Debates of Feb. 16th, 1998

Division No. 84

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 084

[The Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 39 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 43.

Mr. Borotsik, seconded by Mr. Prise, move that Bill C-4 be amended by deleting clause 26.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(2), notice also received from Mr. Hill (Prince George—Peace River) on November 17, 1997.

(The House divided on Motion No. 43, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 85

[The Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 43 lost.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

moved that Bill C-4 be concurred in and read the second time.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with a special thank you for the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, the official opposition votes no.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against this motion.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no on this motion.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members of our party will be voting against this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 86

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, something has to be done to create a much more competitive shipbuilding industry. The government should now, as it should have done long ago and as it promised to do, take steps to alleviate the problems. These were not my words but those of the prime minister back in 1990.

Has this government made a decision to let the industry die rather than develop a shipbuilding policy, thus casting adrift the hope and future of so many coastal communities, the people who have depended on the industry and their families? By refusing to address the needs of a sinking industry, even though it criticized the former Conservative government for the same callous disregard, this government condemns many Atlantic Canadians to continued chronic unemployment and their communities to entrenched economic stagnation.

Canada Steamship Lines, owned by the Minister of Finance and others, continues to pour megabucks into foreign economies where labour is cheap and environmental standards are often poor or absent.

Over 7,000 Canadian shipyard jobs were lost between 1990 and 1996, over half the number of jobs in all. Total nominal sales were down almost half from over $1.5 billion in 1991 to under $800 million in 1986. Other countries, including the U.S., provide assistance in some form such as generous loan guarantees.

The Jones act in the United States provides that ships carrying cargo between U.S. ports must be U.S. ships, ships which are built, registered, owned, crewed, repaired and serviced in the U.S. The one-two punch of the Jones act and the free trade deal hits Canadian coastal communities where it hurts most, in their employment possibilities. U.S. companies have the right to sell duty free to the Canadian market while their market remains protected from Canadian shipbuilders.

Will this government say yes to jobs in Atlantic Canada by saying yes to a national shipbuilding policy?

I would be willing to assist in bringing together labour and business representatives in the Halifax area if the government were serious about providing hope for Atlantic Canadians and developing a national shipbuilding policy.

Why will the government not examine a managed trade approach like the auto pact for the shipbuilding industry? Countries could agree to a gradual elimination of subsidies and specialize in relative areas of expertise. The most important part of such a forward thinking agreement would be to balance overall shipbuilding trade flows to the mutual benefit of shipbuilders in the countries involved. The overall volume of new orders could match a certain agreed upon minimum level of shipbuilding requirements for each country's industry.

Let us finish with the easiest of all requests. Will the minister agree to sit down with shipbuilding workers in Halifax to discuss these issues, or will he continue to ignore their repeated request for a meeting? Does the government not have the decency to meet with these workers to discuss their very extensive reasoned and researched suggestions about the future of shipbuilding?

The government must realize that simply ignoring a problem will not make it go away. I ask the Minister of Industry to have the integrity to meet face to face with these people who have very real fears and concerns about their future and that of their families and communities. By working together we can develop realistic workable solutions for our shipbuilding industry so that we do not run aground on the shoals of government disinterest.

I am sincere in offering my assistance in working to develop a national shipbuilding policy.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member for Halifax West has given me the opportunity to speak on the subject of shipbuilding.

Most Canadian shipyards are generally in good shape, providing repair and refit services and some new construction to commercial marine market and government fleets.

The federal government supports the shipbuilding industry in several ways. Our shipbuilding policy initiatives include the following.

First, we have made a commitment to use Canadian shipbuilders for the renewal, repair and overhaul of government fleets. We will continue the policy of domestic procurement for all federal ships and repairs where it is possible to do so.

Second, we have a 25% tariff on non-NAFTA foreign built ships with the exception of fishing vessels over 100 feet.

Third, tax measures are available to ship owners in the form of an accelerated capital cost allowance of 33.3% on new ships built in Canada.

Fourth, shipbuilders are also encouraged to keep pace with the new technology through a very favourable R & D tax credit system.

Fifth, our shipbuilding policy includes financing for commercially viable projects through the Export Development Corporation.

Finally, the federal government worked with the shipbuilding industry on an industry led rationalization process between 1986 and 1993. The industry decided it was necessary to reduce its capacity so that remaining shipyards could survive and remain competitive. The government supported these efforts at a cost of $198 million.

I conclude by saying that the federal government has given substantial support to the shipbuilding industry in the past and will continue to provide support through the initiatives I have just outlined.

Any changes to the existing policy must be looked at in the context of our existing financial commitment and our overall jobs and growth strategy.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8.13 p.m.)