that it wants auto and shipbuilding in those deals.

If our largest trading partner, the United States, with which we have 80% of our trade, in every single FTA that it has ever signed since 1924 excludes shipbuilding and marine services from the table, then why does Canada not do the same?

Why can we not protect this very vital industry, just like China, Korea, the United States, Norway, Italy, Britain, Holland and all other major countries in the world have done for their industries? Why is it that every time we go to the table, we give up these industries for other concerns? That has to stop and it has to stop now.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster has done an absolutely fabulous job in pointing out the errors of the softwood lumber deal. He was absolutely correct. Now he is pointing it out with the EFTA deal as well as the shipbuilders and the shipyard workers.

These individuals deserve to have the opportunity to build Canadian ships in Canadian yards, using Canadian taxpayers money to do so. We do not like to see this industry, or any other industry of that nature, given up to those who say, as John Manley said in 2003, that shipbuilding is a sunset industry. We simply do not believe that for one second. We honestly believe this is a sunrise industry, an industry that has a bright future in our country. That is why we ask the government to do exactly what the United States has done: carve this out of the EFTA deal, sign the free trade deal, but then carry on and allow our shipbuilding to grow and prosper.

Norway has said very clearly that it will pull out of EFTA if shipbuilding is not on the table. Why is it so important to Norway to have shipbuilding on the table? For over 30 years, although it does not do it now, Norway heavily subsidized that industry to the point where it got it absolutely right. Even with a 15 year decline in the import tariff, Norway knows very well it can do much damage to our industry, and it is not just Norway, but is Korea as well. What other trade deals down the road will not only put this industry at risk, but other industries as well?

One more time we ask the government, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois to support my colleague's motion to get this carved out from the EFTA deal. We should sign the EFTA deal after that and work on shipbuilding to ensure it has a bright and positive future for Canadians.

The House resumed from March 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Bill C-2—Notice of time allocation motion

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-2, Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or time or hours for consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important debate, which is why the NDP is following through, as we have at each level of the debate, to ensure the voices of shipyard workers from coast to coast are actually heard in this debate.

As members well know, there is an Ottawa bubble that is incredibly strong for new members of Parliament, the Conservatives, Liberals and even Bloc members. They come here and forget about the interests of their constituents. It happens time and time again. We see these with trade agreements that sell out Canadians and sell out Canadian jobs.

Essentially, we have Conservative and Liberal MPs who only listen to corporate CEOs, even as those corporate CEOs are moving jobs offshore to other countries, to the third world where they can pay miserable wages and then sell their goods back in Canada. The result has been a hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs over the last few years, hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost, and still the government persists in bringing forward sellout agreements, agreements that have not been negotiated with any strength, that have not been negotiated with the interests of the country in mind, but are simply agreements that sell out various sectors of the Canadian economy in the hope that somehow, magically, through George Bush-style free trade agreements, there will be economic benefits.

The reality, which Statistics Canada tells us very clearly, is that approach does not worked. Over the last 20 years, for about three-quarters of Canadian families, their real income has actually gone down, and many of them are listening today. They have seen how disastrous right-wing economic policies, including George Bush-style free trade agreements, have been for the country. They are earning less now than they were 20 years ago. If that is not a silent economic crisis, I do not know what is.

The whole basis that somehow throwing these agreements out and selling out various sectors creates jobs in Canada simply does not work and does not hold up. It is very clear. When the bottom line of these agreements and the whole lack of industrial strategies in a whole variety of sectors does not work, one would think the government would think twice, but no, from Liberals to Conservatives, it is just the same old thing.

Perhaps that is why the NDP representation in this House over the last few years has tripled. It is because people are saying that it does not work in their communities. People are tired of working for minimum wage jobs and are tired of seeing their manufacturing facilities close down.

We saw that with the softwood sellout, which the Liberals and Bloc Québécois members now regret supporting. They are trying to distance themselves as the penalties now start coming into play, with $68 million last week and probably $400 million that softwood communities and small softwood companies, the ones that have survived, will have to pay when the next decision comes down.

It is absolutely absurd and now, the opposition parties that helped the Conservatives drive the getaway car in the softwood sellout, are trying to pretend that they were not in the car. Canadians are not fooled by that.

Now we have an agreement coming forward that every representative, whether a worker's representative or an owner's representative, representing shipbuilding across this country from coast to coast, have said will kill our shipbuilding industry. It has been unanimous. We are not talking about some difference of opinion. We are talking about unanimous recommendations to carve out shipbuilding from the agreement and yet not one Conservative MP has stood up for shipbuilding, even though, in many cases, they represent shipbuilding workers in their ridings. The Bloc Québécois, as I mentioned in French just a few minutes ago, despite being pressed by shipyard workers in Lévis, Quebec, is refusing to stand up for shipyard workers.

Only one party in this Parliament is standing up for shipyard workers and that is the NDP and that is because we have our own shipbuilding critic, the member of Parliament for Sackville—Eastern Shore. We have a new member of Parliament for Welland who represents the shipbuilding workers there and who is doing a terrific job as well.

We represent our constituents. We are standing up for shipbuilding workers. It is not as if the members can pretend they have not heard. Hundreds and hundreds of letters have been pouring in, especially to Liberal MP offices, telling them to support the NDP's amendment for the carve out. More are coming in as we speak. So many are coming in that fax machines have been having difficulty keeping up. The letters say, unanimously, “Support the carve out”.

I read one of the many letters into the record earlier and I will do it again. It said:

One of the most surprising things to me as a shipyard worker is that all stakeholders in the industry including owners, operators and unions from coast-to-coast have emphasized the need for this support during the many committee meetings that were held on the use of free trade talks. It's a shame that the Liberal party of Canada feels that it has to remain a puppet of the Conservative government in supporting another bad free trade deal for Canada.

These letters are pouring in and they are heartfelt. The shipyard workers are saying that Canada has, by far, the world's longest coastline and a proud shipbuilding tradition. In fact, just a few decades ago we had the fourth largest navy on the entire planet. Shipbuilding yards were turning out ships in Vancouver. We had ships coming out every week. We had tens of thousands of shipbuilding jobs.

The reason that industry is now on its deathbed is because of a completely irresponsible approach by the former Liberal government and continued by the Conservative government. Now we have a coffin that is being presented in the middle of the House of Commons by the Conservative government through Bill C-2, which would kill and finish off our shipbuilding sector.

Liberals and Bloc members say that is okay, that they are alright, they are MPs and that they do not care about the workers in this country. What are they basing their vote on? There is some sort of airy-fairy theory that somehow Canada will be advantaged. There has been absolutely no economic impact analysis of this agreement. Not one Liberal MP, Conservative MP or Bloc Québécois MP has actually said that maybe we need to know how many jobs will be lost from this.

It is absurd that the Ottawa bubble corrupts every MP who comes from other parties. They seem incapable of standing up for Canada and for Canadians jobs once they get elected to Parliament. It is appalling. They cannot say that they did not know. Those letters are coming in, letters that the NDP has read into the record, letters from the B.C. marine workers, Davie shipyard and the Halifax shipyards. It is pretty conclusive.

What happens next? Well, we are now starting debate on third riding. In a few moments I will offering a motion that will carve out shipbuilding from this agreement.

What we are saying is that, over the next two weeks, those shipbuilding workers who are listening in today, those shipbuilding workers who have been sending their letters to Liberal MPs and those shipbuilding workers in Quebec who have been indicating to the Bloc Québécois that they should be voting for this carve-out will get another opportunity.

Over the next week, they need to let their voices be heard. They need to ensure that those MPs who are so willing to sell out our shipbuilding industry for some vague advantage that might come, although there is no economic analysis so they cannot really pinpoint anything, but those MPs will be forced to make a choice. They need to know that if they vote to sell out shipbuilding, they will not come back to the next Parliament. It needs to be that clear.

We have precedents for that. We all recall the softwood sell-out that supported by the Bloc and the Liberals. Many of those Liberal MPs who voted for the softwood lumber agreement, particularly in northern Ontario and northern Manitoba, are no longer here. People in northern Ontario and in northern Manitoba said “No, if you are not going to represent us, we are not going to return you to Parliament”. Those Liberal MPs are no longer here.

The Liberal MP from Welland, who was a flamboyant free trader on the George Bush model, is no longer here and has been replaced by a dedicated social democrat who is standing up for the workers in the riding of Welland.

More and more Canadians are saying that they do not want the old speeches that they have been hearing for 20 years that eventually something will happen, eventually our quality of life will improve, eventually we will get higher incomes, while all the money continues to be concentrated in a few people's hands. Corporate CEOs and corporate lawyers are making more money than ever. In fact, the wealthiest Canadians now take most of Canada's income. Middle class and working class families have lost ground. Their real incomes have gone down, even the hours worked have increased substantially. However, the policies that have been adopted by Liberal and Conservative governments have put the focus on the wealthiest of Canadians to the exclusion of everyone else. Increasingly, Canadians are waking up to that fact.

This is a call out for shipbuilding workers in Victoria, British Columbia and Nanaimo, B.C., shipbuilders with that proud tradition that I mentioned in Vancouver, British Columbia in the Washington yards. They need to contact their Liberal MPs and telling Conservative MPs that this sellout is completely unacceptable. Over the next week, they need to make their voices heard.

Shipbuilding workers in southern Ontario in the Welland yards, who, unfortunately, have a terrific MP, also need to make their voices heard.

People in Lévis, the workers at the Lauzon shipyard, must tell the Bloc Québécois that it is unacceptable for the Bloc to penalize Quebec City because the citizens did not vote the right way. This shipbuilding sell-out is unacceptable. These workers made it clear but they must work to make it even more clear since the Bloc does not seem to understand that this sell-out deal is even worse than the softwood lumber sell-out, which cost Quebec workers thousands of jobs. Those workers lost their jobs because the Bloc, instead of defending Quebec's interests, simply decided to go with the same old free trade policies as George Bush, the Conservatives and the Liberals. The Bloc refused to defend Quebec's interests, while these workers should have been listened to.

The shipbuilding workers in Nova Scotia have sent in hundreds of letters and they cannot be more clear, but they need to phone the MPs for Halifax West and Dartmouth—Cole Harbour who are refusing to stand up for their constituents.

The shipyard workers in Marystown, Newfoundland and Labrador, who have a very good member in the MP for St. John's East, but all of the other Newfoundland and Labrador MPs are trying to vote for an agreement that kills the jobs in Marystown. We heard that from shipyard workers across the country. Over the next week, because we will not be in session, they need to let their MPs know that this is unacceptable, that they must stand up for Canadian jobs and for their community.

The reality we face is a House where one party is defending Canadian jobs and standing up for Canada and three parties that are selling us out. They are not even selling us out with anything tangible to give us. We have no economic impact statement, nothing that actually says what advantages are here. They say that it is symbolic. I am sorry but the shipyard workers of Canada need more than symbolism. They need jobs. They need a maritime policy that actually creates more jobs. They do not need an agreement that, as shipyard workers have so clearly said to the Parliament of Canada, kills their industry.

The Conservatives say that in 30 years they will be investing more money. Well, in 30 years there will not be any shipyards left. The Liberals say that some day they will be in government and they will put a policy in place. Well, there will not be any shipyards left.

The Bloc Québécois says that it will defend Quebec's interests, except when it comes to shipbuilding. It is ready to sell out in terms of the workers' interests because it believes that Quebec will eventually come out on top. But the Bloc Québécois has nothing tangible to show because there has never been an impact study. The Bloc cannot provide any arguments that counterbalance what is being sold.

With that very clear point, I know that the hundreds of shipyard workers who have been writing to members of Parliament and the thousands of other shipyard workers across the country will be impacted by this agreement unless we get the carve-out that the NDP is proposing. We ask the shipyard workers to write in.

I will complete my speech by moving the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on International Trade for the purpose of reconsidering clause 33 with a view to re-examining the phase-out of shipbuilding protections.”

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member knows very well that the very text of the agreement indicates special concern for shipbuilding: there is a 15-year period, a moratorium. Therefore the entire text is up for discussion. Naturally it is an important issue.

When looking at a free trade agreement from a macroeconomic perspective, there are positives and there are negatives. One of the negatives pertains to shipbuilding. Therefore, Canada must decide to tackle the problem. Of course, if the NDP decides to pout in its corner and not put any effort into making progress on a Canadian marine policy, there will be problems. That is why I stated in my speech that I was disappointed today that there was not unanimous support for Bill C-2and for tackling a real Canadian marine policy.

Once again, it shows divisiveness. We are trying to make our colleagues understand that we have to put our partisanship aside and try to work on the real needs of the industry by developing a Canadian marine policy. When Bill C-2 is adopted, the Bloc Québécois will be available. We have 15 years to adopt a policy and to ensure that our shipbuilders will be competitive.

If they are able to compete with Norway, they will be able to compete with every other country. It is a good opportunity.

If the NDP decides to stay in its corner and to do everything it can to prevent a discussion of this issue and if the Conservatives are no longer keen on it, they will have the backing of the NDP for not having a Canadian marine policy. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on Bill C-2, Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, which we have been discussing today.

I would like to remind everyone that when it comes time to discuss a bill to implement a free trade agreement, it is important that we weigh the pros and cons in a responsible fashion. It is important because every sector is affected by trade between the countries. In this agreement, there are some significant sectors, some of which are of considerable influence in our economy.

For example, Quebec has aluminum, which is our leading export to Iceland, one of the signatories to this agreement. Nickel accounts for 80% of our exports to Norway, and that nickel comes from a mine in Ungava operated by Xstrata, a Swiss company. There is also the pharmaceutical sector. Switzerland is one of the world's leading producers of pharmaceuticals. Quebec has an industry that engages in the research, development and sale of generic and prescription drugs. This industry is very strong, because when the Parti Québécois was in power, the Government of Quebec decided to provide it with substantial assistance, with the result that an important structure was put in place. We also have to think about agriculture, because we sell and trade agricultural products with these countries. It was important to us that supply management not be on the table. Milk, poultry, eggs and so on are supply-managed products, and supply management makes the industry profitable. There has been no government assistance for this type of industry since supply management was introduced.

This type of free trade agreement therefore must be analyzed responsibly. There is also a whole other sector, and that is shipbuilding. This is an important part of this agreement, because Norway, for example, is a major shipbuilding nation and its shipyards have been subsidized in the past.

When we do such an analysis, it is important to get to the bottom of things. This free trade agreement is good for many industry sectors, but there is a problem when it comes to shipbuilding. That is why there are specific clauses on shipbuilding. The customs tariffs in effect will be phased out over 15 years, and there will also be a moratorium for a number of years. These clauses were included in the treaty because people knew there was a problem. This is important because it is a crucial part of the discussions in this House. I am willing to debate it, but I have a concern. The shipbuilding industry is calling on Canada to develop a real Canadian marine policy that could solve the problems and keep this industry going.

Despite the fact that the industry, the Bloc Québécois and other parties in this House have been calling for it, the government will not listen. When the Minister of International Trade rose earlier to give his speech, he said nothing to reassure us.

He thinks that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Even though the industry believes that Canada needs a real marine policy, that is not important to him. This is worrisome. Instead of debating this bill, we should have reached a consensus in this House to pass it, because this agreement is good for the Quebec economy and the Canadian economy. Instead, we should at this very moment be debating a real marine policy for Canada, to reassure the entire shipbuilding sector and all other businesses, and to show them we are tackling the problems they have brought to our attention.

Thus, we will have to work very hard to convince this government of the need for a real marine policy for Canada. Once this bill passes, I hope the industry and all the parties, including the Conservatives, will understand that it is high time to do so. Now is the time. The tariffs will be gradually phased out over the next 15 years. That time period will also allow us to ensure that our industry can compete with Norway. That is the issue that we should have been addressing.

When conducting a thorough analysis of an issue as important as a free trade agreement, one must always weigh the pros and the cons. There are the pros I mentioned earlier, such as aluminum, nickel, the pharmaceutical industry, agriculture, and so on for Quebec. The agreement might even be good for pulp and paper mills. Once again, supply management has successfully been excluded, which is not the case with other agreements the government signed that jeopardized supply management. This time, the government listened to the Bloc Québécois and excluded supply management from the agreement.

For those who suggest that it would have been easier just to exclude shipbuilding from the treaty, I would point out that shipbuilding is one of Norway's economic strengths. Had we excluded shipbuilding, there would be no agreement, and we would not be talking about it today.

We have to adopt a conciliatory approach to these issues. We have to be open in our approach to these agreements, and we have to do a macroeconomic analysis of the advantages and disadvantages. When there is one sector in particular that could be disadvantaged, such as shipbuilding, we have to address the problem.

I was hoping the minister would talk about that today. Since the witnesses who appeared before the committee—and, indeed the entire shipbuilding industry—are uncomfortable about this, the Minister of International Trade could have told us that the government planned to deal with the problem, support the industry, and ensure that, once the 15 years are up, our industry will be competitive. If it can compete with Norway, it will be able to compete with every other shipbuilding concern in the world.

However, that is not the sense we are getting from the Conservative government. Time and again, it is all about their Conservative laissez-faire ideology. As it turns out, apply that approach to some sectors, and those sectors disappear. The opposition should attack that ideology and try to convince the Conservatives that, when it comes to shipbuilding, they must set their ideology aside and talk about a real Canadian marine policy. The industry would have found that reassuring.

At the same time, we have to act responsibly. The Bloc Québécois studied this free-trade agreement and weighed the advantages and disadvantages for all industries that will be affected. This is a first because the Canada-EFTA agreement covers Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. The real objective, for Quebeckers, is to have a true free-trade agreement with the European Union. That is the objective.

Even the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, who does not share my political views, is defending it. He recently travelled abroad in the middle of the economic crisis in Quebec. That is up to him. Nevertheless, he has taken a clear position on a free-trade agreement with the European Union, which reflects the unanimous position of the National Assembly of Quebec. Therefore, agreements with European countries are welcome. Naturally, given our population and the relative strength of our industries in Quebec or Canada, we have to be open to the world in order to develop. By not looking beyond our borders we will never be able to develop and reach our full potential. Just think of the aerospace sector and many others.

Therefore, we must be able to create a greater vision for the economy of the future, but also for the future of our economy. We believe this Canada-EFTA free-trade agreement is the way of the future with its advantages and disadvantages. Obviously, it puts shipbuilding at a disadvantage. Therefore, I hope that the government has heard everyone's position in this House, especially that of the Bloc Québécois, which has said that it is time for the government to sit down and adopt a real Canadian marine policy. The industry has been calling for it for many years. Naturally, starting today, we will support everything that can lead to a real Canadian marine policy so that, once the 15 years have passed, our shipbuilding industry will be able to compete with Norway and all other countries.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation be read the third time and passed.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This is a bilateral agreement between Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Canada.

When we are faced with a free trade agreement, we must be able to take a step back and analyze its pros and cons, and that is what the Bloc Québécois does each and every time, in a responsible manner. We have to look at its strengths and weaknesses. The Bloc Québécois' top priority has always been the interests of Quebeckers. We are the only party in this House that rises every day to defend the interests of Quebeckers.

When we look at this agreement in terms of markets and economies that could generate as many imports and exports from Quebec to the EFTA as from them to us, we can see that there are some very significant markets in Quebec.

First of all, there is aluminum, which is our leading export to Iceland.

When it comes to Norway, nickel accounts for 80% of what we export. In Quebec, we have in Ungava one of the biggest nickel mines in the world, belonging to Xstrata. This too is one of our strengths.

Pharmaceuticals should also be included. We all know that Switzerland is a major producer of pharmaceuticals, and thanks to the skills Quebec has developed in this sector and the assistance provided over the years, Quebec provides very fertile ground for this entire industry and a free trade agreement like this could well give its industry a real boost.

Turning to agriculture, there is always a major problem with international agreements because of the supply management issue. Unlike other treaties, though, this one excludes supply management. It is very important for us to be able to defend the interests of Quebec farmers under supply management. In this agreement, the government has understood, for once, the message that the Bloc Québécois gave it: remove the entire supply management question from the treaty.

One very important thorny point remains and that is shipbuilding. There is a feeling in the treaty that this problem was taken into account. That is why the entry tariffs on equipment and ships and any agreements are subject to a 15 year phase-out with countervailing duties that are reduced with a certain moratorium for three years. This was obviously a major concern.

I will be repeating myself now because I had a chance at another stage of the bill to express my views on this matter. I am very surprised, though, that we could not arrive at a consensus in the House—not to put the free trade agreement on the back burner, because I think it is good for Quebec and also Canada—but to deal right away with the real problem in our shipyards. This is a sector that cries out for a real Canadian policy.

I am amazed that the government has not quickly implemented a Canadian shipbuilding policy and that we are not busy in the House discussing one now. If we look at this Canada-EFTA free trade agreement, it soon becomes apparent that the entire shipbuilding industry has been ignored by the Canadian government for far too long in comparison with what has been happening elsewhere, especially in Norway. I know this is a sensitive issue, but the people opposed to the free trade agreement will understand. I am thinking of the New Democratic Party. It is obvious, though, that if shipbuilding were removed from the treaty, the EFTA countries would no longer have much reason to sign it.

We have to be realistic about this situation. But once again, it is important that the Government of Canada use the moratorium and the 15-year period over which tariffs will be reduced to put in place the Canadian marine policy the industry is calling for.

It was very hard to listen earlier as the Minister of International Trade told us yet again that he had provided enough support for this industry sector with the programs that had been put in place. This is staggering, because I do not sense any openness and, in light of how he answered the question I asked him, I sense that the government is going to take the same approach to the forest industry: they have to be careful, there are international laws, there is the WTO.

While the minister is refusing to introduce loan guarantees for the forest industry, claiming that they are subsidies, his own lawyers are arguing at the WTO and in the London court that loan guarantees are not subsidies. He has given the same answer to every question the government has been asked about this, yet no one has been able to quote a section of any law or regulation that says that loan guarantees are subsidies.

There are loan guarantees in the auto sector and many other sectors. EDC provides loan guarantees for all parts of the aerospace industry. That is a fact, yet we have the feeling that the shipbuilding industry is falling victim to the Conservatives' tendency to help only certain industries and to use international laws as an excuse to refuse help for industries not in that select group.

That is a hard reality, because the forest industry impacts Quebec. And if the government does the same thing in the case of shipbuilding, it will affect the Davie yards in Lévis, near Quebec City. Once again, these are repeated attacks against Quebec that we cannot ignore. We agree with Bill C-2 in principle, but there is a problem in this agreement, and it has to do with shipbuilding, because the government has neglected this industry for too long.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have this opportunity today to speak on EFTA, as I have done in my previous capacity as the critic for international trade. During my tenure as critic, I had the opportunity to debate this issue, to work on it in committee, and to work with my caucus colleagues in the Liberal Party on this very important bill.

I want to say from the outset that we need to recognize what this debate is really about. This debate is about free and fair trade. I think we as parliamentarians must recognize now more than ever during these hard economic times that we need to promote free and fair trade.

Very close to my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South, there is an airport that acts as a hub for many businesses that export, and I am reminded that we are seeing the challenges now in this global recession.

I think it is so important that we recognize that we have to avoid the protectionist tendencies that exist in various countries, including here in Canada. We need to recognize that we need to open up our borders and have access of goods and services back and forth to other countries.

We are a nation of 33 million people. For us to succeed and have the quality of life that we enjoy, for us to be able to export the goods and services that we need to make sure we generate the revenue so that we can have government play a role in people's lives and improving people's lives, we need to make sure that we create opportunities for trade and growth, both domestically and abroad.

This morning I was reminded again how difficult this economic situation is and the challenges we face. In the month of February, we lost 83,000 jobs. That is a big number, in my opinion. It speaks volumes about the concerns that people have about job losses.

The unemployment rate now, I think, is close to 7.5% or 7.7%. The projection is that it will go into double digits by the end of the year. These are alarming numbers, and in my opinion, a major cause of concern.

One thing I did hear from the minister and that I do want to echo on behalf of the Liberal Party before I speak on EFTA specifically is the importance of making sure that we promote not only bilateral trade, but multilateral trade.

We are a nation of only 33 million people, and when we engage ourselves in bilateral negotiations with other countries we have a difficult time of negotiating a favourable position because of the relative size of our country. Even though we have great human resources, great potential and great geography, because of the sheer numbers it makes it very difficult for us to get a favourable deal. I think that poses a challenge.

I would encourage this government to work very aggressively through the multilateral system, through the WTO, for example, to be able to negotiate better terms for Canada. That should be the number one priority when it comes to promoting trade with Canada.

The Liberal Party supports Bill C-2, but we have extreme caution and concern with respect to the shipbuilding industry. Yesterday our critic for industry made it very clear that we need to have a national shipbuilding strategy. It is absolutely imperative that we have a strategy in place to help our shipbuilders.

As indicated before by my hon. colleagues, Norway, for example, for many years subsidized their shipbuilding industry and put it in a very unique position in light of this free trade agreement.

I think it is important that Canada has a domestic shipbuilding strategy that puts us in a position where we remain competitive. That would be consistent with provisions in the free trade agreement with respect to the buy Canada procurement policy. I think that is very important and would be consistent with those principles. So I would encourage and request this government to take action immediately in putting together a comprehensive strategy to help the shipbuilding industry.

Another cause of concern that many people had expressed to me, especially from the agricultural sector, was in regard to supply management. I am glad to see that in this bill supply management is protected. It is something that the Liberal Party fought for very hard in committee. It is something we really fought for when this was being negotiated and we made our position very clear to the government. So I would hope people recognize the role we played in shaping some of the elements in this particular free trade agreement.

I want to emphasize why this free trade agreement is important. EFTA countries are the world's fourteenth largest merchandise traders and Canada's fifth largest merchandising export destination. We export billions of dollars worth of goods to the EFTA countries, including nickel, copper, pharmaceuticals, machinery, precious stones, metals, medical devices, aluminum, and so forth. In addition, we import from them pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, and many other goods and services. I think it is important to recognize that there is a healthy relationship there.

In my opinion, there is one thing that the agreement does lack that is a challenge, because it is a generation one agreement. It does not have a comprehensive strategy to deal with investment, promoting two-way investments and having that flow of investment between both countries. I hope that is something that will be considered in the near future as well to further enhance this very important relationship that we are developing.

There is concern, and I think rightly so, with respect to this bill. I hope the government exercises good judgment and is careful in monitoring this free trade agreement, especially when it comes to the snap-back provisions, if there are violations of any of the provisions in the agreement. The 15-year phase-out should be monitored very carefully to make sure that there is no violation of that. I would encourage the government to really pay attention to those two provisions, which are very important to making sure that the shipbuilding industry, in conjunction with the national shipbuilding strategy, is in a position to be competitive once this free trade agreement comes into effect.

I would like to raise one other very important point. In my opinion, EFTA is just the first step to something bigger. As I alluded to earlier with respect to multilateralism, I think it is important that we use EFTA as a launching pad to negotiate with the European Union. It is a very important trading bloc. It is something that we need to recognize. This downturn reminds us that our dependency on the United States has compromised our position. I think it is very important we recognize that we need to diversify our trade and look at other markets.

One of the other key markets is the European Union. I think there is enormous potential there as well, and I hope the government understands and recognizes the importance of working with not only the EFTA countries but other European nations to be able to promote free and fair trade.

I have taken enormous pride in working very closely with my colleagues in the Liberal Party on this file. As I have indicated before, I think this is a very important step in the right direction to promote trade. Trade is very important now in light of the economic challenges we are facing. As a nation of 30 million plus, we need to recognize that we have to open doors. We need to be in an environment where we foster an openness and a sense of opportunity for our businesses here to succeed. I very much believe in our businesses. I very much believe in our workforce and the fact that we can be productive. We can be competitive. We can be innovative, and we can compete with the rest.

However, I also want to underscore the importance of promoting fair trade. One of the concerns that my colleagues and I have expressed in the past is the fact that Norway, for a very long period of time, subsidized the shipbuilding industry in their country. We need to recognize that. In order to combat that and be able to put ourselves in a favourable position once the 15-year phase-out is eliminated, we need to make sure we have a national shipbuilding strategy.

With that, I just want to say that I look forward to this debate. I look forward to working with my colleagues from all political parties to make sure that this bill is passed and that we continue to promote free and fair trade, consistent with Liberal principles and the legacy of a party that has very much engaged in free and fair trade and has negotiated free trade agreements in the past as well. Hopefully when we form government in the near future with the support of many Canadians, we will continue to do so.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted Bill C-2 has come to third reading because it is part of a broader plan. I wish the minister had more time in his address to speak to the bigger picture, the broader plan of global trading patterns and where we are in Canada's initiatives, being at the forefront of the new trend of freer trade around the world, particularly in this difficult economic time.

When President Obama visited Canada, there was some concern about protectionism. I think the dangers of protectionism became clear to most Canadians, particularly in a tough economic time.

Would the minister comment on the bigger picture? We have debated, at length, Bill C-2, and most of the House has agreed that this is a favourable and positive approach. However, I would like the minister to comment on the bigger picture of free trade and Canada's plans for the future.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

moved that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for taking an interest in the bill before us today.

I realize that free trade agreements can cause some conflict. Our world has been hit hard by the global economic crisis, and the crisis will have an impact here at home. We can take comfort in the fact that Canada has the most stable banking system in the world.

However, we must also recognize that our industries, our workers and our exporters are all under pressure.

That is why it is important for the government to do everything in its power to make things better by developing policies and programs that will lighten the burden on our industries and companies.

We know we are in a time of fiscal crisis and we know there are pressures all around. It is in times like these, more than any other, from the government's point of view and, I think, most Canadians that we should be looking at opportunities to open up the doors for, not just Canadian companies, but Canadian workers also. We should not be looking at ways in which to build walls but in fact to tear down walls and to open up possibilities.

History is very clear, as we have indicated before, that when we build a trade wall up we bring our economy down. We do not want to see that happen, which is why we are taking a number of initiatives to pursue possibilities for Canadian workers and businesses to make their products and services more available world-wide.

As our economic history shows, we are as prosperous as we are in Canada because of the fact that we believe in trading freely. Because of our great capabilities, not just on the technology side but because we are innovative and productive, we can actually produce more products than we can all, as individual Canadians, consume.

Therefore, if we are going to truly move in the area of increased prosperity, we need to look for ways to sell our goods and services abroad into other countries. That is why pursuing free trade agreements, or more comprehensive economic agreements, as some countries prefer to refer to them, is part of our plan.

Free trade agreements are very significant. They will help Canadian producers and our workers. However, we also need to look at, as we do, areas like funding research and innovation, research and development and science and technology agreements. We pursue air agreements and open sky agreements with other countries to advance the air industry and make travel and the shipment of cargo even more productive and more competitive. We do a number of things, on several fronts, to ensure Canadians are positioned among the best in the world so their products and services can be manufactured and sold abroad.

This particular agreement, which is represented by Bill C-2, involves what will be the first ever free trade agreement with European countries. Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein agree with us that there will be mutual benefits if we can tear down tariff walls, tear down the barriers that make trade more difficult back and forth and open the doors of opportunities on both sides.

If we look at last year's figures, we have about a $4.2 billion relationship when it comes to merchandise exporting and trade and, even more important, we have over $18 billion of direct investment. That means jobs for Canadians and the expansion of Canadian activity. We have a fairly stable and productive trading relationship with these countries, which are pulled together in this bill known as the EFTA, and we want to see this continue and enhanced.

As important as this bill is and as important as trade is with the individual countries that are named in this bill, it also serves, and we are not hiding this fact, as a lever into the larger EU community. Colleagues will know that we have made great progress on the EU front with 27 other countries eventually encompassed in the EU agreement. We have now gone through what is called the scoping exercise or the first phase of discussions and are very close to getting into official and formal negotiations with the broader EU community. That is something we are hoping to see develop over the next few months.

However, right now we want to focus on the countries named in this particular bill. These are friendly countries and long-standing friends and allies, and we want to see our capabilities back and forth to continue.

A number of issues have been raised, some in committee and others over a long period of time, in terms of consultation. I thank all the members of the committee for recognizing that a lot of work has gone on and a lot of consultation has taken place and we believe all of the substantive issues have been addressed.

These are not always easy discussions at the committee level, especially if there are ideological differences, but my sense is that most of us in the chamber and most of the people on the committee recognize that the opening of doors and the expansion of opportunities is something that is key to us at any time, regardless of the economic environment but especially now in a tough time of economic pressure.

It is important to note that political and democratic pressures come to bear in the negotiations of free trade agreements. Inevitably, certain industries will feel that if they do not have the protection of a tariff wall and they do not have the ability to tax goods coming into the country even before they get here, thereby forcing up the prices so that the goods coming into the country are less attractive to Canadian consumers, the Canadian product is more attractive because an incoming good has a tariff slapped on to it. Some industries, invariably, will be affected by any trade agreement. These are called sensitivities, which is why we work with those industries to try, as far as possible, to soften the impact of a free trade agreement.

I will use one example in this particular agreement that is represented in Bill C-2 and that has to do with the shipbuilding industry. We have had consultations with the shipbuilding industry that go back as far as the 1990s because there have been very high tariffs in that particular industry, some as high as 25% or more. That would mean that a product coming into Canada that is under the shipbuilding umbrella could be facing a tariff as high as 25% or more, which means that the price of the product coming in is artificially raised because a tariff has been slapped on it and that gives a competitive advantage.

We are very careful to protect our industry. When we negotiate a free trade agreement with any country we need to ensure its shipbuilding industry is not being subsidized. We must have a level playing field. I believe, time and again, that Canadians have shown that they can compete with the best anywhere in the world as long as we are on a level playing field. As a government, that is where we need to be vigilant and vigorous when it comes to dealing with other countries. If we are looking at a free trade agreement abroad or an economic comprehensive agreement, we need to be aggressively pushing those other countries to ensure those tariffs are gone and that subsidies to those particular industries are removed so they do not have an unfair advantage competing against Canadians.

On the shipbuilding industry, we have put in place a 15-year phase-out of our tariff. That is the longest phase-out ever in Canadian history in a free trade agreement. We want to make this incremental and we want to give that industry as much time as possible to adapt.

We also have estimated, going over the next three decades, some $43 billion in procurement in the shipbuilding industry. We are showing our shipbuilders that the opportunities are huge moving into the future. We have also put in place a finance structuring facility of up to $50 million that assists our industry in terms of dealing with interest costs when it comes to purchases related to shipbuilding. We have carefully done this in a way that is compliant with our free trade agreements. It will not put us offside or at the risk or threat of any World Trade Organization dispute or any contest.

We have also indicated to our shipbuilding industry that just on the acquisition of Coast Guard vessels alone over the next few years, there are $175 million of acquisition geared specifically to the Canadian industry. Since shipbuilding has been mentioned, I am using it as an example of how we can deal with a particular sector within a free trade agreement.

As elected people, we need to keep in mind that we must be constantly looking at what will be good overall for our producers, manufacturers and the economy of Canada. When we are approached individually by a sector that would be opposed to a particular agreement, we need to consider a couple of things. We first must consider what can we do within the agreement to soften the impact of a free trade agreement and to help that particular industry adjust and stay competitive over time when eventually those tariffs are completely removed.

The other thing we have to consider is this. There will always be in any free trade agreement one or more industries that come forward and say that it will make them less competitive and that they do not want the deal to go ahead. At that time, we not only have to look at it seriously, but we also have to consider that if the deal does not go ahead, other industries will be affected and will stay uncompetitive because we do not have a free trade agreement.

When we look at the agreement in Bill C-2, and we look at, for instance, the fishing industry, which has a huge impact in Atlantic Canada, if we do not move ahead because we have another industry that feels it could not be competitive, an advantage will be lost for our entire marine and fishing industries.

There could be an entire sector of agriculture products that if we did not move ahead with a free trade agreement, we would be still stuck with high tariff walls. If we try to be sensitive to one area, like shipbuilding, our entire agriculture sector will be affected.

Look at the shipment and the export of our paper products. Can we legitimately look at this entire industry, the Canadian companies that manufacture paper products, and say we cannot help with free trade because another sector will be upset, especially in a time when the forestry and paper industry is probably getting hit harder than at any other time in its history?

This is where the democratic process puts us in a bit of a dilemma. We will always have one group of constituents who will be, quite rightly, concerned about a free trade agreement. If we are only being sensitive to that group, we could in fact be denying many other groups the opportunity to more freely and ably market their goods abroad.

We can use the agreement and this arrangement, under Bill C-2, as an example. We can show how we identify an industry, in this case it would be the shipbuilding sector. We have worked with it. We have made the provisions to assist it through this 15 year phase-out period. We have clearly shown the economic advantages and the purchasing opportunities in the years ahead. We have taken great steps to not only sensitize it to a free trade agreement, but also to signal to many other industries that they will benefit from this agreement as well. Provisions are being made and overall, as an economy, we will see things improve.

As we consider Bill C-2 at third reading, I ask our colleagues to give fair thought to this. I ask them to show the world, which is watching us in a time of economic downturn, that Canada does believe that opening the doors of opportunity is the way to go.

This is the worst time for countries to give in to what would be an impulse that is understandable. It is natural that industries, companies and business would step forward and say, in a time of global contraction, that they need protection. The last thing we want to do is start building walls and making it more difficult to market our goods abroad.

We can be a leader and we can be an example. I believe we are doing that. Soon in this assembly we will see free trade agreements related to Peru and Colombia. In the not too distant future we hope to see the materialization of agreements that we are pursuing in Asia and the Americas.

When I was in India last month, I met with the prime minister and the minister of trade. I have an agreement to begin discussion on a more comprehensive trade agreement with India. I will be in China next month where we will open six new trade offices there. We are sending the indicators very clearly, not just in the pursuit of things like science and technology agreement but on a broader array of sectors, that we want an even more vigorous and more robust relationship with China.

At every opportunity we can, we want to allow the world to see and to be aware that Canadian producers, innovators, exporters and merchandisers are the best in the world. We can compete with anybody in the world at any time as long as the playing field is level. This is our intention with our free trade agreements.

I thank members for their involvement in this and hopefully for their support as we continue the third reading discussion on Bill C-2.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-2.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader for the official opposition has many questions for the Thursday question and I will try to get to all of them.

Today we will continue debate on Bill C-14 on organized crime, which he mentioned. Following Bill C-14, we will consider Bill C-15, drug offences, and Bill C-16, the environmental enforcement act in that order.

Tonight we will complete the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Tomorrow we will begin debate at third reading of Bill C-2, the Canada-European free trade agreement and continue with any unfinished business that carried over from today.

When the House returns from the constituency week, we will continue with the business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-9, transportation of dangerous goods, which was reported back from committee.

You can add to the list for the week we return, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7, marine liability, Bill S-3, energy efficiency, and Bill C-13, Canada grains, which are all at second reading and any bills that have been reported back from committee by then.

As to one of the questions that the member specifically mentioned, the last day in this supply period shall be on Tuesday, March 24, when the House will vote on supplementary estimates C, interim supply and the interim supply bill. As he noted, it is a very important day as these are the resources necessary to provide the stimulus to which we have all been looking forward and which Canadians are greatly anticipating.

Hopefully, the Senate will have passed the budget bill, Bill C-10 by then. In fact, as my colleague mentioned, my understanding is the opposition has suddenly discovered the parts of the budget bill that pertain specifically to the extension of employment insurance benefits, which will come into effect immediately upon royal assent of Bill C-10, the budget implementation act. Therefore, rather belatedly, the Liberal senators have decided to work with the Conservative senators in the other place and get the bill passed expeditiously. I hope that takes place this afternoon. It would be therefore my hope as well that royal assent could take place as early as this evening and we would see that bill enacted as quickly as possible.

As to the reiteration of my colleague's support for Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, our two latest justice bills, I welcome his support and I appreciate that. We are open to moving these bills through all stages as quickly as possible. Failing that, we would look to put up a minimum number of speakers, as we have done on many pieces of legislation already in this session, to move legislation through as quickly as possible. The problem, as my hon. colleague well knows, is not with the official opposition on or of the Conservative Party, the Conservative government, but with the other two parties, which are unwilling to do so.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have said repeatedly during the debates on Bill C-2, we think this free trade agreement is an excellent agreement. We have all been very clear. However, we must make sure it is accompanied by a real, vigorous policy in order to ensure that Quebec and Canada can be very competitive in the coming years, to be able to compete with countries like Norway.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again here today to speak to BIll C-2, which should lead to the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the states of the European Free Trade Association. The Standing Committee on International Trade has already studied it at length. We have heard from a number of witnesses and we are ready to debate it here today at this stage.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it is generally in favour of this agreement. We in the Bloc think that it is a good agreement, especially for the Quebec economy, because there are attractive economic opportunities for us in the countries that are signing it. I will not spend any more time on why we support this agreement, since this has already been explained in previous speeches by some of my colleagues and myself, during the debate at second reading.

In my last speech I also spoke about shipbuilding and its place in this agreement, and I will take advantage of this opportunity to clarify my position on this matter. First of all, I must say that I am aware of the concerns the representatives of the shipbuilding industry in Quebec have about the implementation of this agreement.

The future of our shipyards is a matter of vital importance to Quebec, particularly its eastern part, where a sizeable portion of the economy depends on the economic spinoffs from the shipyards. I feel it is absolutely vital for Quebec's shipbuilding industry to remain healthy and able to develop in the years to come. For that to happen, the government needs to finally accept its responsibilities and invest in this field.

It must be understood that the difficulties being experienced by the shipyards and the marine industry in general did not just crop up today, and the blame must not be laid on the adoption of an agreement whose impact will not be felt here for many years to come. On the other hand, we must not miss our opportunity to make a major change of direction in our marine policy. We can state that there is no real marine policy in Canada at this time, and that could cause real trouble in future years if action is not taken now.

There is no denying that there will be more competition. We have concerns about competition from countries like Norway, where the marine sector has been heavily subsidized for many years. That said, we must start immediately to implement measures to help this industry become more modern and more competitive. We know that the major problem, the real problem, is that for years the shipbuilding sector has suffered, and still does, from a flagrant lack of government support. It is time the needs of Quebec and Canadian shipyards were paid attention to.

According to the agreement in question, there will be a tariff phase-out on the most sensitive shipbuilding products, for up to 15 years in certain cases. After that period of adjustment, no tariff protection will be allowed, and ships from EFTA countries including Norway will appear on the Canadian and Quebec market and compete on an level playing field with our own. This would not pose a problem if we were not so far behind.

According to the witnesses we heard in committee, if our borders were opened to our competitors tomorrow morning, our shipyards would simply not survive. That would be a very bad thing, because our shipyards are essential on a number of levels—economic, strategic and environmental.

One question comes to mind today: what will our shipbuilding industry look like in 15 years?

We are convinced that if the government finally assumes its responsibilities, as I was saying earlier, and decides to recognize that establishing a true marine policy is of the utmost importance, this industry will surely progress and be in an excellent position with respect to its future competitors.

Obviously, we do not believe that the government will take any action at all without pressure from those concerned. Therefore, in the hope of obtaining some movement by the government on this issue the Bloc Québécois presented the following important recommendation to the Standing Committee on International Trade before the free-trade agreement takes effect:

...the Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive Maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO.

That was the only recommendation made in the report. The Conservatives never see any problems with their policies, the Liberals, as usual, failed to propose any recommendations, and the NDP, in its predictable opposition to free trade, opposed the agreement altogether. The Bloc Québécois recommendation, which finally received the committee's support and was included in its report, meets the expectations of many shipbuilders in Canada and Quebec. Even though they have no hope of seeing their sector excluded from the agreement, they do expect the government to act quickly and forcefully.

We see in the report that, according to representatives of shipbuilders and marine workers:

...without combined access to the structured financing facility and accelerated capital cost allowances, the impact of the agreement would be devastating to the industry and would lead to job losses. In their view, this additional government support was critical if the Canadian industry was to survive increased competition from Norwegian producers.

Some will say that Norway has announced that it has stopped subsidizing its shipbuilders and that that will enable Canada to compete on a level playing field with that country. But what are we doing to make up for all the years when there were no subsidies here, while Norway was achieving the high level of competitiveness it enjoys today, thanks to generous government support? Quite simply, there needs to be a dramatic shift in the federal approach to the marine industry, which means abandoning the laissez-faire policy the Liberals and Conservatives have followed to date.

I am happy that we are holding this debate on the trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association, because it reveals how fragile our marine industry is in the face of foreign competition and forces us to take a stand on these issues quickly. It is not the agreement that is bad, but our policy. That is why a change of direction is imperative. In 5 or 10 years, it will be too late. We must act now. With a few targeted measures, our shipyards can become modern, productive, financially healthy and extremely competitive. The biggest problem to date has been the lack of political will to change things, and it is high time that changed too.

Of all the aspects of this free trade agreement, this one has concerned me the most. The other aspects of the agreement, including agriculture, seem to be well handled and in line with Quebec's interests.

I would just like to add, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out, that this free trade agreement may open the door to a future agreement with the European Union. We must seize the opportunity when it arises and, more importantly, be ready to compete.

The House resumed from March 11 consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues, particularly my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for the work he has done on this trade deal, the Canada-European free trade agreement, and the many free trade agreements that the present government and previous Liberal government have inflicted on the people and communities of Canada.

I say inflicted because I and members of my caucus have profound concerns about the CEFTA as we did with the first Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, the Canada-Colombian Free Trade Agreement, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the Korean free trade agreement and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which is not secure, will not create prosperity and is far from being a partnership. It is, indeed, a one-sided proposal that will compromise Canada's sovereignty with regard to water, airline safety and our independence in terms of foreign policy, culture and technological products.

The Canada-European free trade agreement, conceived by Jean Chrétien more than nine years ago, advanced by Liberal-Conservative trade minister, David Emerson, and now reintroduced by the current trade minister, presents a profound concern for Canada's agriculture and shipbuilding industries.

Evidence provided during industry committee hearings clearly demonstrated a key concern with the CEFTA related to the treatment of Canada's shipbuilding industry, which was abandoned by successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

Canada has the longest coastline in the world and yet it has no strategy for our shipbuilding industry. When the tariffs in the CEFTA come down in 15 years, Canada's industry will be unable to cope with Norwegian competition. The Canada-European free trade agreement is yet another of the Conservative government's hastily concluded bilateral trade agreements and highlights its piecemeal approach to trade that lacks a coherent, fair trade vision and policy.

Canadians are entitled to expect their government to support Canadian jobs. That point was made by Andrew McArthur, a member of the board of directors of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, and the CAW, which made its case before the committee. It said that the shipbuilding sector must be excluded from this agreement and that the federal government should immediately help put together a structured financing facility and an accelerated capital cost allowance for the industry.

In addition to this testimony, was the concern expressed by Mary Keith, spokeswoman for the Irving shipbuilding conglomerate, about the Canada-European free trade agreement. She said:

...is a devastating blow for Canadian shipbuilders and marine service sectors.

The government of Canada is continuing its 12-year history of sacrificing Canadian shipbuilding and ship operators in the establishment of free trade agreements with other nations.

That is at the heart of the efforts made by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to amend Bill C-2 at report stage. The shipbuilding industry is at a critical point.

As was pointed out by Mr. Andrew McArthur and Mr. George MacPherson at the international trade committee on March 3, they said:

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 25 years is estimated to be worth $40 billion. Under the proposed FTAs with Norway, Iceland and the planned FTA with Korea and then Japan, these Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. In these terms, this government plan is an absolute outrage.

Imagine that, $40 billion and it will not benefit Canadian workers.

The position of the association from day one has been that shipbuilding should be carved out from the EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government that it does not carve industries out. We have mentioned the fact that the Jones act in the U.S. was carved out from NAFTA and now we are not allowed to build or repair for the Americans but the Americans have free access to our market. So industries do not get carved out.

Unfortunately, and apparently, that only happens in the United States.

New Democrats have proposed that Bill C-2 be redrafted by the government to exclude shipbuilding. We hope the Liberals from Atlantic Canada will see the wisdom of this amendment and support the hard-working men and women across the country who build the ships.

Bill C-2 simply must change. This is not, as I have already indicated, the first time that a Liberal-Conservative trade deal has left Canadian workers and industries in ashes. We have seen it over and over again in communities like mine, in London, Ontario, and the smaller centres of southwestern Ontario. Free trade agreements, be they the FTA, NAFTA, or the Korean free trade agreement, have robbed families of their livelihood and taken away their future.

NAFTA was supposed to bring prosperity to Canada. Instead, we have seen industry after industry abandon the workers who made them successful and the communities that paid for the infrastructure that allowed them to prosper. They have abandoned them in favour of jurisdictions that sacrifice environmental and safety standards and permit their employees to earn only substandard wages. They have done that despite the fact that Canadian workers are the best and most skilled in the world.

For example, a detailed study of productivity levels in North American auto assembly confirms that Canadian auto factories are the most efficient on the continent. The Harbour Report, the leading survey of auto productivity, indicates that average labour productivity is more than 11% higher in Canadian auto assembly plants than in U.S. plants and about 35% better than in Mexican plants. I dare say that is true of shipbuilders, too.

The Navistar truck plant in Chatham and the Sterling truck plant in St. Thomas are two tragic examples of the exodus of profitable and efficient plants that have completely closed down. They closed at a tremendous cost to families and communities. I have met with the workers from those plants and their families. The consequences of those job losses are devastating, because hopes, opportunities, dreams and futures are destroyed.

NAFTA is not the only trade deal that threatens our communities. The government is still in negotiations with South Korea to put in place a free trade deal that is profoundly unbalanced. It tolerates a trade deficit of over $3 billion at a cost of thousands of jobs. Korea has been allowed to keep its domestic markets closed to Canadian vehicles, and the promises by Koreans to remove non-tariff barriers are unenforceable.

In 2005, Canada imported $5.4 billion in goods from Korea, while it exported only $2.8 billion. Sixty-seven per cent of that trade deficit was automotive. Canada imported 129,376 light-duty vehicles with virtually no reciprocal sales of vehicles from Canada. This is not free trade nor fair trade. It is the kind of trade deal, like the FTA, NAFTA, the Colombia trade agreement, the MAI and the SPP, that robs our families and communities of jobs.

I have a couple of letters that I want to quote from. They are from people who are very concerned about this trade deal.

The first letter is from Robert Vance, who writes that he is very concerned and disheartened. He is a shipyard worker. He writes:

It is shameful to think that although other countries including those involved in the European free trade agreement strongly support their shipbuilding industry, while we as Canadians do not.

One of the most surprising things to me as a shipyard workers is that all stakeholders in the industry including owners, operators and unions from coast-to-coast have emphasized the need for this support during the many committee meetings that were held on the use of free trade talks.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party of Canada did not feel it necessary to support these workers and backed up the Conservatives, instead.

It is up to the government and all parliamentarians to protect Canadian jobs and industries. That includes agriculture and it includes shipbuilding, as well as those in manufacturing and the auto sector. We must protect Canadian jobs and industries for the sake of our communities, for the sake of our workers, for the sake of this country.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-2. First, let me pay tribute to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for carrying this debate on behalf of our party.

I come from a shipbuilding province, but I do not want to be parochial about this. We are a shipbuilding nation. My part of the country has been building ships for hundreds and hundreds of years for the fishing industry, going back 400 and 500 years.

We are building ships now. We have a modern shipyard in Marystown that is capable of terrific work. It was selected, in fact, for the joint supply ships for the Canadian navy, one of the two final bidders that were ready to roll and go to build these ships. What happened? At the last minute, or 72 hours before the election was called, the government cancelled the contract. The Canadian navy was about to issue a contract that was worth some $2.5 billion, which would have provided work, if Marystown was the successful bidder, and lot of people in my neck of the woods had every reason to believe that it would have been, to build those ships for six, eight or ten years of work and another fifteen or twenty years to provide the maintenance of them.

While Newfoundland and Labrador is part of the historic fishing, maritime, shipbuilding, boat building nation, we cannot forget that shipbuilding is a modern 21st century industry today. It is not part of the rust belt. Yes, ships are built of iron and steel, but they are also built with the most modern telecommunications and navigation facilities. They are built to rigorous standards. It is an industry of the future, requiring the highest degree of skill, technology and knowledge. It is a knowledge-based industry as well as part of the industrial base of our country.

It is something that requires the support of government to keep us in the game. What has happened is that other countries such as Norway have done that for their industry, for their people, for their prosperity and for their participation in the future of industry in the world, but we have not done that for ours. That is the reason why this should be out of this deal.

There are other problems with this deal too. The premier of my province has mentioned some of them. We are not using this opportunity to negotiate a free trade agreement to ensure that we remove the tariff, for example, from shrimp, which has been crippling the shrimp industry in the east coast for many years. This non-tariff barrier is being promoted now in the European Union by an attempt to ban seal products from a humane, controlled industry in the east coast.

We see no effort by the Government of the Canada to use these negotiations as an opportunity to extend our fishing jurisdiction outside the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We still have to deal with an ineffective regime there.

Therefore, there other disappointments, but the big one, for which we are looking for support from both sides of the House, is our shipbuilding industry. We are trying to get some sense into the government, but we are also hoping that others on this side of the House will support our efforts. We are looking to the Bloc Québécois members who may be supportive, but we are also looking to the Liberals. So far I have not heard the Liberals participating in this debate and saying how they feel about this.

That was not always the case. I have in my hand a report that was produced, with the support of Brian Tobin, a former premier of Newfoundland and former industry minister. It is called “Breaking Through: The Canadian Shipbuilding Industry”. This report came out with a whole series of recommendations produced through a consultation process led by a number of individuals called the National Partnership Project Committee. Part of that was the president of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, Peter Cairns, Les Holloway, the executive director of the Marine Workers Federation, Philippe Tremblay from the Fédération de la métallurgie CSN and Peter Woodward from the Woodward Group of Companies. They made a very good presentation with a lot of recommendations for the shipbuilding industry, which would have assisted this industry. However, we have not seen those recommendations implemented.

I would ask the Liberals, both nationally and from my own province, to support the amendment that we put forward because it would be important, not only to our own province of Newfoundland and Labrador but to the whole country. We have heard of the importance of shipbuilding on the west coast. We know it is important in the Thunder Bay area and in the province of Quebec. We see shipyards struggling to maintain their place in the modern world.

One important recommendation for this shipbuilding project was to ask the Government of Canada to eliminate the peaks and valleys of procurement for the navy and the Coast Guard through more effective forward planning and thereby keeping order books and employment levels more consistent over the long term.

That is extremely important because we do need to maintain a significant plan and a significant capital investment. According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen a couple of weeks ago on the estimated demands and needs for the navy, it stated:

One area that could provide significant employment for domestic firms in the coming decades is federal shipbuilding. With the navy's warships and Coast Guard vessels rusting out and in need of replacement, there is an estimated $40 billion to $60 billion worth of work over the next 20 years.

Where this work will take place is the question marine workers across the country are asking. With the cancellation of the joint supply ships project back in August, concerns were being raised that the government had plans to go overseas, to go offshore. It went through a tendering process and then it gave up on it.

Now we see the government supplying the Canadian Forces without contracts. It is buying helicopters from the United States without any contracts. There is not even an opportunity for a competitive bidding process. That is shocking. The government acquired C-17s and C-130J transport planes from the U.S. with no contracts and no competitive bidding.

There is a concern that the new search and rescue aircraft will go to a non-competitive bid. Canadian companies have no opportunity to participate because the Canadian Forces, apparently, have their eye on a particular Italian plane manufactured in the U.S. and there does not seem to be any plans to even have a competitive bid for that.

What is going on? Have we lost our way? Every country in the world, when it comes to procurement for their army, navy and air force, look to their domestic industries, except Canada. What is wrong with us? Is there something that I do not know about? Maybe members opposite could tell us what is wrong with us. What is it about us that we cannot build our own ships to ply the seas and look after our air forces, transport and so on? Maybe members opposite have the answers. Maybe there is something going on that I do not know about, but we seem to have lost our way.

For some reason, a bunch of Liberals seem to be going along with the government. I do not understand that. The shipbuilding industry is a modern, 21st century industry in which we should be participating. Why we are not doing so, is absolutely beyond me.

In the minute I have left, I would ask members opposite to get up on their feet during questions and comments and explain to the House and to Canadians why they are not protecting, supporting and expanding the ship industry in Canada. Perhaps some of the Liberals could tell us why they do not care either.

What is the plan for the $40 billion to $60 billion that will be spent by the government alone on the shipbuilding industry over the next coming decade? That could make a big difference to the economy of parts of this country, mostly coastal areas that have been struggling over the past many years for all sorts of reasons, some having to do with the fishery. Why is it that we cannot ensure that this kind of work is being done in this country?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-2. I particularly want to acknowledge the tireless work of two members from the New Democrats.

The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, of course, is a very familiar voice in this House and has called consistently over the years that I have been here for a shipbuilding policy. The reason we are speaking today in this House is because both the Conservatives and the Liberals have failed on that account.

I also want to particularly acknowledge the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. It is with his very good work that we are here today to oppose vehemently the inclusion of shipbuilding in Bill C-2.

I want to turn to some of the work that the member—

I was going to say “the minister”. That would be an improvement, if we had here a minister from Burnaby—New Westminster.

I want to refer to some of the work that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has done in connection with identifying some of the issues around shipbuilding. When he tabled a dissenting opinion, what he said was that Canada's shipbuilding industry is not operating anywhere near its maximum capacity and lacks support from the federal government.

Canada is the only major seafaring nation without a strategic plan for its shipbuilding industry. Unlike Canada, Norway has used its period of tariff protection to invest heavily in an expanded shipbuilding industry, making it competitive and efficient. It was thus able to phase out its government subsidies by the year 2000.

Because the shipbuilding industry has been worn away for so long by a lack of interest from the federal government, by the time the tariffs are dropped in 15 years, if no aggressive policy is put in place, there will be little left in Canada other than foreign shipbuilding firms.

The major concern, of course, is that this trade bill reduces tariffs on ships from 25% to zero over a period of 10 to 15 years, depending on the type of products, and nothing happens for the first three years.

Why does it matter?

I want to draw members' attention to a news release from 2007 that was titled, “No celebrations Friday for BC shipyard workers”. It talks about the fact that BC chose to build ferries in Germany. What we see is not only the fact that we could have had the capability to do it here, but as this particular article states,

While BC Ferries holds a $60,000 party in Germany for 3,000 people on Friday, there will be no celebrating the launch of the first of three German-built Super-C Class ferries that have cost the province 3,500 direct and indirect jobs and the loss of $542 million in investment, says the BC Shipyard General Workers' Federation.

By investing in shipyards in this country, we not only create direct and indirect jobs, we not only generate significant amounts of dollars in new investment, but what we always fail to calculate when we are looking at costs of shipbuilding are the returns to government. Those workers pay taxes, and successful businesses pay taxes. That needs to be factored into any kind of equation when we are talking about support to our shipbuilding industry.

When the committee was hearing testimony on this, there were a couple of industry people who came forward and talked about the importance of shipbuilding and why we should exempt shipbuilding from this particular agreement.

George MacPherson, the president of the B.C. Shipyard General Workers' Federation, at the standing committee on trade, on March 3, 2009, said,

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 25 years is estimated to be worth $40 billion.

Andrew McArthur, from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, said,

The position of the association from day one is that shipbuilding should be carved out from EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government that we do not carve industries out. We raise the question of the Jones Act in the U.S., which was carved out from NAFTA. We are not allowed to build or repair for the Americans. The Americans have free access to our market. So industries do get carved out. I'm sure there are numerous other examples.

So we have industry and labour arguing for this.

I want to touch on a couple of companies on Vancouver Island.

In my very own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have the Nanaimo Shipyard Group. This shipyard has been in business since 1930 and has been in the same location, in the Newcastle Channel. It has over 10,000 square feet of covered area. This company mainly carries out refit and maintenance on DND, Coast Guard, and BC Ferry Corporation vessels. It also carries out work on deep-sea cargo vessels, fishing vessels, tug and barge fleets, yachts, fish farming service vessels and other coastal vessels. We can see that it has a wide range of experience in terms of the kinds of repairs it does.

Point Hope shipyard in beautiful Victoria was first established in 1873. Some have said it was the first shipyard in B.C. In fact, the ways were of wooden construction. It has a very significant history. It had written a letter to a number of ministers and talked about its long history, but it also pointed out their capabilities. It said:

Point Hope's capabilities extend to the construction of complete steel and aluminum vessels up to 1,500 tons and 60 meters in length.

It went on to talk about the fact that it was ISO certified. It was also applying for additional ISO certifications so that it would meet environmental standards. It said:

We are a key participant in Canada's defence and industrial marine sector providing significant employment and revitalization in the core of the City of Victoria. Point Hope is a success story and a model for the industry and has the capabilities and resources to continue to grow and expand.

We should be standing up for our shipyards. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster says that we should stand up for Canada. The shipyards and labour have some solutions. The Nanaimo shipyard has written to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates saying that it is the owner-operator of a small to medium-sized enterprise engaged in shipbuilding and repair. It employs approximately 100 to 150 people in four locations, Halifax, Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Victoria.

The shipyard talks about the fact that so many of the small and medium-sized enterprises have either gone bankrupt or been forced out of the industry. It has asked why the Government of Canada, in the context of a larger shipbuilding strategy, does not have a policy that carves out some work for the small and medium-sized enterprises. It has pointed to the example of what happens in the United States.

The United States has something called a small business administration program. I will not go through all of the details on this, but it is a really good example of how the U.S. government has created categories for contract opportunities reserved exclusively for small and medium-sized businesses. There is a whole procedure that small and medium-sized businesses can access.

In case members do not think there is not widespread support from shipyard workers in industry, I want to quote from some letters.

One letter is from the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of British Columbia, dated March 11, 2009. This is written to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but it feels so passionately about this that it wanted to ensure some of its words were said in the House. It says:

The Shipyard General Workers Federation represents approximately 2,000 skilled members who work in the shipyards, marine manufacturing and supply industries, and in the metal fabrication shops in British Columbia's coastal communities.

In its letter, it is requesting that, at the very least, the industry should be exempted from EFTA. It says:

We urge the government to recognize and act in the interest of this vital and strategic sector and develop a comprehensive industrial strategy that has as its' objective the long term stability and viability of a shipbuilding and marine fabrication industry on both the East and West coasts.

In the Pacific Northwest, which includes Victoria and Nanaimo, we know that between the major retrofits that used to be available through Point Hope and some of the other shipyards, we also have a significant number of small pleasure craft. I do not have the exact numbers, but it has been rumoured that in the whole base, including Washington and Oregon, there is up to a million small pleasure craft. When we are talking about a shipbuilding industry, we are not only talking about large-vessel building. We are also talking about the smaller pleasure craft. There is a whole range of abilities there.

A national shipbuilding strategy needs to look at that range of abilities. The fact that we have the longest coastline in the entire world, that we literally do go from coast to coast to coast, could be a significant economic driver in many of our communities. It used to be.

In the words of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, we need to remember shipbuilding. It was one of the founding industries in our country. When I talk about coast to coast to coast, I am not ignoring the inland waterways, which the member for Welland rightly brought up. However, I want to focus on the west coast for now.

We have the ability to rebuild that industry. We still have infrastructure in place. I urge the members in the House to not support this bill, carve out shipbuilding and develop that national shipbuilding strategy.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the historical perspective of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek about these trade agreements really informs the debate on Bill C-2.

One thing that strikes me is that since 1924, every free trade deal that has ever been negotiated by the Americans has excluded shipbuilding and marine services. The Americans have always understood how important shipbuilding and marine services are to their economy and to their sense of national purpose, and the industry is very important.

It is very interesting to hear these notions of what free trade is all about and that somehow it is about enhancing the economy and protecting jobs. We can see, in this case, the Americans have actually carved out shipbuilding because they want to protect it. This is very relevant to the debate today.

Would the member comment on that?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I stand today to speak to Bill C-2, yet another free trade agreement, I am concerned for the workers of Hamilton and for Canadian workers as a whole.

Canada has gone through over 20 years of free trade agreements. In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, particular the Hamilton East portion, I have watched this seemingly endless parade of companies that have left Hamilton or closed as a direct result of free trade. My observation is that most Canadians do not feel free trade is free at all.

I watched Burlington Street in Hamilton go from a dynamic, bustling centre of manufacturing to a mere shadow of its former self. In fact, the very day the original draft free trade agreement was tabled, the first one between Canada and the United States, Firestone Canada in Hamilton, on the words of that draft agreement, closed its once proud plant on Burlington Street.

We, the labour movement and organizations like the then brand new Council of Canadians warned them, Because most Canadian cities were within 100 miles of the American border, we warned them that with free trade and the removal tariff barriers our plants owned by American companies would move or close.

I take absolutely no satisfaction in having been right. During the first two years of that original free trade agreement, between 1988 and 1990, Ontario lost 524,000 manufacturing jobs. Canada and Hamilton, in particular, quite literally bled jobs to the United States and Mexico.

Hamilton, long known for steel production, was once one of the leading textile manufacturing sites in all of North America. Those plants are long gone. During the past 20 to 25 years, Canada and, to a great degree, much of the free world has been on the track, a track comprised of deregulation and free trade as espoused first by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney.

For evidence, look to today's crisis in the American market, a place where business was conducted in this wild west environment. Now we can see the outcome, the lack of proper regulation or deregulation and the requirement of enforcement. It is almost like the sheriff left town and Wall Street ran rampant with that reckless abandon, which we have become so aware of in the last few months.

Canada once had an auto pact, which protected our market and ensured employment in that important industry and the associated support industries. The Liberals, when in government, let that agreement slip away. Now we not only have cuts to auto plants, but Hamiltonian steelworkers are being laid off. In fact, we are seeing thousands upon thousands of support jobs lost along with those direct manufacturing jobs.

For Hamilton and Hamilton steel plants, this has proven to be devastating. No orders means no work which means layoffs.

As I said before, I can recall in 1988 when the labour movement and other organizations like that newly minted Council of Canadians were warning that this day would come if the Government of Canada signed on to that free trade agreement.

Similar warnings were issued in 1993, regarding NAFTA. The Liberals were at the front with those warnings. In fact, they were warning themselves. They made promises that they would not sign onto NAFTA, which they did shortly after winning that election.

Today Canadian industries are very fragile. Industries like shipbuilding, in particular, need attention from their government. Canada has been known worldwide for the quality of our shipbuilding, but other countries have worked hard to protect their shipbuilding with massive subsidies to aid their development, such as with Norway. Canada has lagged and has not had the comprehensive strategy to protect this important industry.

At committee, the New Democratic Party tried to protect this industry with no less than 16 motions, which were turned back by the chair with the aid of the Liberal Party members present. For the information of the members present today, shipbuilding is exempted from NAFTA.

At committee, the Shipbuilding Association of Canada made it clear that shipbuilding must be removed from the Canada-EU trade agreement. This agreement would reduce Canadian tariffs on ships from 25% to zero over 10 to 15 years. If we allow this to happen, we will lose our market altogether.

Members also need to know that the United States has always protected its shipbuilding industry ever since the Jones bill of 1920. That legislation protects the U.S. capacity to produce commercial ships. The Jones act requires commerce between U.S. ports on inland waters to be reserved for ships that are U.S. built, U.S. owned, registered under U.S. law and U.S. manned. In recent years the United States has implemented a heavily subsidized naval reconstruction program. All of this is to the direct benefit of its shipyards and its U.S. workers.

Where has Canada been? Canada can and must do the same thing. Canada must separate shipbuilding from this free trade agreement.

Finally, the shipbuilding sector must be completely excluded from the agreement, as I have said. The government should immediately put together an enhanced, structured financing facility, along with an accelerated capital cost allowance for this industry. An important component would be a buy Canadian strategy.

We have heard this buy Canadian strategy at a number of levels. We heard it first when the United Steelworkers made representation to the Congress in the United States on the buy American plan.

Within the free trade agreements to which we are now party, there are provisions that allow for a buy Canadian strategy. They allow for municipalities and provincial governments to buy Canadian. There are some limitations to that, but the Conservative government does not seem to want to entertain this option at all. In fact, the so-called free traders of the world raise their arms in concern when it happens, but that could be the very foundation for the salvation of not only shipbuilding, but our manufacturing sector altogether.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in connection with Bill C-2 , but this time at the report stage. I hardly need mention that we in the Bloc are here first and foremost to defend the interests of Quebec. We also count on the people of Quebec to keep us informed, and at times that makes us almost a substitute for the government. To date the government has never really given us any impact studies to provide an overview of the repercussions of a free trade agreement on the economy of Canada or Quebec as a whole.

But some careful analysis is required. Overall, in Quebec, we see that we will stand to benefit from the free trade agreement with the European free trade association. As hon. members know, pharmaceuticals are hugely important to Quebec. We export and import with one of the countries, Switzerland. As well, nickel is an important mineral and some 80% of trade in nickel is with Norway. Then there is aluminum with Iceland. Those three factors mean that Quebec would stand to gain from this free trade agreement, and would have huge potential opportunities in future.

As we can see from a closer analysis, the shipbuilding industry is an important component of this free trade agreement. The agreement has been in negotiations since 1998. Preparations to sign it have taken 10 years. We know there have been slowdowns, and even interruptions in the negotiations, in large part due to the shipbuilding component. This industry is an important part of the negotiations. Today we see that, whether or not there is a free trade agreement that would do away with duties applicable to ships after 15 years, after an initial 3 year period—so 18 years in all—that is not the only thing that threatens shipbuilding. What does threaten it is the lack of a policy for this industry, particularly on the part of the federal government.

The federal government, for all intents and purposes, has not given any type of subsidy to the shipbuilding industry since 1988. Norway has heavily subsidized this industry, allowing it to modernize, progress and become more productive, while Canada and Quebec were dealing with gaps in the federal government's shipbuilding policy. For one thing, measures to assist the shipbuilding industry were ill-suited. As well, the Quebec government had a refundable tax credit which for some years was considered by Ottawa to be taxable income under the Income Tax Act. That allowed it to claw back 20% to 25% of the assistance that Quebec paid to the shipbuilding industry. Not only did the federal government cut assistance to the industry but it raked in 20% to 25% of the funding and refundable tax credits that Quebec gave the industry.

So, with or without an agreement, if we want to preserve the shipbuilding industry, it is imperative that the government invest heavily in it.

The government appeared before the committee today to testify. It said that the help it is giving to the industry is sufficient, be it structured facility financing or accelerated capital cost allowance. That is far from sufficient.

My NDP colleague stated earlier that his party recently received the support of the union at the Davie shipyard in Lauzon. The union is supporting the NDP attempt to have the shipbuilding industry excluded from this free trade agreement. However, this agreement has been under negotiation for 10 years with countries in the European Free Trade Association. Since the shipbuilding industry is the problem, if it is excluded from this agreement, another agreement will have to be negotiated.

The Bloc Québécois is here to work in the interests of Quebec. Those interests are well served by this agreement in various ways, even in terms of the shipbuilding industry. As we can see, the agreement covers a period of over 18 years. The federal government will definitely change during that time, and a new government would see the need to invest heavily in the shipbuilding industry. If it were to receive nothing from the government one way or another, free trade agreement or not, the shipbuilding industry would probably not survive. We must give it a fighting chance of surviving through direct assistance, which could take many forms.

We often hear about loans and loan guarantees these days. This is important. The government can also provide assistance for lease agreements for boats, which would have the same effect as accelerated capital cost allowance and have an impact on the working capital of the various businesses. We could also talk about funding for the purchase of boats. A responsible government could bring all of these elements together in such a way as to establish a real policy for the shipbuilding industry. The term “responsible”, however, applies less and less to the current government . It is hard to say if it was any more applicable to the previous government. People often learn from their mistakes. Perhaps one day this country will have a truly responsible government to the great benefit of these industries, which make such an important contribution to Canada and Quebec.

In any case, 18 years is a long time. That is enough time for Quebeckers to give themselves their own country, one that will take charge of its shipbuilding industry and its own trade agreements with the rest of the countries on the planet. We would then have the best of all possible worlds.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley because he has reflected the concerns that our caucus has about the real problems in Bill C-2.

I am the member for the riding of Vancouver East, which includes the port of Vancouver. I can remember the days when we had a great shipbuilding industry in the greater Vancouver area along both sides of Burrard Inlet. The demise of that industry and what is going to happen now under this bill deeply concerns us, as well as the Canadians who have been involved in this important industry for generations. I was taking note of the comments of George MacPherson, the president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation. He said that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. He pointed out that with the passage of this trade agreement, Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. He said that the government's plan is an outrage.

Would the member comment, in terms of the impact on workers who have built up this industry and have developed those skills only now to see it be lost?

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about the NDP's amendments to Bill C-2.

The Bloc Québécois' agenda is to defend the interests of Quebeckers. Overall, the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association is a good one, and the Bloc Québécois will support it because it will liberalize trade of non-agricultural goods with that part of the world. Quebec will likely benefit.

For example, Switzerland has a flourishing brand name pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceuticals account for 40% of Canadian exports to Switzerland and 50% of our imports from there. Swiss pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to penetrate the American market may consider making prescription drugs here. It is no secret that Quebec's pool of skilled researchers and favourable tax system make it a premier destination for brand name drug companies.

A free trade agreement that facilitates trade between a company and its subsidiaries could promote new investment in Quebec's pharmaceutical sector. And then there is Norway, where nickel accounts for 80% of our exports. The largest mine in Canada, third largest in the world, is owned by a Swiss company, Xstrata, and is in Quebec's Ungava region.

Aluminum is our top export to Iceland, and aluminum production is concentrated in Quebec.

This agreement does not have the same flaws as some previous agreements. NAFTA, the agreement with Costa Rica and the agreement with Chile all contain a bad chapter on investments that gives corporations the right to take a government to court if it adopts measures that reduce their profits. There are no such provisions in the agreement with the European Free Trade Association.

This agreement covers only goods, not services. Nothing would force us, therefore, to open public services to competition, whether provided by the government or not, because they are not covered. Similarly, financial services and banks will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very strong, secretive banking system, or Liechtenstein, which is a true haven for the financial world when it comes to taxation and anonymity.

The same thing is true for government procurement. The government is perfectly free to prefer Canadian suppliers, except as provided in the WTO agreement on government procurement. It would obviously be pretty ridiculous for the government to give itself a certain amount of latitude and then decide not to use it. We therefore want the federal government, which is the largest purchaser of Canadian goods and services, to prefer Canadian suppliers and show some concern for the spinoff effects of its procurement. And it has the right to do so.

In the area of agriculture, Bill C-2 also allows for implementation of the bilateral agricultural agreements in addition to the free trade agreement with those countries.

Those agreements, which are no threat to supply management, will have no great impact on agriculture in Quebec. Milk proteins are excluded from the agreement. The tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products that are under supply management are still protected. That is what we have been calling for all along, and what the Conservative Party usually refuses to recognize.

In fact, it is mainly the west that will benefit from the agricultural agreements because they provide for freer trade in certain grains, but the impact will not be significant.

As for shipbuilding, we need a real policy to support and develop the shipbuilding industry as soon as possible. Like many people, we have some concerns about the future of our shipyards. At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will start gradually decreasing in three years and will be completely eliminated in 15 years.

However, our shipyards are far less modern and in much worse condition than Norwegian shipyards. Norway has made massive investments in modernizing its shipyards, whereas the federal government has completed abandoned ours.

If our borders were opened wide tomorrow morning, our shipyards would likely disappear. But for economic, strategic and environmental reasons, we cannot let our shipyards disappear.

Imagine the risks to Quebec if no shipyard could repair vessels that ran aground or broke down in the St. Lawrence, the world's foremost waterway.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a real marine policy, and for years the government has been dragging its feet. Now that the agreement has been signed, time is of the essence. A policy to support our shipyards is urgently needed.

Moreover, this is the only recommendation in the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on the free trade agreement between Canada and the EFTA. The committee agreed to insert the recommendation proposed by the Bloc Québécois international trade critic and deputy critic, which reads as follows:

...the Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO.

That is the only recommendation in the report. The Conservative policy of leaving companies to fend for themselves could be disastrous for shipyards. We expect the government to give up its bad policy, and we call on it to table a real policy, by the end of the year, to support and develop the shipbuilding industry. Given the urgency, we will not be content with fine talk. We need a real policy that covers all aspects of the industry.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this free trade agreement is a good agreement. The problem is shipyards. We call on the government to table a real policy by the end of the year to help shipyards become competitive. However, we cannot afford to jeopardize this free trade agreement, which is good for Quebec.

The real issue for the Bloc Québécois, and what it has always called for, is a free trade agreement with the European Union. Bill C-2, a free trade agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, is good, but we have to recognize that it is limited. Together, these countries have a population of only 12 million people and account for roughly 1% of Canadian exports. The real issue is the European Union, with its 495 million inhabitants who generate 31% of global GDP. The European Union is the world's leading economic power.

Canada is far too dependent on the United States, which buys more than 85% of our exports. The American economic slowdown, coupled with the surge in value of Canada's petrodollar against the U.S. dollar, reminds us that this dependence undermines our economy. Quebec has lost more than 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the past five years, including more than 80,000 since the Conservatives came to power, with their laissez-faire doctrine.

To diversify as we must do, the priority should not be given to China or India, countries from which we import, respectively, eight and six times more than we export to them. The European Union is an essential trading partner if we want to diversify our markets and reduce our dependence on the United States. What is more, the fact that Canada has not signed a free trade agreement with the European Union considerably diminishes how competitive our companies are on the European market. With the rise in value of the petrodollar, European companies have tended to skip over Canada and open subsidiaries directly in the United States. Canada's share of direct European investments in North America went from 3% in 1992 to 1% in 2004.

Add to that the fact that the European Union and Mexico have had a free trade agreement since 2000. Consequently, if a Canadian company is doing business in Mexico, it is in that company's best interest to relocate more of its production to Mexico because it can access both the European and U.S. markets, which it cannot do if it keeps its production in Quebec.

Quebec would be the first to benefit from a free trade agreement with Europe. 77% of the people who work for French companies in Canada are from Quebec, as are 37% of those who work for U.K. companies here and 35% of those who work for German companies here. In contrast, just 20% of people working for U.S. companies in Canada are Quebeckers. The Government of Quebec has been working with companies since the Quiet Revolution, and that is a major advantage when it comes time to seek out European investment. We have everything we need to become the bridgehead for European investment in America.

For the Bloc Québécois, this free trade agreement between Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland is a first step. We cannot not sign it. The amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party, the NDP, runs the risk of jeopardizing this agreement. The Bloc Québécois will oppose the NDP motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, having been in the House for a while, the member for Cariboo—Prince George should know that this does not “destroy” Bill C-2. On third reading it is referred back to committee so that the carve-out is enshrined. As he well knows, that is what we are trying to achieve and that is what the shipbuilding industry has told us unanimously.

I have the transcripts right here. Not only do we listen when witnesses testify before the Standing Committee on International Trade, but we also take the transcripts and reread them afterwards. I would suggest that the member might be well served by doing that.

Representing the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, Andrew MacArthur said that it's not only the EFTA that concerns them, and he said that it's very close to a sellout. He supports the carve-out on behalf of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada.

I asked the member earlier why he thinks he knows more about shipbuilding. Apparently we have the answer.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the shipbuilding industry was at committee, I asked them point-blank if shipbuilders in this country can compete with shipbuilders around the world. The response was that yes, they could. They said they have the ability to build ships that are as good as any in the world, and I believe that.

We have done a number of things in Bill C-2. We have provided for the structured financing arrangements and we have put in the 15-year tariff phase-out. Through the budget, we are putting $43 billion into the shipbuilding industry in Canada. It is all good news. Why does the member for Burnaby—New Westminster want to destroy Bill C-2 and see it not go ahead?

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for those two excellent questions. I know that the member certainly does like good news when it comes to the shipbuilding industry. He is looking for a revival of that industry in his riding, and good for him.

I will certainly bring those two points he has made to the minister's attention and work with him and members from all parties who want to see the shipbuilding industry complete this revival and once again make Canada a world force to be reckoned with by competition around the world.

That is exactly what Bill C-2 is trying to do. It is unfortunate that the NDP is opposing it so strongly. The Liberals and the Bloc are supporting it. They know a good-news story when they hear it. Unfortunately, the NDP does not like good-news stories, so we expect them to oppose it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had just spoken about a very important part of Bill C-2, and I think it is worth going over it again. It is that Bill C-2 does not introduce any new obligations on Canada in the area of government procurement, whether for ships or for any other products. Accordingly, federal and provincial governments in Canada will continue to have the right to restrict their bids to Canadian shipyards in the purchase, lease and repair of vessels of all types.

This is good news for the shipbuilding industry in Canada. This is good news for Canada's economy. This goes along very well with the recent announcement by the government that it is putting more than $43 billion into the procurement of maritime vessels over the next 30 years. That is good news for the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and the industry is rejoicing about that huge government infusion of cash.

That is good news for the economy of Canada. That is good news for everyone but the NDP, because the NDP does not like good news. It cannot survive with good news. Whenever there is good news happening, NDP members do whatever they can to try to carve out some little portion of it to make it into bad news, because that makes them happy.

That is why the member for Burnaby—New Westminster does not like Bill C-2 at all. As a matter of fact, he does not like any free trade agreements. If people listened closely when he was talking about the softwood lumber agreement, which he wants to rip up, they would have heard huge applause coming from the American softwood lumber dealers in the southeastern part of the U.S.A. They were cheering him on. They want to rip up that softwood lumber agreement, go back to the courts and stop any sales of Canadian wood to the U.S. That would be the best thing for them. They were cheering the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. They do it regularly whenever he talks about scrapping the softwood lumber agreement.

The government continuously encourages the use of Canadian shipyards for building ships through the structured financing facility. That allows shipowners who buy their ships from Canadian shipyards to reduce their interest cost on their financing. The government has put an additional $50 million into that fund, and that is good news for the shipbuilding industry. It is bad news for the NDP, because that party does not like good news and has trouble with it.

The government also recognizes the importance of Canada's domestic government procurement market for our shipbuilding industry. We are taking steps to address the many challenges faced by Canada's shipbuilding industry by buying down the interest rate of the loans that shipowners are using to purchase ships from Canadian shipyards.

The government has shown its support for our ship industry. In budget 2009 we invested $175 million on a cash basis for the procurement of new Coast Guard vessels and to undertake some life extensions and refits.

I could go on, but I want to remind members that Bill C-2 passed second reading by a vote of 258 to 36. That vote was a clear show of support for this agreement in the House, except from the NDP, which, as I said, does not like good news.

I would like to ask all members of the House to continue to support this government and its efforts as we continue creating a strong competitive economy for Canada today. It will give our children the opportunities they need to succeed in tomorrow's world. Bill C-2 is an example of that.

We appreciate the support of the Liberals and the Bloc in getting this agreement. We have been trying to do it for 10 years and finally we have an opportunity. Notwithstanding the NDP, which does not like agreements such as this one, we are going to get this passed.

The House resumed from March 5 consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Motion in amendment

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure to contribute to this debate on a subject of huge importance to the economy of Canada.

In January 2008 Canada, along with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, collectively known as the European Free Trade Association, or EFTA, signed the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement.

In today's economic times, we have to continue to open doors for our businesses in global markets, in contrast to the NDP's desire to close doors and try to make it as a stand-alone trade zone within Canada. It is simply impossible to do that.

The November 2008 throne speech underscored the importance this government places on trade and investment and reaffirmed our commitment to actively pursue trade negotiations and partners around the world. The Standing Committee on International Trade has reviewed Bill C-2 and has now reported back to the House with just one minor technical amendment.

The opposition, the NDP, proposed to vote 16 amendments to this bill, claiming that Bill C-2 did not effectively recognize Canada's shipbuilding industry, as we just heard from the member from Burnaby. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The government is fully aware of the views of the shipbuilding industry. We negotiated and consulted extensively with stakeholders in the industry to ensure their concerns and interests were fully understood and considered during the negotiations.

Government officials also consulted with the provinces and the territories on the treatment of ships in the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement, and today we are about to sign a free trade agreement that we can be proud of. It is a deal that addresses Canadian shipbuilding concerns in a number of different ways.

For example, it contains a 15-year tariff phase-out on the most sensitive shipbuilding products, and a 10-year phase-out on all other sensitive shipbuilding products, protecting our shipbuilders in Canada. These phase-out periods include a bridge period of three years, during which tariffs will be maintained at the most favoured nation level. These provisions give our shipbuilders considerable time to adjust to a duty-free environment.

This is important. Fifteen years is the longest tariff phase-out period for an industrial tariff in free trade agreement history in this country. These provisions respond directly to the concerns vocalized by the shipbuilding industry and by the NDP.

On rules of origin, the provisions under the EFTA are those sought by the Canadian industry. They are consistent with those in Canada's other free trade agreements. The EFTA also contains specific provisions for the collection of customs duties in accordance with the tariff phase-out program on the value of repairs and alterations to ships that are temporarily exported from Canada to EFTA countries.

We have ensured that this new agreement does not introduce any new obligations for Canada in the area of government procurement, whether for ships or any other products. Accordingly, and this is important, federal and provincial governments will continue to have the right to restrict their bids to Canadian shipyards for the purchase, lease, repair or refit of all types of vehicles.

That is very important. That is something that the NDP does not recognize exists in this contract.

Separately, this Conservative government has announced more than $43 billion--that is billion--for the procurement of maritime vessels in the next 30 years. These are vessels that the government will purchase.

Furthermore, the government continues to encourage the use of Canadian shipyards through the renewed structured financing facility--

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-2. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for those questions. It just seems like every Thursday, the Thursday question becomes the Thursday questions and becomes a longer and longer list.

Yesterday, the House adopted the budget implementation bill, which is now before the Senate. I would take this opportunity to urge all senators to deal with the bill quickly so that the funds that are provided by it will begin to flow and to help our country and Canadian families weather this economic storm as quickly as possible.

Today, we are continuing debate on the opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will begin debate on report stage of Bill C-2, the Canada-European free trade agreement, followed by Bill C-13, the Canada grains, and Bill C-7, marine liability.

Monday, March 9 and Tuesday, March 10 shall be allotted days. As to the last day in this cycle, I am pleased to announce that it will be sometime during that week after our constituency week when members return to their ridings.

On Wednesday, we will continue with the Canada-European free trade bill. It will either be at report stage or third reading, depending on the progress that we make tomorrow.

When the debate on Bill C-2 is complete, we will call for second reading debate on Bill C-14, the organized crime bill, and Bill C-15, the drug offensive bill.

As my hon. colleague knows, the official opposition House leader, there have been discussions with all parties and, at this point in time, despite the acceptance and, indeed, the willingness of the government to move forward with these two crime bills as expeditiously as possible, unfortunately that is not the case with all parties and therefore we will not be able to proceed as quickly as possible.

However, on behalf of all Canadians who are worried about their safety and who want to move forward with this type of legislation, I do thank the hon. member and his party, the Liberal Party, for their support to try to move these bills very quickly through the process.

Following the justice bills, we will continue with the uncompleted business schedule for tomorrow, plus the new bill that was tabled this morning, Bill C-17, An Act to recognize Beechwood Cemetery as the national cemetery of Canada. I understand there may be interest in expediting this bill. I would hope, unlike the justice bills, that perhaps we can get agreement from all four parties to move very quickly with this bill at all stages and move it through.

As to private member's Bill C-285, I am always interested in discussing ways in which we can move quickly with legislation. This government certainly is interested in getting action on behalf of Canadians as fast as possible on all legislation that will positively impact on their lives. I am always open to those types of discussions.

International Trade

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I appreciate the interest of many people. Obviously, over time, we have had many people who wished to appear before the committee. In fact, many people, including some of those you suggest would like to appear again on Tuesday, have appeared before the committee on the EFTA free trade agreement.

This bill is an implementation bill, and it may be that such testimony will be redundant in this case. In any event, we did receive from all parties their lists of potential witnesses. We went to great lengths to contact those witnesses. The clerk's office did extend invitations to several, including to some of those you said wished to appear on Tuesday. They weren't available to appear at the time the committee was dealing with this matter and hearing witnesses. So we proceeded in the manner that we have done, and today was a day for witnesses.

It was the will of the committee to hear from the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Agriculture, so this day was dedicated to them. Unfortunately, we've not been able to hear from the Department of Agriculture because of procedural matters that delayed us.

We do have a motion to deal with and to complete the clause-by-clause Bill C-2 consideration by the end of business on Tuesday.

I guess the only thing I would suggest, if you want some latitude, Mr. Julian, is that our purpose here is to get on with the business of the committee. We have, I think, in fairness, heard from these witnesses. We've heard from them before. We can certainly hear from them again. I think we have heard their testimony, as I say. We do want to get on with the bill. The business of the committee is to pass the bill. The will of the committee is to do this on Tuesday.

I'm sorry that we didn't have them here today, but I think the motion has been carried. If you could guarantee me that we could complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in less than the full two hours, then that time could be used, I'm sure, to accommodate witnesses. But I would have to have an assurance that we could complete the bill by the end of Tuesday.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, thank you for holding that vote. We have witnesses who were both on the Liberal list and the NDP list who have said they're available and are coming to Ottawa on Tuesday morning. Might I suggest, given the motion the parliamentary secretary put through, that we hear from them on Tuesday morning, that we take the time to have those discussions, and then in keeping with the motion we move to clause-by-clause. That would allow those individuals to speak to the motion.

I should say that if we go to clause-by-clause and the carve-out is achieved on Bill C-2, that would mean the Conservatives could not filibuster this bill. In a sense they are handcuffing themselves, but I'm comfortable with that. I believe we should be respecting people who have already indicated they want to come before this committee and people whom both the Liberals and the NDP have submitted to come before this committee for Bill C-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Again the chair is sustained. For a matter of record, we are sustaining the vote of the committee. Democracy reigns.

We are going to do a complete clause-by-clause of Bill C-2 at Tuesday's meeting, and we have the delegation on Thursday. So Tuesday at the next meeting we will go clause-by-clause and complete Bill C-2 at committee.

Mr. Cannis wanted to raise a point for clarification. Out of respect for Monsieur Cardin's point earlier, I apologize for any concern you had, Monsieur Cardin. I think you made your point very clearly with regard to rushing motions. I don't want to go too quickly. We are trying to stay within the time allotted to the committee. We have had discussions regarding unintended time restrictions on debate of motions. We will do our utmost to ensure that doesn't occur again. It certainly was not the intent to limit anyone's ability to speak at the committee. I want it to be absolutely clear that I didn't see your name on the list. In fact, your name wasn't on the list, but it wasn't my intention to limit debate in any way. With the consent and the will of the committee, we will do our utmost to make sure that debate on motions is allowed in future.

Mr. Cannis, did you have something you wanted to add?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Welcome to the fifth meeting of this session of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

We're continuing our discussion of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation.

Appearing today is the Honourable Tony Clement , the Minister of Industry. With Minister Clement we have the deputy minister, Richard Dicerni. Thank you for coming. We also have the assistant deputy minister, industry sector, David Maloney. And we have the director general, aerospace, defence and marine branch, Chummer Farina.

I appreciate your coming again today. We have a particular section of this bill that is relevant, and a request was made for you to discuss it.

In practice, we have one hour. We'll go to a vote at...I think it will now be 10 o'clock, because we're a little slow starting.

If you could, Mr. Minister, I'd like you to give us a brief opening statement. Generally I think the questions are prepared. We've studied this for about eight months now, so I think most of us are very familiar with the situation. I'll let you open, and then we'll go to questioning.

We'll begin the questioning with seven-minute rounds, and we'll try to keep our questions and answers in each case to seven minutes in the first round.

With that, Mr. Minister, thank you again for coming. I'll let you begin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have a motion from Mr. Keddy that the Standing Committee on International Trade complete its study of Bill C-2 on Thursday, February 26, 2009, and complete clause-by-clause on March 3, 2009. Do I have a seconder?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Merci.

My question again is about the shipbuilding industry. In the briefings that I'm receiving from the shipbuilding industry I'm being told that despite the fact that there is a 15-year phase-out of the tariffs and despite the fact that there is access to either the accelerated capital cost allowance or the structured financial facility program, this will not create a level playing field for the shipbuilding industry and ultimately it will wither.

I'd like to receive for the record, Monsieur Laurin, your opinion on whether you feel that Bill C-2 as currently written offers a level playing field for the shipbuilding industry in Canada—and of course if the Canadian Council of Chief Executives cares to comment as well, although I suspect I already know your answer on that one.

[Greg Yost]

As I said, some witnesses argued that the Criminal Code should immediately allow for this, if that is what the province wanted.

Furthermore, in keeping with what the provinces wanted, Bill C-2 aimed to bring in a certain degree of harmonization. In the past, the order had to come from the judge. Today, if the judge does not expressly prohibit this, the provinces are entirely free to decide if the person can enrol.

We are working with the provinces to come up with a formula that works.

[David Plunkett]

I appreciate the opportunity to appear once again before this committee to talk about the Canada-EFTA agreement, this time in the context of Bill C-2. As you know, the Canada-EFTA agreement was the first treaty tabled in Parliament under the new treaties in Parliament policy back in February of 2008.

This committee studied the agreement and your careful review culminated in a positive conclusion. Today, I will briefly highlight some of the benefits of the Canada-EFTA FTA, as well as discuss generally the implementing legislation, Bill C-2. My colleagues and I will then be available to answer your questions.

The Canada-EFTA agreement is a big achievement for Canada. It's our first free trade agreement signed with European countries. It will provide Canadian businesses access to some of the wealthiest and most sophisticated economies in the world, as well as a platform to tap into European value chains.

The EFTA states are already significant economic partners with Canada and include some of the wealthiest and most sophisticated markets in the world, ranking among countries with the highest GDP per capita in the world. Taken as one, the EFTA countries are the world’s seventeenth-largest merchandise trader and Canada’s fifth-largest merchandise export destination in 2007.

Canada and the EFTA countries saw $12.9 billion in two-way merchandise trade in 2007, with Canadian exports at $5.2 billion and imports at $7.7 billion. Canada exported agrifood products worth more than $89 million to EFTA countries, while importing approximately $130 million in agricultural products. In addition, two-way direct investment was some $28.4 billion in 2007.

Norway saw the largest increase in Canadian exports in dollar terms in 2007. Also in 2007, the value of Canadian merchandise exports to Switzerland grew by 33%, driven mainly by gold exports. In fact, in 2007 Canada exported more to the EFTA countries than to the South America 10—that being Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela—combined.

The implementation of the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement will build significantly on these already impressive numbers. While the Canada-EFTA FTA is a goods-only agreement, it is worth recalling that both Switzerland and Norway are significant investors in Canada. On a single country basis, Switzerland was the fifth largest foreign direct investor in Canada in 2007, while Norway was the eleventh largest foreign direct investor that year.

In terms of the benefits of this agreement, Canadian exporters and producers are expected to benefit considerably through the reduction or elimination of tariffs under the Canada-EFTA agreement. Specific benefits include the immediate elimination of duties on all industrial goods, the only exception being those for Canadian ship tariffs. These include numerous small tariffs, which impose not only an administrative burden on Canadian exporters, but also what our private sector has called an unnecessary tax on the intra-firm trade; the elimination or reduction of tariffs on certain agricultural products; prohibitions on the use of agricultural export subsidies by the EFTA countries for products exported to Canada and covered by the free trade agreement; a level playing field with the European Union exporters in EFTA markets with respect to tariffs on a significant number of processed agrifood products. Immediate benefits will include an estimated $5 million in duty savings on Canadian agricultural exports annually.

The EFTA countries are also closely integrated with EU markets through their membership in the European Economic Area, and the Canada-EFTA FTA will help Canadian companies to expand commercial ties, both with the EFTA countries themselves, and with the European Union more broadly.

In addition to that, there are other benefits.

The parties commit in the preamble to sustainable development and respect for labour rights; Canada's cultural exemption is maintained under this Agreement;

Canadian supply management programs for dairy, egg, and poultry products are fully protected under this FTA. Over-quota tariffs for these products are not covered and are therefore not subject to any reductions, nor are they subject to the dispute settlement provisions of the Canada-EFTA FTA.

As members of this committee will recall, the issue of ships has been a key issue in this process. I can assure you that government officials consulted extensively with Canadian marine industry stakeholders during the negotiations and explored with industry representatives how shipbuilding sensitivities could best be addressed in the FTA. Reflective of the input received from industry stakeholders, which was often contradictory, the Canada-EFTA FTA includes the following ship-specific provisions. First, there will be a 15-year phase-out for Canada's most sensitive shipbuilding products, the longest industrial phase-out Canada has ever obtained in an FTA. Second, there will be a 10-year phase-out for all other sensitive shipbuilding products. Third, there will be an initial bridging period of three years as part of both these phase-out periods during which tariffs will be maintained at the MFN level.

Finally, repairs and alterations on Canadian ships undertaken in EFTA countries will be subject to tariffs upon re-entry into Canada, in accordance with the tariff phase-out schedule.

The agreement also includes rules of origin for ships that were renegotiated in Canada's favour at the request of industry stakeholders. And there is no obligation--I repeat, no obligation--to modify the government's buy-Canada procurement policy for ships.

Briefly, implementation of the Canada-EFTA FTA is to be achieved in Bill C-2 through a number of general provisions and through amendments to three pieces of legislation: the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff.

These legislative amendments provide for the agreed-upon Canadian tariff reductions and related mechanisms such as customs verification and emergency action measures. These include various administrative provisions in clauses 9 to 15 pertaining to the implementation of the Canada-EFTA FTA and the bilateral agreements generally, including provisions that support the operation of a joint committee and the arbitral tribunals. Clauses 16 to 37 will amend the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Customs Act, and the customs tariff in accordance with Canada's new rights and obligations under the Canada-EFTA FTA.

There was originally an expectation, with our EFTA partners, that the Agreement would come into effect on January 1, 2009. While our colleagues at the EFTA Secretariat have told us that they have taken the necessary steps to implement the Agreements, circumstances did not allow Canada to meet this deadline.

Mr. Chairman, I and my colleagues--assuming they arrive in due course--will be pleased to answer any detailed questions on the EFTA. I will introduce them as they arrive.

Thank you.

Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-2.

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud tonight to rise and speak to Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation.

I do not know if I have ever told the House about my late uncle, John Lindsay MacNeil. He quit high school, which was common in those days, and he was a jackleg miner in the McIntyre Mine. I know members are thinking to themselves that MacNeil must be a Cape Breton name, and it certainly is. The MacNeils left the beautiful region of Iona to come to northern Ontario because working in the dangerous gold mines in northern Ontario was safer than working in the collieries in New Waterford and Glace Bay. John Lindsay worked underground on the drills and decided that he should get himself an education. It was not easy then. Actually it was a Russian immigrant who taught my uncle Latin on the night shift. This is a true story. I can see that I have the House's complete attention on this.

He learned Latin on the night shift and went back to university at St. FX, where all the Cape Bretoners go. He became a trade negotiator for Canada and he was in the first trade negotiations for Iceland. Iceland might seem like a small country to many, but we are a trading nation and we send out our trade negotiators to come back with great agreements.

As a very interesting aside, when he was in Iceland meeting with the Icelandic trade commission, he had another Cape Bretoner with him. After three days they had a few shots of Icelandic vodka and the Icelandic trade commissioner looked at my uncle said, “MacNeil, you are not one of those pithy little Celts. Look at your stature. You are one of us. You are a Viking. You are Neilson, not McNeil”. Not only was he able to deal with trade negotiations at the international level, but he also learned a lot about the heritage of the people from Iceland.

I say that because when a trade agreement comes back from our trade commissioners, who bring it to the House, it is the role of the opposition to ensure that the trade agreement is in the best interest of the country. That is our job. If we fail to do that job, we have no business being here.

There are many elements about international trade deals that are important. I know many people, for example, are looking forward to Norwegian cheese coming in. My kids have always wanted to have access to the famous Norwegian blue parrots, which have a beautiful, remarkable plumage. They stun easily though and one has to watch them, especially when they are pining for the fjords, but in a trade agreement that might be something that we might be able to assess.

We have to then ask ourselves, if we are making the trade agreement, what are we giving up? That is the rub of international trade. It is not to close our borders or to be protectionist. It is to ensure that we are on a level playing field. When we go up against a country such as Norway, which has a coherent national strategy in terms of shipbuilding, and we look at Canada that has been completely derelict in terms of a national strategy in key sectors such as forestry, auto and shipbuilding, we are not on a level playing field.

We are signing an agreement with the country of Norway and we have to ask ourselves what is on the table. We are looking at billions of dollars in lost opportunities in Canada, and I simply do not think there is any way we can sell that to the Canadian public and say that it is in their best interests.

Time after time, Canadians have been hosed at various levels of trade agreements. The most notorious of course was the softwood sellout, engineered as a photo op by the Conservatives. From northwestern Ontario to Abitibi region, we can count on one hand the number of saw mills that are still running. When we talk to anybody in those communities who are trying to get value added agreements off the ground, to get small manufacturers going, they do not have quota. They are not allowed to compete anymore, because under the Conservatives' idea of trade, we give up our ability to compete on a fair and open field against the Americans. We have seen that even if they actually produce value added products, they end up paying more in the softwood tariffs. The Conservatives' idea of trade was to have a disincentive against our own producers, who could compete against anybody on the global scale.

Another example of course is the notorious chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA, which have left Canadians on the hook. In Mexico we have seen the same problems.

If one has not dealt with the provisions of chapter 11, then one might not believe how bad some of these trade provisions are. I could give the example of the Adams Mine garbage plan. This was a municipal contract in the province of Ontario to haul waste from a city. It was a notorious crackpot scheme that was eventually shut down. It took the Ontario government to step forward and expropriate the site. A number of years after this was shut down there was suddenly a chapter 11 challenge, which I have here, by a guy from the U.S. calling himself Vito Gallo. He claimed that he was the sole owner of this property through his 1532382 Ontario Inc. company.

This Vito Gallo asked the Conservative government, which is notorious for not standing up for trade interests, for $350 million. We go into chapter 11 without knowing what kind of testimony Vito Gallo is going to bring to defend his claim. The interesting thing to note is that he tried to sue the Ontario government, but his claim was thrown out of court. He could not win in court so it was brought to chapter 11. There is another interesting thing about this Vito Gallo. If we try to find out who owns the Adams Mine, we find that 1532382 Ontario Inc. is registered in North York. It is an Ontario-based company.

In 2004, 1532382 Ontario Inc. gave $4,000 to a leadership bid in the Ontario provincial Conservative Party. Who was the person given this money by this supposed Vito Gallo, this American investor who was robbed of his international rights? It was our own august finance minister.

This case involved a numbered company, registered in North York, Ontario, that gave money to the man who is now the finance minister of Canada, and yet he went to chapter 11 claiming $350 million from the taxpayers of Canada without having to do proper disclosure and without having to prove anything. We have to ask ourselves how could this numbered company that is registered in North York actually be able to sue Canadian taxpayers for a municipal waste contract in the province of Ontario.

A lawsuit was filed by Canadian Waste Services, the Canadian arm of Waste Management Canada, on February 28, 2003. Canadian Waste Services filed a lawsuit against Notre Development, the Cortellucci Group of Companies, which also has given a fair amount of money to the Conservative Party, and 1532382 Ontario Inc. for $4.6 million over the ownership of the Adams Mine. The lawsuit referred to the 2002 sale to 1532382 Ontario Inc. as the Cordellucci agreement, not Vito Gallo. Nobody ever mentioned Vito Gallo but they mentioned Mario Cordellucci, who was very well known to the old Mike Harris wrecking crew and a number of our frontbench people.

We see in this bizarre world of NAFTA that this Vito Gallo, who appeared out of nowhere, can take his case behind the curtain without any public prying eyes or the normal obligations of fair disclosure and public disclosure of evidence. As a citizen of the U.S., he can claim to hit the taxpayers of Canada up for $350 million because we signed on to this in a trade provision. The only thing defending our interests is the Conservative government with the present finance minister. I am not saying there is any connection, but he also received money in the past from the same company.

We have to look to the Conservative Party of Canada to defend our interests in this matter. Oh my God, the Canadian taxpayer will have to wonder what is going to happen to that $350 million. Is the government writing the cheque right now?

This all comes back to Bill C-2. Before we sign a trade agreement, we need to actually squeeze the Charmin and make sure that the kind of things the Conservatives are bringing forward are actually coherent and in the national interest. We need to push them back to the drawing table where they can write a coherent bill of which we can all be proud.

I would be more than willing to entertain questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to the issue before the House for a number of reasons. We are debating Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation. This bill has been reintroduced. It was formerly known as Bill C-55, enabling legislation of the Canada-EFTA agreement signed in January 2008 by the present government during the 39th Parliament.

One of the reasons I am pleased to speak to this issue is that the bill was initially introduced by my predecessor in the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, the former minister of international trade.

I would like to take a rather different approach to a proper trade policy for Canada, vis-à-vis the policy that was being pursued in the previous Parliament.

I would like to begin my remarks by talking about the opportunity this legislation gives us to analyze what would be an appropriate trade policy for Canada in 2009 and as we go forward.

In my view and the view of our party, the principles that ought to be attached to an intelligent policy on trade at the present moment and in the years ahead are based on the following:

We must base our policy on the concept of fair trade, not free trade. We must base our policy on the notion of having balanced and reciprocal agreements, that is, agreements that actually respect the principles enshrined in the agreements and which guarantee that both countries have equal and untrammelled access to each other's markets. I will speak about this a bit later and we will see that a number of our recent agreements have failed in this regard.

Our trade policy ought to be based upon a foundation of a strong Canadian industrial strategy; that is, we profit best on the world stage and in our trade relationships when we have strong industrial sectors in Canada and approach trade from a position of strength for our Canadian businesses and workers.

We also need to build our policy on a position of a sound agricultural sector and well-functioning professional and service sectors. In other words, we need to build our trade policy on a strong foundation of a well-functioning and healthy domestic economy.

Unfortunately, this trade agreement does not meet the test of the principles I have just outlined. It falls short in several key areas.

As has been pointed out by several of the eloquent speakers who have preceded me, the essential problem with this piece of legislation is that it would phase out tariffs. This would put at risk a couple of very key and pivotal sectors of the Canadian economy, including the shipbuilding and agricultural sectors.

To elaborate more upon the concept of free trade, and fair trade as a distinction, I want to explain what I mean when I say fair trade. What we in the New Democratic Party mean by that is that we must ensure that we enter into agreements with other nations that respect the principle of fair wages for their workers and respect the principle of avoiding unfair subsidies to their industries. I will speak about this particular aspect with respect to shipbuilding and what Norway has done in contrast to what the Canadian government has done over the last decade.

Any agreement must be based on the concept of true reciprocal access to each other's markets and enforce standards in environmental protection, safety and employment standards.

If we enter into trade agreements with countries that do not have respect for each and every one of these principles, then we put at risk Canadian domestic sectors and we do a disservice not only to Canadian businesses but also to the workers they employ.

Agriculture and shipbuilding are two pivotal key sectors that are put at risk by the provisions in the agreement. Both sectors are particularly important to British Columbia, the province from which I come.

Agriculture is a very important industry in the province of British Columbia. I see a number of MPs who joined me last night at an event put on by the dairy producers. Dairy production is a very important part of British Columbia's agricultural sector. British Columbia has the third largest production of dairy products in Canada. It employs thousands of families. It is a clean and renewable sector. It is an important part of our domestic food supply. We need to ensure that this sector remains healthy in Canada so that we have a stable food supply for our country not only today but in the years ahead.

Shipbuilding is an industry which my colleagues have spoken about. It has a long proud tradition in this country from the east coast to the west coast. On the west coast the shipbuilding industry has been under a severe strain for the last several decades. This bill, unfortunately, would do nothing to help in that regard.

Essentially, this legislation would reduce tariffs on ships from 25% to 0% over a period of 10 or 15 years, depending on the types of products. One category of ships would go down to 0% right away. This provision refers to very large ships in the category of post-Panamax, which are ships that are not able to go through the Panama Canal.

If this bill were to pass, the Canadian shipbuilding industry, which we want to encourage to build ships, would have to compete with shipbuilding industries in other countries that have been supported by their governments in a manner that the Canadian government has not done domestically. This would put our domestic shipbuilders at great risk. Specifically, our analysis has shown that Norway has had a great head start in terms of support for its domestic shipbuilding industry and with that head start, Norway is able to produce ships which, unfortunately, Canadian shipbuilders would have a difficult time competing against.

Andrew McArthur of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada has made a compelling case on behalf of Canadian shipbuilders to have this industry explicitly excluded from this bill, as it is from NAFTA, I would point out. He notes that Norway's world-class shipbuilding industry is not subsidized today, but it does owe its present competitiveness to generous government support in years past.

This is not just a position that is taken by our party. It is a position that has been validated by industrial sectors and business people in civil society in Canada.

It is precisely the type of policy that has allowed Norway to become the world-class player that it is today. This is precisely what the federal government, once again, has failed to do by not supporting Canada's shipbuilding industry.

In terms of British Columbia, recently the current federal government and the present Liberal government in British Columbia declined to stand up for our shipbuilding industry. The example is British Columbia ferries. Hundreds of jobs were lost by the shortsighted government investment in a German shipbuilding industry rather than supporting British Columbia jobs for building ferries in B.C. coastal waters. Our party has asked that the import duties on three super C-class B.C. ferries built in Germany be entirely sent to support the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia. This very reasonable request has been refused by the current government. It would go a long way to providing some much needed money to kick-start the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia.

Shipbuilding and agriculture, besides being two key industries, are industries that not only provide good jobs but they are the jobs of the future and are sustainable.

In terms of shipbuilding, not only does it provide good, well-paying jobs upon which families can be raised, it also has multiplier effects and spin off jobs in a lot of areas in our economy, which I would think all members of the House would be interested in supporting, including research and technology, development, skilled trades, professional designing, engineering and other types of jobs that are not only the jobs of the future, but are jobs that our children will want to be trained for and occupy in the years ahead.

It is very important, when we talk about developing a trade policy that works in the years ahead, that we pay homage not only to the concept of having access to markets, but also one that promotes a strong national economy at the same time. I think I mentioned earlier that I would speak of an example where a previously poorly negotiated trade agreement resulted in us not getting the access that was promised. This example is illustrated by the softwood lumber agreement, where not only do our producers end up having to forfeit billions of dollars in duties to the United States, but at the end of the day we do not have the untrammelled access to the market we were promised by the agreement.

In my home province of British Columbia forestry is an incredibly important sector that at present is suffering in a terrible way. An almost record number of mills have shut down. I have been told by both trade unions and representatives of the business sector that they cannot remember the forestry sector being in such poor shape in living memory. Those who have studied the issue compare it to the worst state since the Depression. Tens of thousands of workers and their families have been laid off. We simply have a problem that is harming the economy of British Columbia and Canada, and part of its roots can be traced to poor trade agreements.

It is so critical, when we do negotiate trade agreements like the present one, that we ensure we get them right. In this case, we have to ensure that the interests of our domestic industries, like shipbuilding, agriculture and any other industrial sectors, affected by this are taken into account and taken care of so we do not subject them to further erosion, job loss and difficulties in terms of bringing their product to market, which is what this bill would do.

There are some good things in the bill. Entering into trade agreements with progressive countries that have respect for their workers and the environment, like the types of countries covered by this agreement do, is a good step. However, the legislation can be improved. In that respect, I would ask that the government listen to the remarks made by my colleagues and all members of the House, who seem to consistently point out the same problems, and ensure we develop and enforce policies that will ensure we have a strong shipbuilding industry, on both the west and east coasts, and a strong agricultural sector across the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and wherever we have vibrant food production in this country.

We need to ensure we have a vibrant forestry sector and industrial and professional classes in our country, which will ensure we create the jobs that are not only so needed today in this time of economic crisis, but which will also form the basis for a strong economy in the days, weeks, months and years ahead.

There is some money in the budget for shipbuilding, and it is pleasing to see that. While that is a good start, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, it is far too little. There is a bit of money for some Coast Guard vessels. There is a bit of money to replace some aging infrastructure, including some wharves. However, in terms of a true Canadian policy that will kick-start and sustain our shipbuilding industry, the budget simply does not do that.

I would encourage the government and all members of the House to pay attention to this, because we all have an interest in developing a vibrant Canadian economy in this regard.

George MacPherson, the president of the Shipyard General Workers Federation of British Columbia has stated the following:

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about one-third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 15 years is estimated to be worth $9 billion in Canadian jobs. Under the FTAs with Norway, Iceland, and now planned with Korea and then Japan, these Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. In these terms, this government's plan is sheer folly and an outrage.

That is from someone who is involved intimately with the shipbuilding industry in our country. The House would do well to follow and listen to his warnings in this regard.

Again, Mr. Andrew McArthur from the Shipbuilding Association for the management side takes a similar view. He says, “We have to do something to ensure shipbuilding continues”.

The easiest thing is to carve it out from EFTA, the present legislation before the House, and if members do one thing, it is this. They should convince their colleagues in government to extend the ship financing facility, make it available to Canadian owners in combination with the accelerated capital cost allowance and we will have as vibrant an industry as exists.

When we have the unique situation of both the industry businesses as well as representatives of the workers joining and meeting minds on this issue, it would well behoove the members of the House to pay attention.

It would be my great hope that the members of the House would join together and urge the government to amend the legislation, which, once again, does go some distance in arriving at an agreement that may derive benefits for our country and improve the legislation.

In the case of the government, the previous minister has stated that the shipbuilding industry is of strategic importance to the sovereignty of this nation. Our defence minister , in a press release last summer stated that the “government recognizes the challenges being faced by the shipbuilding industry and is taking real action to help both in the short and longer term”. He said that as a marine nation, Canada needed a viable shipbuilding industry to support our sovereignty.

Those are good words and I hope the government backs up those good words with policies and actions that are consistent with that rhetoric.

It is vital in this legislation that we heed not only the comments made by members of the House, both within and outside the House, but that we pay heed to the comments of the industry and to the interests of the workers and that we continue to work toward a policy that will create the kind of economy that will serve us in the future.

My colleague from Halifax had an all party press conference in Halifax at a shipyard. Once again, this underlines the fact that all parties of the House ought to be interested, as is my party, in developing and reinvigorating a shipbuilding industry that can derive and produce benefits for this country.

Reference has been made to the Jones act in the United States. which has been in place since the 1920s and which the United States has studiously refused and resisted abolishing, including during the NAFTA negotiations. That act requires the United States to have American built, American registered, American staffed vessels operating on intracoastal waters in the United States. That is sound policy for the United States and it is a policy that we should be pursuing in Canada as well. Once again, it is a principle that, unfortunately, the legislation before the House does not respect.

I hope members of the House would join me in standing up for a strong, vibrant Canadian shipbuilding industry, a strong and vibrant agricultural industry and fair trade policies upon which we can continue Canada's proud tradition as a trading nation.

Those are my comments. I would be delighted to entertain any questions that any members of the House may have.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise again to speak on this very important issue, namely Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association, in particular Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

It is important to recognize that our trade relations are very key to how we develop our sector economies, how they affect Canadian employment, and how they affect even issues of national defence and strategies related to growth industries in terms of technology and so forth.

We believe in fair trade, and one of the principal components of fair trade is to ensure that when a country that we are trading with has had a strategic advantage or has a system in place that is providing a benefit, we actually deal with that and have a plan in place for our workers and our people in Canada.

In particular, there is a problem with this trade agreement, as it currently stands, which we find very difficult. There are some issues with regard to agriculture, but in particular the hardest one is the issue of shipbuilding.

Norway has had several years, in fact over a decade, to develop and implement a strategy regarding its shipbuilding industry. What will happen in this agreement is that over a series of years we will see the phase-out of a 25% tariff that partially helped protect the shipbuilding industry, which is still struggling over here in some respects. We would like to see this as an opportunity, in terms of what is happening right now with the laws of trade that are out there, to actually rebuild our shipping industry.

It is something that should be noted. It is done in other countries. It would not create an offensive front. It would not be seen as protectionism because quite frankly, the United States, for example, under the Jones act has a protection of its procurements. As well, under its defence policies, it actually has local and domestic procurement that it controls.

We do not begrudge the United States for that. We can certainly understand the fact that it would want to maintain some of its base industrial elements that protect its national interests and national defence. It is something that is important for the United States in terms of its sovereignty and how Americans view themselves in the world, but also in terms of the workers who have good skill sets.

Value added work is very important with regard to the notation of shipbuilding. It is not a case of simply sending natural resources out of the country. It is something that actually has value added components. It is also something that is actually changing right now, with new technology, so we get those advancements in technological development clustered around the shipbuilding industry. That also includes the elements that it connects to passive shipbuilding industry as well.

I am familiar with this as well in terms of the auto sector. It has that strategy and it is a strategy at which we have not stood up and raised our fists in anger. At the same time, on the Canadian side, we have done the very least of things to protect our industries and provide the same things.

It is interesting to note because this is a big difference, especially right now with the heightened discussion of what is happening in the United States with its buy American clause, with what Canada can do and cannot do, and what the United States can and cannot do. We do not even do the base minimum that the United States would respect.

One of the most egregious situations that has now come to the public discussion forum is the fact that the government has chosen to procure $250 million worth of trucks from Texas. That is unacceptable because our trade agreement right now allows us to have defence procurement and to purchase from our own country.

Ironically, we have a facility in Chatham, Ontario, that was actually going to close a few years ago and there was government support. The then Liberals said that they could not do it, that it was against NAFTA and against everything else, and there was no way they could save this plant. We hit the streets and we worked really hard. We saved the plant and it has actually been very successful until recently. It was well worth the investment it got from the government which it paid back to the coffers, not just from the company but also more particularly from workers who have paid taxes and have been able to raise their families with some dignity and integrity and also chase the Canadian dream of having a prosperous life in this country.

Sadly, what has happened now though is that the plant is in jeopardy. Ironically, the government has decided to abandon it. There is a $250 million of work going to Texas when retooling is estimated to cost $800,000 at the Navistar truck plant in Chatham.

Let us weigh this out. For $800,000 of retooling, done by Canadian workers and a with lot of Canadian content, it would facilitate the improvements that are necessary on the truck that would make it meet the obligations of the Canadian military. It would also allow for new innovation in the plant, which is a very good plant that has been known for its quality. Prior to much of its production being sent down to Mexico from Navistar, we used to get some of the Mexican produced vehicles into Canada to fix them. The men and women are very good, adept at their skills and solid workers. We know that the quality would be of the highest calibre and I am sure that the workers in Chatham would take a lot of pride in building vehicles for our military. They would get behind this 100% and produce the best vehicles possible.

Instead of putting that $800,000 into the retooling that would have had workers paying taxes again and going forward into the future, they have decided to ship it all down to Texas. When one compares the $800,000 with the $250 million of the defence procurement contract one has to wonder where the strategy is in this government. Why does it not believe that Canadian workers are just as capable of building vehicles for our soldiers and our military infrastructure?

It would also guarantee, and this is a key element in the trade agreement that worries me, a key element of our industrial complex that is still necessary for the world that we live in. We need to have a manufacturing capacity that is going to protect our national interests. The trucks would be used for a whole series of operations. We know that if we have control over that, we could actually continue to produce those vehicles for future contracts. If other countries have an interest in the vehicle, they could come to us. Perhaps we could have a continued expansion of the facility or a continuation of the work, which would go on for nearly a couple of years.

It is really disappointing when we pull away from that opportunity, especially at a time when down in my region unemployment in the Windsor-Essex County area is at 10%. Chatham is up there as well. That those individuals would not be the men and women who would be assembling the vehicles for our country is very frustrating. We lack the visionary elements from this government to see that forward. It comes forward with plans in this budget to help Canadians put sod on their lawns, but it will not help Canadians maintain the industrial complexes that are necessary for our national security and that will benefit the overall economy. On top of that, it is going to be the cutting edge of the new development of the actual manufactured vehicles. They will be the newest and latest in the field.

This is a problem with regard to our concerns on the shipbuilding aspect. There is going to be a loss of opportunity there. It is not just us who are calling for this. I want to read a quote that shows that the New Democrats are not alone on this. A number of different shipping associations have commented on this and made objections. The president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of British Columbia George MacPherson states:

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about one-third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 15 years is estimated to be worth $9 billion in Canadian jobs. Under the FTAs with Norway, Iceland, and now planned with Korea and then Japan, these Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. In these terms, this government's plan is sheer folly and an outrage.

He gets it right because he understands that it is not just about the current capacity we have and need to protect right now. It is about making sure that we are going to continue to be able to reap the rewards of the investment that we have done before.

When I was part of the industry committee, we had over 20 recommendations regarding the manufacturing sector. One of the things that has been moderately positive with regards to the budget is that we came forward with a policy on the issue of a capital cost reduction allowance for machinery and tools. It was supposed to be a five-year policy. First, the government had a position of doing it for a two year period. Now, it is proposing to do it for a three year period, so it has the accumulation of the five years. Unfortunately, not having it done properly through a one five year period undermines the planning necessary for the capital cost reductions on some of the more expensive and thought-out equipment changes that will be necessary in the future.

It is a modest step forward, and it is something that we certainly support. At the same time, it also provides some of the elements that are necessary for the actual procurement of additional capacity that could be important for our shipbuilding industry. We should not simply be relying on the hope of having our yards filled right now. We would like to see expansion.

In this economic downturn it is easy to use elements like this as a way to have procurement, especially when we look at some of the defence contracting that needs to be done. The budget notes that there is going to be $175 million allocated for a number of different craft. Small craft are going to be built and we hope that they will be done in our own shipyards. The proper policy is needed to do that. That is what worries me. It is why the example of Navistar with regard to the trucks being built in Texas instead of Chatham, Ontario is disturbing. That $175 million contract could be awarded in several different ways for procurement in South Korea, Norway or the United States, all of those things. As we go through trade agreements like this we have to be very careful of the details.

One element I would like to touch on is that the past Liberal government thought it had it right when it brought in the free trade agreement and other trade agreements after signing the auto pact. The auto pact made us one of the strongest auto manufacturers in the world, but when we brought in the other trade agreements the auto pact was killed, despite the government of the day arguing that we would stand up and would be able to have it. Since that time our auto industry has crumbled around us as others have decided to move forward.

I hope that is a lesson we keep in mind. We should vote this down and vote for Canadian action instead.

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill before the House, Bill C-2, on the European Free Trade Association trade agreement. It is important to understand what we are talking about. There are only a few countries involved: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. There is also an agreement on agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland and various agreements related to the Norway and the Swiss federation on agriculture as well. They are part of the bill.

This party believes in trade. We believe in fair trade. I know a lot of members across the way would like to guffaw about that. They seem to think that free trade is a thing we do by taking off our warm coats and exposing ourselves to the cold for reasons of fashion. It is fashionable to talk about free trade and trading with other countries.

Our party believes in fair trade. We have a lot of examples of that. The Auto Pact is one of them, where there is a fair trade agreement between Canada and the United States dealing with trade and very important commodities at serious risk today. However, the government has a very one-sided view on trade, and that is knock down the barriers and we will have free trade. However, when it chooses to do it, it seems to choose to do it with people who have already put their own industry in a position where they are anxious to enter into a free trade agreement with Canada because Canada is not willing to protect its own industries.

We have heard various speeches this afternoon. I was particularly impressed by the speech by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who has been on the shipbuilding file ever since he entered the House of Commons. I have worked with him over the years on this file, as well as with other members of the shipbuilding industry, in particular, the Marine Workers Union. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was very interested in this, as well. Newfoundland and Labrador has a great interest in shipbuilding. The Marystown shipyard, with the Cowhead facility, has been active in building up its capacity and ability to actively participate in shipbuilding ventures. We have been following this file tremendously.

In fact, if the government of the day and the previous governments listened to the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for the last I think 11 years, we would have a shipbuilding industry that would be able to compete on a level playing field with Norway and we would not be probably in this position opposing this aspect of the bill. We would have had what Norway has had for the last 10 or 15 years. It used to be called an industrial policy on shipbuilding.

I know industrial policy is a very unfashionable word among the think tanks of the right, industrial policy as opposed to this whole notion of “let the free enterprise system do everything”. It is some ideological mantra that has got us where we are today in the world with the collapse of the international financial markets and the stock market as a result of this blind ideology of deregulation, free trade and lack of concern over the ways in which governments can and should regulate industry, protect their national interests and ensure that the kinds of things that should be happening are happening.

We are a coastal nation, as has been mentioned before today. We have the longest coastline in the world, the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic, areas where we have a national interest, whether it be on the east coast with respect to protection of our fisheries and coastal protection in general, environmental protection in the Arctic, which is very important, and in the Pacific as well. Yet we have a situation where we do not really have a shipbuilding industry policy.

I listened to the minister of state, the chief government whip. I am glad to hear that all these shipbuilding projects are, I think he said, on the books.

The books were presented to the House of Commons the other day. I did not see all these projects. I did not see the joint supply ships back on the books. I did not see the Arctic icebreakers that we need and which the government said it has to have in order to ensure our Arctic sovereignty. I did not see them on the books in the budget.

Here is a budget that is supposed to provide economic stimulus to the industrial workers of Canada. If the contract for the joint supply ships alone had gone to the Marystown facility, it would have provided about 20 years of long-term stable work, the construction phase for about eight or ten years and a longer term maintenance project for the joint supply ships, which is something that Canada needs. We all know we need it. The government knows we need it, but what did it do? A couple of days before the election was called it shut down that project. It shut down that bid.

Why did the Conservatives do that? They said the price was too high. The price was too high because the project was initially costed back in 2002. The government never made any allowances for the increase in costs of procurement and materials, labour and everything else in between. Of course, when the price eventually came in, it was over what was anticipated in terms of the budget.

There is something wrong with a government that is not prepared to recognize that if we do not move fast on projects, the costs will obviously go up and we still have to decide whether or not we need these facilities and ships.

I listened carefully to the budget and I did not hear very much about shipbuilding, but I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised when I looked in the budget documents, the big thick book that we got with the budget. Lo and behold on page 172 of the budget there is actually a section called “Shipbuilding”.

I was very enthused because I thought that the joint supply ships would be put back, the Arctic icebreakers would be built and we would see a serious attempt by the government to recognize the needs of the shipbuilding industry in Canada. What did I find? There is a recognition of the importance of the industry with 150 establishments, 30 shipyards across the country, recognizing, contrary to what the minister of state has said, that everybody is thriving. The budget itself recognizes that in recent years the industry has experienced decline in demand which has been exacerbated by the economic downturn. The Minister of Finance must need to hear from the government whip, who would inform him that everybody is thriving and everybody is busy. However, that is not the case.

The government's response is to have a shipbuilding program, so called, that involves $175 million to build something in excess of 90, what it calls, vessels. Someone talked about conveyances or vehicles a few minutes ago, but the government calls them vessels. What are these vessels? Sixty new small craft and 30 environmental response barges. The last time I looked, a barge was not exactly a ship. It goes in the water and it floats, but I do not see it as the kind of thing we would regard as a major undertaking in the shipbuilding industry. Obviously it is very necessary, do not get me wrong, and I was delighted to see the term “shipbuilding” being used.

I was delighted to see the recognition of the importance of shipbuilding, but I was very disappointed to see that what was involved here was new small craft. It does not say how small they are. Thirty barges, five lifeboats and there were three inshore science vessels. Those are important. One is home ported in Mont-Joli, Quebec, one in Shippagan, New Brunswick and one in Saint Andrews, New Brunswick, so there are two in New Brunswick and one in Quebec. Again, we do not know how big they are. We do not know whether they play the same kind of role as the very important scientific vessels that have been operating off the east coast for the last number of years.

We see vessel extensions as part of the project. The Cape Roger, whose home port is St. John's, is one that will be given a major repair.

There is something called vessel refits. There are 35 vessels scheduled for refit. These vessels are not large craft. There are 60 small craft, 30 barges, 5 lifeboats, and 3 inshore vessels. There are 98 vessels being built along with a number of major refits totalling $175 million. As the minister of state would know, when dealing with the building of ships, that is not a lot of money, $175 million for 98 vessels, not counting the ship repairs and the major refits that are involved. That money is spread out very thinly across the country.

What we did needed to see was a recognition that a national shipbuilding program was going to be part of an ongoing effort by the government to ensure that we have a shipbuilding industry that is able to compete. It is one thing to talk about how this is going to take place over 15 years and is gradually going to go down, but what are we going to be doing in the meantime?

If the Liberal government back in the 1990s, and the Conservative government, both the current one and previous one, had listened to what the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore was saying throughout the years, we would have a shipbuilding policy and we would not be complaining about the problems of engaging in competition with Norway. This really should be taken out of the trade agreement, the same way it was taken out of the free trade agreement with the Americans.

Countries protect their interests when they are dealing with trade deals. That is why, for example, the Americans refused to repeal the Jones act. The Jones act has been around since 1920. It is a piece of legislation that protects American shipbuilding under the guise of defence. The Jones act says that with respect to commercial travel, one cannot travel between two ports in the United States without having a ship that has been built in America, is manned by Americans, is owned by Americans and operates within America. It cannot be done, unless it is on that kind of ship. Canada has no such policy. America refuses to get rid of that policy. We do not have an equivalent policy in Canada.

It appears that we have no desire to develop a shipbuilding policy that is going to protect our workers and our industry before we are forced to run head to head with the Norwegians. The shipbuilding industry has asked to have this excluded from the agreement with good reason. The industry knows what Norway has done to build and support and protect its shipbuilding industry for the last 15 years. If there was a commitment, if we had an industrial plan laid out, a long-term commitment of government funds, it might be a different story, but we have not seen that.

There is an opportunity at this time when governments are being given permission by all the economists, the public and other nations of the world to engage in economic stimulus. The conditions are most favourable for the kind of investment we are talking about, and the response from the government is $175 million to deal with 98 smallish--and I do not want to put them down totally--but smallish projects for the Canadian coast guard.

No doubt these vessels are needed. No doubt their refits are needed. We have seen inadequacies in our coast guard. In fact we have seen situations where the coast guard was so inadequately financed that the ships were staying in port. The ships were not going out because there was not enough in the budget to pay the diesel fuel to move the ships around, to protect our coastal waters, to protect our environment, to inspect the fisheries. They were staying in port because the government was not giving them enough fuel. That is the state of the support for our coast guard.

We see some change. At least the coast guard will be given some vessels that it needs, but it is not being given the support for the important role it should be undertaking in protecting our waters for environmental reasons, in protecting our Arctic sovereignty, in ensuring that fisheries patrols are carried out efficiently and effectively. These are the kinds of things that should be part of a modern, industrial, coastal nation such as Canada and they are absent here.

There is another aspect of this agreement which I will only touch on briefly because other members have talked about it. It goes back to the whole notion of fair trade. Why is it that Canada does not protect to the degree required the supply management system? It is an important way that we secure our food supply. Food security in an uncertain world is becoming more and more important. It is going to become even more important as we see the ravages of climate change on food production in other parts of the world, as well as in Canada.

We have to recognize that part of our responsibilities as a government and as a people is to ensure that food supply is available when we need it, that production is here, and that the people who are engaged in the production have an opportunity to make a reasonable living. They play an important role in ensuring that our economy is safe from the kind of vicissitudes that can occur when trading goes awry or when food supplies go awry and we do not have the kind of supply that we have built up through a totally free trade system coming from other nations.

Supply management is part of that. It is a building block for a fair trade system and should be protected better than it is in this particular agreement.

Supply management plays an important role in ensuring that production occurs across our country. Some of our colleagues from Quebec have spoken about the importance of the dairy industry to that province and I agree. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, by securing part of the quota for industrial milk, it has been able to build its post-production with commercial milk, yogourt and other dairy products. These are value-added products from industrial milk quotas protected by the supply management system, a necessary kick-start to an industry that would have great difficulty growing on its own, especially with the cheap products coming in from outside the region, because they have had an opportunity to build up an industry over a longer period of time.

These are the two main problems that we have with the agreement. Why is it that there cannot be a carve out of the shipbuilding industry? It should be taken out. In the absence of a rather robust and long-term commitment for shipbuilding and industrial policies in this country, our shipbuilding industry will be put at risk. This is something that we do not want to happen.

Those are my remarks. I would be pleased to respond to any questions or comments from members on this matter.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Liberals as to why they are not intervening. I understand that the NDP wants to boast that it is the new official opposition—and I am only saying that is their boast—but the third party here remains the Bloc Québécois. One thing is sure, Bill C-2 now before us will be sent to committee. This will mean another opportunity to reiterate the problems contained in it, in particular as concerns shipyards.

If this is a matter of national security, it must of course be debated. One thing is sure, it is an economic issue of prime importance. This is why the Bloc Québécois ensured that the committee report included its recommendation that the government stop dragging its heels on the matter and finally adopt a real policy on shipyard development. Count on us to continue to defend that tooth and nail.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I thank the minister for telling me where the minister is. I know we are not permitted to say he is not in the House. One thing for sure: he went to Davos and said he wanted to meet with the director general of the WTO himself to revive the Doha round. Reviving it for certain trade agreements is one thing, but putting that instrument back on the table, when it has been discussed and it would jeopardize the supply management system, is cause for concern. The Bloc Québécois will be even more vigilant in this regard.

With regard to the present agreement, we will look closely at what happens. Elimination of the 7% tariff, as provided in this agreement, makes it even more necessary that the government take a firm position at the WTO. Supply management is simply not negotiable. We have to say that and keep saying it. We believe that weakening supply management would justify renegotiating the agricultural agreement with Switzerland.

It should be noted that the part dealing with modified milk proteins, which were debated in the House of Commons not long ago, has also been properly examined. Switzerland is a major producer of modified milk proteins. At present, Swiss products are processed to the point that the tribunals have held that they are not agricultural products. They are therefore not covered by the agricultural accords referred to in Bill C-2. In any event, a schedule to the agreement excludes them completely. So milk proteins are excluded from the accord and tariff rate quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products under supply management are still protected. That is what we currently see in practice and it is what we see in the bill. As I said, we will nonetheless be vigilant when it comes to agriculture, because that is our duty.

There is an interesting aspect to this agreement: it does not make the same mistakes that other Canadian agreements did. For example, NAFTA and the agreements with Costa Rica and Chile—two bilateral agreements—all have a bad chapter on investments, chapter 11, which gives corporations the right to bring proceedings directly against a government if it adopts measures that reduce their profits. The agreement before us, which we have been discussing for several hours, contains no such provisions.

I would like to point out that I worked with a member who was responsible for international trade. I was the deputy globalization critic. Some examples of chapter 11 action were absolutely ridiculous, and they must not be repeated. For example, in Mexico, an American company decided to take a municipality to court because it had adopted a bylaw prohibiting the development of a disposal site. Under chapter 11 of NAFTA, the company argued before the NAFTA tribunal that it would lose profits if not allowed to set up its disposal site at that location.

The municipality was taken to court under chapter 11 of NAFTA. I doubt that that is what the negotiators had in mind during NAFTA talks, but the pernicious effect of that part of chapter 11 led to that kind of completely unacceptable situation.

Fortunately, there is no chapter 11 in Bill C-2. The agreement with the European Free Trade Association covers only goods, not services. Therefore, we will not be forced to open public services to competition, whether provided by the government or not, because they are not included. Also, financial and banking services will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very well-known banking system, or Liechtenstein, which is a true haven for the financial world when it comes to taxation and anonymity. None of that is included in this bill.

As my colleague from Sherbrooke just explained during questions and comments, the same is true of government procurement. The government is perfectly free to prefer Canadian suppliers, except as provided in the WTO agreement on government procurement. It would obviously be pretty ridiculous for the government to give itself a certain amount of latitude and then decide not to use it. We therefore want the federal government, which is the largest purchaser of Canadian goods and services, to prefer Canadian suppliers and show some concern for the spinoff effects of its procurement.

There was some discussion of this today in question period. We have to comply with the rules of the World Trade Organization, but there is absolutely nothing to prevent us from favouring local suppliers. The Americans are a problem for us now with their steel, but that is because they are not complying with some of the WTO rules. In other cases, though, when we have an opportunity to prefer our own employers and companies, we should do it and we should not hesitate.

One of the government’s first announcements after the election was the purchase of 1,300 trucks for the Canadian Forces, and the contract was quickly awarded to an American company. In my view, the Quebec company Paccar du Canada Ltée could very easily have filled this kind of order. Under the national security rules, the government could have ensured that such a contract was awarded within Canada. That would not break the WTO rules. We have to be very vigilant about other countries adopting extremely protectionist measures, but at the same time we are perfectly entitled to take steps to favour local suppliers, especially in these times of economic crisis. I cannot see why we would fail to take advantage of this right, especially when we are not contravening the WTO rules.

I spoke a little earlier about our shipyards. We are very concerned about some aspects of them, but we can still agree on a government policy if only the Conservatives would open their eyes and make an effort to ensure that the shipbuilding industry is not penalized too heavily by this bill. We are still concerned, however, about the future of our shipyards.

At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. This is a form of protection, of course. However, under the agreement, these tariffs will gradually decrease over three years and will be completely eliminated in 15 years. Nevertheless, the government still has the flexibility to avoid the rocks and reefs that this kind of agreement could present and keep our shipbuilding industry afloat.

Our shipyards are far less modern and in much worse condition than Norwegian shipyards, for example. Norway has made massive investments in modernizing its shipyards, whereas the federal government has completely abandoned ours. If our borders were opened wide tomorrow morning, our shipyards could be wiped off the map. Yet for economic, strategic and environmental reasons, we cannot let our shipyards disappear.

Imagine the risks to Quebec, for instance, if no shipyard could repair vessels that ran aground or broke down in the St. Lawrence, which, I would remind the House, is the world's foremost waterway.

For years the Bloc has been calling for a real marine policy, and for years the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has been dragging its feet. Now that the agreement has been signed, time is of the essence. We cannot waste any more time, since, as we have already heard, in three years the tariffs will begin diminishing and in 15 years the existing tariffs will be completely eliminated. The Bloc Québécois made a specific recommendation in committee on the matter. The recommendation reads:

The Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO.

That was the only recommendation made in the report on that bill, which at the time was numbered C-55, and is now known as Bill C-2.

The Conservative policy of leaving companies to fend for themselves could be disastrous for shipyards, and we expect the government to give up its bad policy. We call on it to table a real policy, by the end of the year, to support and develop the shipbuilding industry. Given the urgency, we will not be content with fine talk, something the government specializes in. We need a real policy that covers all aspects of the industry.

Those are our concerns. There will always be some. As I said, the pros and the cons of any agreement must be weighed. Of course, the four countries we are talking about are not the biggest European economies. However, what is interesting about this free trade agreement is that it could be a foot in the door for an agreement with the European Union. That is the real issue. The Quebec government is currently lobbying and having discussions about a free-trade agreement with the European Union. A free trade agreement with Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein is all well and good, but we have to be aware that it is very limited. Together, these four countries represent 12 million people and about 1% of Canada's exports. So, we are not doing the majority of our business with these countries. The real issue is the European Union, with its 495 million inhabitants—that is a much different story—who generate 31% of the world's GDP. The European Union is the strongest economic power in the world.

Since we are very dependent on the United States in matters of trade, this openness to Europe might be a very important alternative for the economy of Quebec and Canada. Canada is altogether too dependent on the United States. We send over 85% of our exports there. The slowdown in the American economy together with the explosive rise of Canadian petrodollars in contrast to the greenback, brings home the fact that our dependency weakens our economy. Quebec has lost over 150,000 manufacturing jobs in five years, including over 80,000 since the arrival of the Conservatives and their laissez-faire doctrine. It is wake-up time. An agreement with the European Union could reduce this trade dependency on the United States.

This vital diversification should not be undertaken first with China or India—countries from which we import eight times and six times respectively what we export to them. The first priority should be the European Union. This is the only way we will be able to diversify our markets and lessen our dependence on the United States. In addition, the fact that Canada has no free trade agreement with the European Union significantly reduces our business competitiveness in the European market.

In conclusion, this is a most important undertaking. The bill has shortcomings, specifically with regard to shipyards, but this can be resolved. There is no reason to ignore all the benefits that might accrue from an agreement with these four European countries, especially since, as I was saying, it could potentially lead to a free trade agreement with the European Union.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This agreement includes Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

This free trade agreement will liberalize trade of non-agricultural goods. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have already had the opportunity to discuss this bill today. They have said, and I agree, that we support the bill. Quebec is likely to benefit greatly from this free trade agreement. This trade agreement could benefit certain Quebec industries. I am thinking of the pharmaceutical industry in particular. In weighing the pros and the cons, it is clear that we have to support this kind of bill. Yes, this could be a cause for some concern in the shipbuilding industry. I will discuss that later in my remarks. My colleagues have also mentioned it. We know that the NDP member who just commented on the bill expressed some serious concerns about the shipbuilding industry. However, the government should take certain measures to eliminate any cause for concern.

I think that one of the bright spots is, as I said, the pharmaceutical industry. It would be in Switzerland's interest to produce prescription drugs here so that it can penetrate the American market. We also know that Switzerland's pharmaceutical industry is very advanced, and so is Quebec's. The industry is more dynamic and better developed in Quebec than anywhere else. For example, for Swiss pharmaceutical companies wishing to gain access to the U.S. market, setting up shop in Quebec will be an economically attractive proposition. The pharmaceutical industry is more advanced in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé also mentioned nickel. We already export nickel to Norway, and Canada's largest mine—the third largest in the world, if I am not mistaken—is in Ungava, Quebec. This free trade agreement could make that market very relevant, very interesting and very profitable for Quebec.

The same is true of aluminum. Again, Quebec is a world leader. Naturally, Iceland comes to mind as a signatory state which also imports considerable amounts of aluminum. It would definitely be in the interest of Quebec smelters that such an agreement be entered into.

I would like to touch briefly on agriculture. While Bill C-2 does not deal with agriculture, there are bilateral agreements concerning the agricultural community attached to it, which will therefore be implemented. In reality, these bilateral agreements will have little effect on agriculture in Quebec. It was nonetheless important to make sure that the agreement would not create distortions in Quebec's agricultural economy.

That having been said, we will keep a close eye on the agricultural agreement with Switzerland. Indeed, a bilateral agreement with Switzerland which would be implemented through this bill provides for the elimination of the 7% tariff on dairy products imported from Switzerland.

This makes it all the more important to protect the supply management system at the WTO. A quota increase in a context where the in-quota tariff was abolished would expose our dairy producers to increased competition from producers in countries which, unlike Canada, subsidize their industry, their milk production. The Bloc Québécois motion asking that the government oppose any outside quota tariff cut or tariff quota increase was passed unanimously, as we know, by the House of Commons.

There is cause for concern at present because, even though the Doha round was interrupted, we know that the states involved have yet to come to an agreement.

What we saw last July was cause for concern, to say the least. The document presented to the country in fact talked about lowering tariffs and increasing the number of products entering Canada. That threatened producers who are under supply management in Quebec and Canada: milk, poultry and dairy producers. That is why we passed the unanimous motion in the House of Commons in 2005: to preserve the supply management system in its entirety.

Last July, we saw in that document that a shift was starting to happen. As well, the Conservative ministers, one by one, gave us to believe that Canada was going to sign an agreement with the WTO in any event—we know that. The former ministers of agriculture and international trade both stated that Canada would not be the only country out of 148 not to sign an agreement. This was a serious concern for people under supply management in Quebec and Canada.

The present Minister of International Trade is in Davos at the moment, if I am not mistaken, or he has been to Davos.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-2, which should lead to the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association. The Standing Committee on International Trade has already studied it and I am glad to be able to add my thoughts to the current debate.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it is generally in favour of this agreement. We think that it is a good agreement, especially for the Quebec economy. There are attractive opportunities for us in the countries that are signing it. Whether in pharmaceuticals, nickel mining or aluminum exports, Quebec is very well positioned and will surely benefit from its advantages. This does not mean, though, that the agreement is perfect. We have serious concerns, especially in regard to the inclusion of shipbuilding. The Bloc expressed these concerns in the supplementary opinion it attached to the committee report, and I would like to take this opportunity to draw this issue again to the attention of the members.

The future of our shipyards is very important to Quebec and especially eastern Quebec. This region lies along the shores of the St. Lawrence River, the largest navigable waterway in the world, and shipbuilding is an important part of its economy. This free trade agreement will therefore have a direct impact on the people of my region in a few years. That impact will be positive or negative depending on the choice that the government makes today.

Shipbuilding has suffered for many years from a flagrant lack of government support. Our shipyards have fallen well behind the Norwegian ones, and Norway is one of the signatories of this agreement. While Norway has been investing massively for years in modernizing its shipyards, it is sad to say that the federal government has long been ignoring our shipbuilders. There is no real marine sector policy in Canada today, and the results over the next few years could be very bad.

Under the existing agreement, the most sensitive shipbuilding products will enjoy a gradual reduction in tariffs for a period of up to 15 years in some cases. After that adjustment period, no tariff protection will be allowed, and vessels from Norway, for example, will enter the Canadian and Quebec market to compete on par with our ships. This would not be a problem, except that we lag far behind in this area. If our borders were to open wide tomorrow morning to the competition, our shipyards would disappear. And that would be very unfortunate, since our shipyards are essential for economic, strategic and environmental reasons. Now the question remains: how will our marine industry look 15 years from now?

If the past is any indication, we have every reason to be extremely pessimistic about the survival of this industry, given the increased foreign competition. Clearly, if the federal government continues to ignore the needs of our shipyards and refuses to take action to support them, we will definitely see them gradually deteriorate over the next 15 years. That is why the Bloc Québécois presented an important recommendation to the Standing Committee on International Trade in advance of this agreement taking effect. The recommendation reads, “The Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO”.

That was the only recommendation made in the report. The Conservatives never see any problems with their policies and the Liberals, as usual, failed to propose any recommendations. The NDP, in its predictable opposition to free trade, opposed the agreement altogether.

The Bloc Québécois recommendation, which finally received the committee's support and was included in its report, meets the expectations of many shipbuilders in Canada and Quebec. Even though they have no hope of seeing their sector excluded from the agreement, they do expect the government to act quickly and forcefully. We read in the report that, according to representatives of shipbuilders and marine workers:

...without combined access to the SFF and ACCA, the impact of the agreement would be devastating to the industry and would lead to job losses. In their view, this additional government support was critical if the Canadian industry was to survive increased competition from Norwegian producers.

Some will say that Norway has announced that it has stopped subsidizing its shipbuilders and that that will enable Canada to compete on a level playing field with that country. But what are we doing to make up for all the years when there were no subsidies here, while Norway was achieving the high level of competitiveness it enjoys today, thanks to generous government support? Quite simply, there needs to be a dramatic shift in the federal approach to the marine industry, which means abandoning the laissez-faire policy the Liberals and Conservatives have followed to date.

I am happy that we are holding this debate on the trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association, because it reveals how fragile our marine industry is in the face of foreign competition and forces us to take a stand on these issues quickly. It is not the agreement that is bad, but our policy. That is why a change of direction is imperative. In 5 or 10 years, it will be too late. We must act now. With a few targeted measures, our shipyards can become modern, productive, financially healthy and extremely competitive. The biggest problem to date has been the lack of political will to change things, and it is high time that changed too.

Of all the aspects of this free trade agreement, this one concerned me the most. The other aspects of the agreement, including agriculture, seem to be well handled and in line with Quebec's interests. I would just like to add, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out, that this free trade agreement may open the door to a future agreement with the European Union. We must seize the opportunity when it arises and, more importantly, be ready to compete.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for his question. I would also like to point out to him that, of course, this bill has been referred to committee. As he knows full well, a Bloc Québécois motion currently before the committee calls upon the government to provide greater support for shipbuilding.

Together with the NDP and Liberal members who voted for the motion, we will press the government to take action to support shipbuilding. However, as the hon. member indicated, other aspects of this agreement promote Quebec's interests and meet its needs.

Reference was made to the pharmaceutical industry, which we think is a very important industry, but we must not forget the nickel industry, nickel representing 80% of our exports. The largest nickel mine in Ungava is owned by a Swiss corporation. Aluminum is the main export product in Iceland as well. Again, production is overwhelmingly concentrated in Quebec. These are all reasons for us to support Bill C-2.

Of course, I agree with the hon. member: when the Bloc Québécois votes in favour of a bill in this House, it is always with the needs and interests of Quebeckers in mind. As long as this bill meets the needs and aspirations of Quebec, we will support it. Should the bill be referred to committee and no longer meet the Bloc's expectations, we will have to reconsider.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to continue my remarks. I will repeat part of my speech on Bill C-2 An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association. Earlier, I examined the advantages and disadvantages of this agreement. There are, of course, more advantages than disadvantages and this is why we are supporting this free trade agreement.

One major disadvantage, however, involves the shipbuilding industry. We in fact tabled a motion with the Standing Committee on International Trade to have government support the shipbuilding industry in the coming years. When this agreement comes into effect, Norway's significant investment in its industry could pose a threat to the economic viability of some Quebec and Canadian businesses.

I continue in this regard. We might well expect that Swiss pharmaceutical companies might consider manufacturing their products in Quebec in an effort to penetrate the American market more easily. This would be an advantage for Quebec and would mean more investment there. This is one reason we support the agreement.

Let us take a look at the case of Norway. Nickel represents over 80% of Canada's exports to Norway. This is another advantage. The largest mine in Canada, which belongs to a Swiss company and is third largest in the world, is located in Quebec, in Ungava. So the agreement could significantly benefit Quebec and its mining industry.

I could list other benefits, but, overall, we support this agreement because it offers sizeable trading possibilities for Quebeckers. It has the added benefit of not incorporating the failings of previous agreements. For example, as we all know, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the agreements with Costa Rica and Chile contain an unfortunate chapter on investment. There is the agreement the Conservatives have just signed with Colombia, a country with a poor human rights, labour and environmental record, which is not the case in this agreement. The chapter in question allows businesses to sue a government adopting measures that limit their profits.

This sort of provision is not contained in the free trade agreement with Europe, which pleases the Bloc Québécois. In short, these four European countries respect human rights and, of course, workers' rights.

I should also say that the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association covers only goods and not services. This provision ensures that services to the public will not be opened to competition, whether they are provided by the government or not, because they are simply not included. The same is true of financial services. Bankers will therefore not be exposed to competition from the famously efficient Swiss banking system.

This is also true of government procurement. The federal government will be able to give preference to Canadian suppliers, except as provided in the WTO agreement on public procurement. This is very important because the federal government is the largest purchaser of goods and services in Canada.

I would also like to mention agriculture and especially supply management. My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska tabled a motion protecting supply management in Quebec and Canada. This is also very important in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. The Bloc Québécois and our colleague, who had this motion passed, will continue to defend supply management and insist on preserving it in its entirety.

We do not think that this agreement poses any threat to the integrity of the supply management system. We are very proud of how we protect supply management, hence the importance of the Bloc Québécois, which made sure that this motion was passed. We believe that our farmers and consumers are best served by this system.

It is hardly surprising that the Bloc Québécois would continue to insist on preserving the supply management system under this agreement. We are satisfied with the bilateral agricultural accords in it because goods produced under supply management are still protected, and that is the important thing.

The agricultural agreement with Switzerland provides for the elimination of the within-quota tariff, but this applies only to the market segment already covered by imports. The elimination of this tariff will therefore have only a marginal impact on our dairy farmers because the tariff quotas and the over-quota tariffs stay the same. We should also not forget that milk proteins are excluded from the agreement. On the other hand—and this is very important—the elimination of the 7% tariff under this agreement makes it even more imperative for the federal government to maintain a firm position at the WTO, that is to say, supply management is simply non-negotiable and the Bloc Québécois will continue to insist that the supply management system be defended in its entirety at the WTO. I hope that the Conservatives and their Liberal friends—who sometimes surprise us, as with the passage of this budget—have fully understood this message.

However, we are worried about the future of our shipyards. I spoke about this a little bit before question period, but I want to come back to this very important point within this agreement. At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will gradually decrease and will be completely phased out in 15 years. Obviously the planned adjustment period will not be useful unless it is coupled with a vigorous adjustment and modernization program for shipyards.

Norway has grasped this quite well. In recent years, the Norwegian government has invested heavily in modernizing its shipyards. Because it receives support from its government, the industry in Norway is now productive and highly competitive in foreign markets. In Canada, the federal government, be it Liberal or Conservative, has done nothing to support our shipbuilding industry. It has not supported shipbuilding since 1988. The Liberals and Conservatives have totally neglected, if not abandoned, our shipyards to the point where today they are less modern, less productive and thus less and less competitive in international markets.

With this free trade agreement, the federal government cannot drag its heels any longer. We have 15 years—a decent amount of time—to prepare ourselves before the tariffs on imported vessels are phased out completely, hence the importance of implementing a real maritime policy. This is the only recommendation that was included in the report from the Standing Committee on International Trade and it was part of a Bloc Québécois motion moved at this committee.

This is the motion, and I hope that the government will take action to this effect:

—the Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive Maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO.

The purpose of the motion was to urge the government to take action and introduce a comprehensive support strategy for the shipbuilding industry, a strategy to facilitate the industry's access to capital, stimulate investment, give preference to local suppliers in public procurement and, of course, encourage shipowners to buy their ships here at home.

After so many years of government inaction and apathy with respect to the many challenges facing our shipbuilding industry, the federal government must bring forward, without delay, an effective, comprehensive policy to support and develop the shipbuilding sector in Quebec and Canada.

When it comes to supporting industrial sectors that are experiencing problems, the Conservative government practises a laissez-faire approach. For shipyards, as for the manufacturing sector—a major presence in my riding, Berthier—Maskinongé—in which Quebec has lost thousands of jobs, we believe that this laissez-faire policy is totally irresponsible and must stop.

I have to say that, in light of the Conservatives' most recent budget, which received Liberal support, we will have to devote a lot of energy to making sure that the federal government does not abandon Quebec's shipbuilding industry. In the latest budget, the Conservative leader chose to respond to the demands of Ontario and its automotive industry by offering some $4 billion in assistance, while Quebec's manufacturing sector will be getting just a few million dollars.

These measures, which are unfair to Quebec and were supported by the leader of the Liberal Party, are further proof that we must be vigilant. Let me make it very clear that we still believe this free trade agreement is a good thing, and we support it. But we have to insist that the federal government bring forward an effective plan to help the shipbuilding industry. Promises are not enough when it comes to this.

I would like to close by emphasizing that I think this free trade agreement is a step in the right direction. As I said earlier before question period, I think it is important to diversify our markets and reduce our dependency on U.S. markets. This agreement with the European Free Trade Association is a good one, but it is limited. What we really want is the power to sign a free trade agreement with the European Union that will produce meaningful, productive results in all of our trade with European countries.

Although the four countries that make up this association represent only 1% of Canadian imports, the European Union has 495 million inhabitants who generate nearly 31% of global gross domestic product. The fact that Canada has not yet signed a free trade agreement with the European Union considerably diminishes the competitiveness of our businesses on the European market. It is important to note, for example, that Mexico has had a free trade agreement with the European Union since 2000. Thus, a company that does business in Mexico would definitely have a greater interest in moving part of its production there, since that would open up access to the European market, while maintaining its access to the American market through NAFTA. This situation must be corrected.

We support the agreement we are discussing here today, but negotiations must be ramped up, so that a free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union can finally be reached. Furthermore, a free trade agreement with the European Union would also prove beneficial in terms of investments. Indeed, together with NAFTA, the agreement would make it attractive for European companies to use Quebec and Canada as their gateway to the North American market and consequently to move some of their production here.

As a final point, since nearly 40% of European investments in Canada are in Quebec, it would certainly be a desirable location for European companies that want to invest in North America. We hope this government will quickly reach an agreement with the European Union, because it would be the best way to diversify our economy.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2 An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-2, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association. The association is made up of four countries: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

As some of my colleagues mentioned this morning, this is the second time that Parliament is considering the bill to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association. During the second session of the 39th Parliament, Bill C-55 was passed at second reading, but could not be finalized before the 39th Parliament ended on September 7, 2008.

Bill C-2, which is before us today, and Bill C-55 are identical. I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill because we believe that it will provide good trade opportunities for Quebec. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that this economic initiative, while very positive for Quebec, raises some concerns that I will explore later in my remarks.

As we all know, many Quebec businesses depend on exports to ensure growth. However, 85% of our exports are to the United States. That means that we have to diversify free trade.

International exports represent almost one-third of Quebec's GDP. Every day we are painfully becoming more aware that our economy is far too dependent on that of the United States. When there is a recession or a downturn in consumerism as is now happening with the Americans, coupled with the obvious aggression of emerging countries such as China, India and Brazil, we can see that it is getting more and more difficult to keep our place in the American market and to encourage growth in our manufacturing businesses. The results have been significant for Quebec. We have lost over 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the past five years, more than 80,00 of those since the Conservatives came to power.

The riding that I represent, Berthier—Maskinongé, has been severely affected by the loss of manufacturing jobs, particularly in the furniture and textile industries. If we were less dependent on the American market and our trading relationships were more diversified, I am convinced that our manufacturing sector would not be so hard hit.

And this is what makes the agreement that we are looking at today such an interesting initiative. It also offers new opportunities for Quebec business. For example, like Quebec, Switzerland has a large pharmaceutical industry, vigorous and innovative, especially with respect to brand name drugs. It is not surprising that Quebec is the Canadian leader in the field of brand name drugs because of its pool of skilled researchers and its favourable tax system. We could therefore easily imagine that in order to more easily break into the American market—

I think that I will stop there and continue after question period.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-2, which is the Canada-EFTA trade agreement but could also be entitled the “bamboozled by Liechtenstein act”, because here again we have a Conservative government that, as we saw with the softwood sellout and as we have seen in every single negotiation that it has undertaken, basically sat down at the table and was outplayed, outnegotiated and bamboozled, in this case by the Principality of Liechtenstein and the other members of EFTA.

What EFTA wanted access to our shipbuilding industry. As members know, Iceland and particularly Norway have an extremely strong industrial sector in shipbuilding. The Norwegian government has invested and protected its shipbuilding industry for many years and has built up an extremely strong shipbuilding industry.

They sat down at the table, and the Conservative government, which was outplayed and outnegotiated, basically handed over our shipbuilding industry without attaining much more than the ideological platitudes we heard from the Minister of International Trade just a few short minutes ago. The government simply handed it over in the same way that it did in the softwood sellout, when it handed over a softwood industry without being the tough negotiator that I think the vast majority of Canadians would have wanted it to be.

Essentially what we have seen from the government is a steady drumbeat of wanting to sign trade agreements at whatever cost. In this end of the House the NDP stretches right across the aisle, because after the last election and the increase in NDP MPs we now occupy the whole end of this House. We decided to look at what is actually in the agreement. Before we decided to support it or not, we wanted to see what the actual impact of EFTA would be.

I am going to read into the record what those who best know the shipbuilding industry in Canada have had to say about this agreement. I am going to start with Mr. Andrew McArthur, who, as a member of the board of directors of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on this agreement and on this bill. Here is what he said about the negotiations around this agreement:

From day one, we said the Norwegian industry has been totally supported by its government to build up a tremendous infrastructure. It is a good industry with a lot of government help, and now they're looking to see what else they can do.

So our position from day one has been that shipbuilding should be carved out from the trade agreement.

We know that did not happen.

He continues:

We butted our heads against a brick wall for quite a number of years on that and we were told there is no carve-out.

We were bamboozled by Liechtenstein.

When asked how the Americans can carve out on the Jones act from NAFTA and other free trade agreements, as I believe the Americans are doing today or have done in carving out shipbuilding with Korea, and why Canada can not do the same, he continues:

...we feel we were sold down the river on NAFTA. We cannot build for American shipowners, but American shipbuilders can build for Canadian shipowners and import the ships into Canada duty-free. There has never been such a one-sided agreement, to my knowledge. It's totally ludicrous that they can build for Canadian owners, come in duty-free, and we cannot build for American owners. On the repair side, it is even worse. We used to be able to do some repairs for American Jones Act ships. Today it's very, very difficult. There are a lot of restrictions, and that work has basically disappeared.

Those were comments from Andrew McArthur of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada.

What did the marine workers say about this bill? We had Mr. Karl Risser, representing eastern marine workers, who said the following:

Other governments, Norway for one, have supported their shipbuilding industry for years and have built them into powers, while Canada has not. We have had little protection, and what little protection we have left is a 25% tariff on imported vessels into Canada, which is being washed away by government daily through agreements such as this and the exemptions being negotiated with companies.

I encourage all members of the House to read the testimony before the Standing Committee of International Trade. We cannot just have Conservatives simply approving government actions by rote when it means the elimination of Canadian jobs, many of which are actually in the ridings held by Conservative members. They will not read the agreement. They will not look at the impacts. There has been no economic impact analysis of this agreement. How any Conservative member could sell out their own constituents by voting for this agreement is beyond me.

Karl Risser continues:

With all these statements, you'd think the government's action would be to put into place national strategies to ensure a viable shipbuilding industry, but we have seen no sign of that. What we have seen is the EFTA agreement, which we feel will further devastate the shipbuilding industry.

He continues:

But to get back to this agreement, the Norwegians have built their industry into a very powerful industry.

So this EFTA deal is a bad deal for Canada. I'd love to see someone answer the question, what is Canada going to get out of this agreement? I know we're going to destroy our shipbuilding industry, a multi-billion-dollar industry in Canada. It's on its last legs now and needs a real boost. We have that opportunity in front of us, but whether we take it or not is the question.

I am going to continue on this because I think it is important that these voices, people who understand the shipbuilding industry, who are raising these concerns, are heard in the House of Commons and the members vote accordingly. We have heard the Liberals and Bloc say they are going to vote for this agreement. Beyond my comprehension, the Bloc is voting despite the fact that Davie Shipyard has completely shut down. Over 1,000 workers out of work, and yet we are playing with fire in trying to push through an agreement that witness after witness said very clearly will devastate the industry.

Les Holloway, representing marine workers in eastern Canada and referring to the Standing Committee of International Trade, said, “How in good judgment and conscience can your committee recommend anything other than that this agreement should not go forward?”

The president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of British Columbia, Mr. George MacPherson, said:

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about one-third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 15 years is estimated to be worth $9 billion in Canadian jobs. Under the FTAs with Norway, Iceland, and now planned with Korea and then Japan, these Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. In these terms, this government's plan is sheer folly and an outrage.

How could any B.C. MP, especially after the softwood sell-out, vote to eliminate shipbuilding jobs in British Columbia? How could any Nova Scotian or Atlantic Canadian MP vote to eliminate jobs in Atlantic Canada? How could any Bloc Québécois MP vote to eliminate jobs in Quebec?

In The Chronicle-Herald, Mary Keith, the spokesperson for shipbuilding in New Brunswick, said that under the EFTA agreement: “The government of Canada is continuing its 12-year history of sacrificing Canadian shipbuilding and ship operators in the establishment of free trade agreements with other nations”.

Here we have case after case after case of those who know shipbuilding best saying that this is going to be disastrous. This is not some sort of ideological debate we are having because some of us in this House think that protectionism is bad and free trade is great so let us just sign an agreement and not worry about the consequences for Canadian jobs.

The Conservative government has finally admitted that we are in economic crisis, yet it adds this fuel to the fire and says we are going to slap our own shipbuilding industry. It is a strategic industry that every other government in the world, including Norwegian, Asian and Europeans governments, is actually supporting, yet three of the four parties in this House seemed prepared to sell it out and throw those jobs away.

We have by far the longest coastline in the world and to eliminate the last vestiges of our shipbuilding industry makes absolutely no sense. That is why the NDP caucus is saying no. It simply does not make sense to bring this agreement in when we have not provided the necessary supports to our shipbuilding industry. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore will back me up on this. He will agree that our shipbuilding industry has to be of fundamental importance. We need a strategic plan in place. We should not be signing trade agreements that simply give our shipbuilding industry away. I know my colleague agrees with me and I appreciate that. That is why we are saying it makes no sense to put this forward. But there is more.

We also had testimony from the National Farmers Union before the Standing Committee on International Trade about the possible effect on supply management. Lip service has been paid to supply management. The Conservative government has said it is in favour of fighting hard for supply management. The infamous David Emerson, the former international trade minister, always said the government supports supply management and it will never walk away from the table. The Conservatives have said they support supply management. The National Farmers Union said in testimony that this essentially undermines our supply managed sector. That does not make a whole lot of sense either.

The arguments we have heard in favour seem to be ideological, so let us get back to the basic fundamental tenets of the economic policy, or the lack thereof, of the Conservative government.

Since the Conservatives came to power we have seen them progressively sell off our country in a whole range of areas. First there was the softwood lumber sellout. We had won that case in the U.S. Court of International Trade. David Emerson, with the support of the Conservatives and Liberals, supported the softwood sellout that literally blew up our softwood industry across the country. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost within days of implementation because of the self-imposed punitive tariffs. We gave away $1 billion that the American court said the American government had to pay back.

The Conservative government tried to say it was not a conclusive judgment, but it was. The Conservatives simply were not telling the truth by pretending that the court judgment was meaningless. That court judgment compelled the U.S. government to pay back every single cent it owed Canada and that court judgment also ensured tariff-free access in to the U.S. of our softwood products.

Politically, the Conservatives were in too deep. David Emerson decided to push the agreement through just the same, and the result was catastrophic. Many softwood communities in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern Ontario, and northern Quebec have paid the price for what was sheer folly.

Warnings are now coming from many workers in the shipbuilding industry and many of the companies that are involved in shipbuilding saying, as I quoted George MacPherson, “--this government's plan is sheer folly and an outrage”.

We should have learned from the past mistakes. The softwood sellout was unparalleled folly. It was a sheer outrage and we should have learned from that. We cannot play with the jobs of Canadians simply on the basis of ideological direction. Essentially, the government has a strong ideological bent and come hell or high water, it will put that ideology into place no matter how many jobs are lost.

It is important to note that we are talking about the principles of maintaining Canadian jobs. It is important to look at the economic consequences of what the Conservative government has done, which has enacted exactly what the Liberals put into place over the last 20 years. It is important to ask the question: What has happened to average family incomes in Canada over the last 20 years?

We have had these free trade agreements when we have decided that we are opposed to protecting Canadian jobs, that is unless it involves the job of a corporate CEO or a banker and then of course the protectionist Conservative government is willing to weigh in with lots of money.

It will shovel money off the back of a truck to protect a corporate CEO's job and a corporate CEO's bonus, or a banker. It is willing to be fully protectionist. It is the most protectionist government in Canadian history. It is willing to do that for the big guys. It is willing to do that for extremely wealthy corporate CEOs. It is willing to be fully protectionist, but not willing to be protectionist for Canadian jobs even though every other government around the world puts into place protections around their strategic industries like shipbuilding. Every other government in the world puts into place protections over fundamental jobs. Every other government does that, but the current ideological government only wants to protect corporate CEOs and bankers. So what has the result been over the last 20 years?

For most Canadian families their real income has gone down. Canadians know that their real income has declined and it has been particularly striking for the lowest income categories. The Conservatives seem a little bit perplexed and I think it is important that they had a little dose of realism in the House of Commons, for most Canadian families over the last 20 years, real income has gone down. For those families who are in the bottom 20% in the Canadian population, their real incomes declined by over 10%. That is a lot.

It means on average that families have lost about six weeks of real income. For a month and a half of the year, compared to 20% years ago, they are working for free. They are working longer and longer hours, harder and harder, but under the Conservatives and the Liberals over the past over 20 years, their economic geniuses, has meant that for most of those poor Canadian families they have lost a month and a half of income.

What about the people in the middle class? They have lost about two weeks of income. It is like they are working 52 weeks but only getting paid for 50 weeks. For that middle income category, they lost about a week of real income a year over the past 20 years.

We put in place NAFTA. We put in place these free trade agreements and a whole bunch of economic measures such as a lot of corporate tax cuts and a whole range of economic measures designed to help those corporate CEOs and bankers because Conservatives want to make sure they get as much protection as possible from the federal government.

However, for most of those income categories the real income has gone down, not up. Now the wealthiest 20%, which is what the economic policies of the Conservatives and Liberals are oriented toward, such as EFTA, essentially now take half of all real income in Canada. This has not been seen since the 1930s. We went through the Great Depression. We had that type of income inequality. The foundation of the CCF, the NDP's precursor party, fighting in the House of Commons and fighting across the country, made a real difference. We had a much more balanced economy and much more balanced economic approaches. That worked for us very well until about 20 years ago when the Conservatives and Liberals moved to the right which has essentially meant for most Canadian families that their real income has gone down.

This is important to note because it shows that the strong ideological drive that we see from the right, that we see from Conservatives and Liberal parties, has not worked on the bottom line. It has not worked for communities. It has not worked for family income. It means that most people are worse off now than they were under the so-called protectionist agenda.

That is why other governments around the world are actually acting to protect jobs and their economies. Those examples are what we in the NDP side of the House believe that the government needs to look at, to be forthright and protect Canadians. The EFTA agreement does exactly the opposite. I have cited quotation after quotation of those in the shipbuilding industry who say that this will be a devastating agreement. This will eliminate jobs. How could any member of Parliament, representing their riding, representing their region, representing Canada, vote for an agreement that we know will devastate the shipbuilding industry? That is why we are voting no.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to address the House during this debate on Bill C-2. For those who have not necessarily had the pleasure of learning about this bill in detail, I just want to say that it calls for the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association. The association, EFTA, is made up of four European countries—Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein—with a little over 12 million inhabitants, all told.

I should point out that the European Free Trade Association once included nine countries, but has lost members over the years. To compensate for those losses, the four members of the European Free Trade Association have undertaken to sign a series of free trade agreements, including this one with Canada. Earlier, the minister mentioned that he has been trying to speed up negotiations on all kinds of bilateral free trade agreements. Typically, multilateral agreements of the type with which we are all familiar are preferred. The WTO oversees all trade agreements.

Now, some 200 countries around the world are trying to negotiate bilateral free trade agreements at a more frenzied pace than ever. It also looks like the government is in a hurry to finalize the free trade agreement with Colombia. As we all know, committee debates have focused on human, workers', union and environmental rights. That is why the opposition will not accept this agreement. We also know that the new President of the United States does not support the free trade agreement with Colombia. I am not sure how the minister and the new government want to approach this debate. Many free trade agreements are currently being negotiated, but we still have to be careful about what we agree to in the end.

This is not an agreement that was hastily put together. On the contrary; negotiations began in May 1998, over 10 years ago. We know that in the fall of 2000, governments agreed on a first draft. Because it opened up the ship markets too quickly, it threatened our shipyards. Only the economic sector feels directly threatened by this agreement. As a result of new negotiations, implementation will be staggered over several years, up to 15 depending on the type of vessel. Although it is not thrilled, the association representing shipbuilders is resigned to accepting the agreement but is asking for an aggressive shipyard modernization program before the elimination of tariffs.

I asked the minister that question earlier, but he did not answer. I wanted to know what exactly he intends to do to make up for all the years and money invested in the shipbuilding industry in Norway, which was heavily subsidized in order to develop its competitiveness and expertise. The minister simply stated that he would ensure that it would not reoccur and that there would be no more subsidies. That is not what I wanted to know. I wanted to know what Canada will do to ensure that the shipbuilding industry can also benefit from certain programs that will result, by the time tariffs are removed, in a competitive situation. We were not given an answer.

The free trade agreement between Canada and EFTA is a traditional free trade agreement. Once implemented, it will liberalize trade of all non-agricultural goods.

It concerns only non-agricultural goods, not services, agriculture or investment. Of course, it provides for a dispute resolution mechanism that the parties, and only the parties, can use.

Another provision of this agreement has to do with anticipated economic impacts. In committee, opposition members have often asked the government to conduct an economic impact study in order to make projections and determine what will happen and what the impact will be on various sectors, such as agriculture, manufacturing and other specific areas. It has never carried out a single study, even though it has had 10 years to do so. Even the website for some countries in the European Free Trade Association is not up to date, because information is missing. How could the government have produced an economic impact study on this agreement? It must be condemned. It is always the same thing: the government never provides us with an economic impact study. We had to make do with drawing conclusions from a few general observations.

Needless to say, the goal of the Bloc Québécois is to work for the interests of Quebec, and we are going to keep on doing that as long as we are here. Logically, Quebec stands to benefit the most from this agreement. Canada's main exports to these three countries all come from Quebec. It follows that lifting the trade barrier should also benefit Quebec.

In addition, in high-tech sectors, Quebec's economy is strong in areas where these countries are also active, which should promote investment in Quebec. Take the example of Switzerland, which has a very vigorous pharmaceutical industry producing brand-name drugs. Prescription drugs account for 40% of Canadian exports to Switzerland and 50% of imports. To break into the American market, Swiss pharmaceutical companies might think about manufacturing drugs here, and the mecca of brand-name drugs, with its pool of skilled researchers and advantageous tax rules, is Quebec. A free trade agreement to facilitate trade between a corporation and its subsidiaries would likely bring new investments in the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec.

Nickel accounts for over 80% of our exports to Norway. The biggest mine in Canada and third largest in the world is in Quebec's Ungava region. It is owned by the Swiss company Xstrata. Our leading export to Iceland is aluminum. There again, production is concentrated in Quebec. Basically, subject to the implementation of an aggressive policy to support and modernize shipyards, Quebec should benefit from this agreement.

When we presented our supplementary opinion to the report from the Standing Committee on International Trade, there were two issues that directly affected us: protection of supply management and shipbuilding. Now I would like to talk about protecting supply management.

Obviously, Bill C-2 also touches on agriculture. It allows for the implementation of bilateral agricultural agreements, which would be added to the free trade agreement with the EFTA. These agreements are not far-reaching and will not have a significant impact on Quebec agriculture. Of the three agricultural agreements, the agreement with Switzerland in particular caught our attention because it abolished the 7% tariff on dairy products imported from Switzerland. Currently, 5% of the Canadian dairy product market is open to foreign competition. The 7% tariff was levied only on the imports that were part of this unprotected segment of the market to which our producers do not really have access.

Since the elimination of the within-quota tariff provided for in the agricultural agreement with Switzerland will affect only the market segment that is already covered by imports, the impact on our dairy producers will be negligible. However, this will make it all the more important to vigorously defend supply management at the WTO. A quota increase coupled with the elimination of the within-quota tariff would expose our dairy farmers to increased competition from countries that, unlike Canada, subsidize their dairy production.

The House of Commons unanimously adopted the Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to reject any reduction in the over-quota tariff and any quota increase. Given the elimination of the 7% tariff in the current agreement, it is imperative that the government maintain a firm position at the WTO: supply management is absolutely not negotiable. In fact, in our opinion, a weakening of supply management would justify the renegotiation of the agricultural agreement with Switzerland.

I should also point out that modified milk proteins—which Switzerland produces—are transformed to such an extent that the courts have ruled that they are not agricultural products. That means that they are not covered by agricultural agreements. That being said, one of the appendixes in the bill to implement the agreement has been completely excluded. Milk proteins are excluded from the agreement, and the tariff quotas and over-quota tariffs remain unchanged. In other words, products that are under supply management are still protected. In fact, it is mainly the west that will benefit from the agricultural agreements because they provide for freer trade in certain grains, but the impact will not be significant because these countries are not heavily populated. The message is clear: supply management must be vigorously defended at the WTO.

The second aspect that directly affects us is shipyards. We have some concerns about the future of our shipyards. At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will start gradually decreasing in three years and will be completely eliminated in 15 years. However, our shipyards are far less modern and in much worse condition than Norwegian shipyards. Norway has made massive investments in modernizing its shipyards, whereas the federal government has completed abandoned ours. If our borders were opened wide tomorrow morning, our shipyards would likely disappear. But for economic, strategic and environmental reasons, we cannot let our shipyards disappear.

Imagine the risks to Quebec if no shipyard could repair vessels that ran aground or broke down in the St. Lawrence, the world's foremost waterway. For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a real marine policy, and for years the government has been dragging its feet. Now that the agreement has been signed, time is of the essence. A policy to support our shipyards is urgently needed.

Moreover, this is the only recommendation in the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association. The committee agreed to insert the recommendation proposed by the Bloc Québécois international trade critic—incidentally, that was me, at the time—and of course the deputy critic, who is sitting behind me.

It reads as follows, “The Canadian government must without delay implement an aggressive maritime policy to support the industry, while ensuring that any such strategy is in conformity with Canada's commitments at the WTO”. That is the only recommendation made in the report, and the government must fully implement it.

The Conservative policy of leaving companies to fend for themselves could be disastrous for shipyards. We expect the government to give up its bad policy, and we call on it to table, as quickly as possible, a real policy to support and develop the shipbuilding industry.

When they appeared before the committee, shipyard representatives stated that two measures should be given priority: allowing accumulated depreciation to be transferred to buyers of Canadian ships and putting in place a structured financing mechanism. These simple measures—at the very least—could be adopted immediately. However, there are other measures that should be added.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it is, indeed, a free trade agreement. Bilateral free trade agreements are proliferating. We continue to be convinced that multilateral agreements should be signed as often as possible.

The agreement we are discussing involves four small countries. It is a very positive agreement but we must realize that it is also very limited. Together, these four countries represent approximately 12 million people and about 1% of Canada's exports. The real opportunity lies with the European Union. With a population of 495 million people, generating 31% of global GDP, the European Union is the global economic powerhouse. Canada is far too dependent on the United States, which has accounts for more than 85% of our exports.

The American economic slowdown, coupled with the surge in value of Canada's petrodollar against the U.S. dollar, reminds us that this dependence undermines our economy. Quebec has lost more than 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the past five years, including more than 80,000 since the Conservatives came to power, with their laissez-faire doctrine. To diversify as we must do, we should not look to China or India, countries from which we import, respectively, eight and six times more than we export to them. The European Union is an essential trading partner if we want to diversify our markets and reduce our dependence on the United States.

What is more, the fact that Canada has not signed a free trade agreement with the European Union considerably diminishes how competitive our companies are on the European market. With the recent rise in value of the petrodollar, European companies have tended to skip over Canada and open subsidiaries directly in the United States. Canada's share of direct European investments in North America went from 3% in 1992 to 1% in 2004. Add to that the fact that the European Union and Mexico have had a free trade agreement since 2000. Consequently, if a Canadian company is doing business in Mexico, it is in that company's best interest to relocate more of its production to Mexico because it can access both the European and U.S. markets, which it cannot do if it keeps its production in Quebec. Bombardier is a case in point.

Overall, this free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association is good for Quebec. But as I have said and will keep on saying, it is better to promote multilateral agreements, where the rules apply to everyone. Important considerations such as human rights, union rights and environmental rights are sometimes left out of bilateral agreements. It is not true in this case, but it has happened in other agreements. I am more and more convinced that multilateral agreements should include social and environmental clauses. That is the direction we need to take.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

moved that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is very timely that our colleagues on all sides of the House are giving consideration to this important legislation. With regard to the actual work that has been done, people on all sides need to be congratulated for the extensive amount of work that was done to conclude the negotiations. That has taken place. The process now is it comes to Parliament for ratification.

The timing of this is really fortuitous because we are engaged right now, whether we like it or not, in a synchronized global downturn of economies and the world is gripped by this. We are looking for ways in which trade and commerce can move and sending signals that the opportunities for workers, producers and manufacturers are there. It is an important that we are seen to be pursuing this, and we are.

We understand that if we really want to protect industries within our country, if we really want to protect our workers, then what we do is we open up the doors and the opportunities for them to sell their products and services and manufacture those things which are wanted in other parts of the world.

As Canadians, as a country, we are as prosperous as we are because we are free traders. We believe in the importance and the power of doing that. As a nation, we cannot in and of ourselves consume everything we can produce. We must have ways to sell and to market not only our products but our services if we are to continue to be prosperous.

The backdrop to our discussion today is the fact that there are clouds on the horizon related to the whole issue of protectionism. Some countries possibly are reflecting that the best thing they can do is build protectionist trade walls. We know this would be a negative thing to see happen. We know history is very clear. When we look at the conglomeration of nations and how nations encourage and move along in terms of prosperity, we only have to look back to the horrific economic ramifications of the Great Depression.

In 1930, when that global economic downturn took place, some economic specialists speculated that they were facing probably a one or two year recession at the time. The United States came out famously with the Smoot-Hawley legislation that started to build a protectionist barrier. Other countries responded in kind and pretty soon around the world we had situations where countries could not sell or export the very things that were needed and that would have led to prosperity. In fact, the recession was deepened, leading to the Great Depression.

That is a 60 second summary of what took place. Therefore, it really is a backdrop of what we are talking about today and it shows the importance of moving on with this type of legislation.

Our competitors are many and are friendly allies, whether it is the United States, or Australia, or the U.K. or the EU. We are friendly nations, but we compete and do have things that we can sell back and forth and encourage our mutual prosperity.

We should be aware that in the pursuit of free trade agreements our competitors have been very busy and active. The United States just over the last short period of time has concluded some 17 free trade agreements. It is in the process of pursuing another eight. Mexico, our other partner in NAFTA, has concluded 12 free trade agreements. If we go further south in the Americas, Chile has concluded 13 free trade agreements with other countries. In fact, its 13 agreements cover 43 separate countries.

Therefore, if we look at a situation where we want to deal with a country that has a free trade agreement with somebody else, its goods and services will get into those countries tariff and barrier free. That puts our manufacturers at a serious disadvantage. We need to look at reducing those obstacles and increasing and expanding our doors of opportunity.

At what is now referred to as the Washington conference last fall, the G20 leaders made a declaration that countries should not fall back into or delve into areas of protectionism. It is called a stand still on any protectionist activity. I would suggest that a stand still is necessary, and that was endorsed by trade ministers around the world at the following discussions that took place in Peru at the Asia Pacific economic meetings. From our perspective, we are going even further than that. We are not saying stand still, we are saying move ahead and overcome the inertia that is gripping the world in terms of trade right now.

Therefore, we have before us the European free trade area agreement. When we talk about what those letters stand for, some people might think this is a deal that engages all the European community. In fact, it does not. We are talking about four very sophisticated entities: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and tied in with that, Liechtenstein. These are modern, sophisticated entities. They say that they want to engage with us and we want to engage with them to reduce and eliminate trade barriers.

The numbers coming in at the end of 2007 for two-way trade and investment with Norway were $4.7 billion. In the summer of 2008, Norway added to that investment another $3 billion just in the areas of oil, gas and agriculture.

There is a broader platform and picture that needs to be taken into account, because we are talking about engaging these four entities. However, for us, this is an entry and lever into the broader EU community for an eventual and much hoped for Canada-EU free trade agreement. This is something we are zeroing in on, something we have been discussing for some time. The Czech Republic has the presidency of the EU for the next six months. I was in Prague last month and I talked to officials there. I made it clear that we were ambitious on that score. We made that point with the European Commission as well. On another free trade area, being the EU area, we are very ambitious and are working toward the conclusion of discussions to get a formal framework in place to start that process.

In and of itself, the so-called EFTA agreement before us today is important for the prosperity of our citizens and the four entities named. However, there is the broader context which is important to keep in mind. Clearly, consultation between us and the provinces is very important when we look at these types of agreements. The consultation process involved in the EFTA agreement was extensive, and will continue to be. We want provinces to come forward with their areas of concern and sensitivity. That has been done in this process and those have been thoroughly fleshed out and addressed to the point where we could sign the agreement.

As an example, we had concerns from the shipbuilding industry in Canada. What happens when we take away the tariffs related to shipbuilding, we open ourselves up to global competition. We believe we can rise to that competition and meet any of the challenges the world has to offer, but we looked at those sensitivities, particularly those in Quebec and other provinces with shipbuilding industries. In a spirit of co-operation and understanding, as we discussed this with our four partners on the other side of the EFTA agreement, we agreed we to look at the removal of those tariff barriers, but do it over an extended period of time, 15 years in this case related to the shipbuilding industry. Therefore, the sensitivities we hear from around our country and from various industries are taken into account as we move along this road.

It also fits with our government's global commerce strategy, as we have talked about in our comprehensive action plan in which $60 million has been committed just to the area of doing what we can in terms of our global strategy to assist manufacturers, exporters, entrepreneurs and innovators to get not just the message but the products out there in a way that gets worldwide attention and shows that Canada has something to offer, which then increases our ability to manufacture, export and to be prosperous.

We are not stopping with this agreement. We have been very clear that we have agreements now concluded with Peru and Colombia. These will eventually come to the House. We had an earlier agreement with Jordan, and there are others in process. Our officials are in discussion with South Korea, Panama, the Dominican Republic, the CARICOM nations in the Caribbean, Singapore and the group of nations called the Central American Four, being Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador. We are actively engaged to ensure we do everything globally in our commerce strategy to keep the doors open and the opportunities very much alive for Canadians.

It is not strictly on a trade side. There are other areas that have to be pursued, and we do that in concert with the trade discussions. For instance, if we are going to invest in another country, our investors and business people have to be assured that there is a platform, a framework, that offers the benefits of rule of law, respect for contract law and other similar areas. We call these our foreign investment protection agreements. It is necessary to strike these with other countries. We will never guarantee that somebody's product will sell, but we can work with another country to ensure that the investment itself is subject to certain standardized rules and certain rules of contract law and investment law, banking law and credit, so at least our investors and business people know they have a level playing field and a platform when they go into those countries.

Along with that are science and technology agreements. We have put in place these very important initiatives with a number of countries, and I signed one not long ago with Brazil, where industry and the academic communities will know we have science and technology agreements, where both governments would pool an agreed upon amount of funds and then send out a message inviting the universities or scientific communities to bid for procurement of those funds to mutually pursue areas of science and technology.

Along with those, we look at a variety of other agreements that affect our economies. Air service agreements are very important when we are talking about giving choice to consumers, but also keeping costs down in terms of transporting and shipping product.

I might add we have in our budget considerable funds, into the billions of dollars, for our great gateways in our nation for shipping, such as the Asia-Pacific gateway. We have a gateway proposal and the funds to back it up for the Atlantic region.

We are doing everything we can, on a variety of levels, to build the platforms and construct the frameworks for Canadian entrepreneurs, innovators, manufacturers and exporters in virtually any area of endeavour who feel they have something worth selling. We will never guarantee they will be able to sell that, but we can guarantee we will smooth the way as evenly as possible within the context of the various trade agreements that are signed onto globally so their products can be established and Canada can continue to be prosperous.

I arrived in Switzerland for meetings on Friday and met with the vice-president. Literally moments before my arrival the upper house had in fact passed its portion of the agreement before us today. I am certainly not saying it was my arrival that moved that along. I would not even suggest that. However, it gave me great encouragement that the Switzerland legislators were dealing with it, that they saw this as positive and that they were moving it along. I assured them that we would be going through a similar process here and that, respectfully, with the input of colleagues here, we hoped for a successful conclusion of the discussions, the ratification of the agreement in our Parliament and the ongoing prosperity of Canadians, especially in this era of global concern.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)