Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2009

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have been very surprised had my NDP colleague not mentioned the softwood lumber crisis. He had to do it, he just could not help himself.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this agreement with the European Free Trade Association is a good agreement. However, in order to accept it, Canada needs to have a true policy for the development of its shipyards. The Bloc position on this agreement is very clear.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to allow my colleague from the Bloc Québécois an opportunity to continue to present his views on the shipbuilding industry, in reply to the question from the NDP, which was a little biased, it must be noted that is indeed sad, it is heart-breaking, that there have been job losses in Quebec in the shipbuilding industry. But we must also set the record straight: the accord has not been adopted yet.

So this is not a trade issue, it is an industry issue. What is happening now relates to the industry. The accord is not what is having an effect on the job losses in Quebec, which I hope are temporary. Rather, it is a matter of industrial policy, it is a matter of the shipbuilding industry, which neither the Liberal government of the day nor the Conservative government of today wants to address.

So it is relatively simple. We need appropriate measures to promote the development and modernization of the industry, and I believe firmly in the abilities of the workers in the shipbuilding industries, in their skills and potential, but to do that, the Conservative government has to provide the tools. We know this is a laissez-faire government, but in times of economic crisis such as we are experiencing today it is even more important that it adopt policies. And we have policies to offer. I am sure my colleague could list a few more for you.

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

Mr. Speaker, as one of the measures that should accompany this policy, we have talked about loans and loan guarantees for shipyards that have to invest so they can provide a financial guarantee in order to bid on new contracts. That takes capital, and the government should provide support so they can do that.

The tax rules for financial lease agreements absolutely have to be improved, and these people have to be given additional tools so they can sign contracts. We are talking about refundable tax credits for shipbuilders. Again, this is a measure to make their lives easier.

We believe that all these measures should be included in a genuine policy for our shipyards, in both Quebec and Canada. This would enable them to deal with free trade, particularly under the agreements with Norway that are part of the agreement with the European Free Trade Association.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has the floor for a very short question.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a sense, this is a supplementary.

I asked a direct question but did not get a direct answer. We know that the bill will have a negative effect in Quebec. Are the hon. member and his caucus prepared to follow the NDP's lead and vote against this bill, yes or no?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has the floor for a short answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association. What we are saying is that this agreement has to be accompanied by a policy providing real support to the shipbuilding industry.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a preamble. My comments about the bill are not about protectionism. My comments about the bill are about the future of our children and our jobs in this country. I cannot hope to reach the eloquent level of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore but I will certainly try.

The House might be wondering why someone from northern Ontario is standing up to talk about the shipbuilding component of the bill. Aside from being a forestry centre for Canada, Thunder Bay is also one of the shipbuilding and ship repairing centres in Canada.

Members in the House may not know that but I would just like to point that out because we are a shipbuilding city. We have skilled workers, we have a seagoing harbour, and we have high tech companies, like Pascal Engineering, that build and repair ships.

Unfortunately, when it comes to shipbuilding in this country as we have seen over the years, awarding contracts for shipbuilding is not done on any logical basis. It is really done on a political basis. What I am hoping is, when I finish speaking today, that someone from the government side will stand up and tell me that shipbuilding centres in Canada like Thunder Bay will not be forgotten if any money every does come forward to build ships. They can build them small, they can build them large and we would certainly like to be part of that. I would like someone on the government side to get up and assure the people in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario that this is going to happen.

The people in Thunder Bay in the shipbuilding sector do not believe that shipbuilding is a sunset industry. The government and indeed the Government of Ontario say that they believe that shipbuilding just like forestry is a sunset industry.

My major concern with the bill are the provisions regarding shipbuilding. The bill reduces tariffs on ships from 25% to 0% over a period of 10 to 15 years depending on the type of products. Nothing happens in the first three years. One category of ships goes right down to zero and these are the very large ships, the very kinds of ships that can be built in Thunder Bay.

The government has dropped the ball on other trade agreements. I do not want to go into great detail about that, but what we are talking about is a situation that is very real with real jobs disappearing.

We understand the ideology of the government on free trade agreements. An economist 15 or 20 years ago in the United States wrote a book and said that they are good things. Unfortunately, the way they have been arranged is that they are mostly selling out.

In support of my argument I would like to give the House a couple of quotes. The first one is from George MacPherson who is the president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of British Columbia. He said:

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about 1/3 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 plan is shear folly, and an outrage.

As well, Les Hollaway, who is the Atlantic Canada Director of CAW, stated, “Your committee should not recommend this free trade agreement without first recommending that the federal government first address the issues facing the shipbuilding industry that would allow the industry to compete in a fair and equitable manner with our trading partners”.

What is the shipbuilding issue? During the last 20 years Norway, Canada's EFTA main competitor in this sector, built a strong shipbuilding industry by initially protecting its market and by heavily subsidizing production. Now, Norway is able to compete in the zero tariff environment. During all that time Canada had kept the 25% tariff on ship imports without a shipbuilding policy of any kind and no money to support the industry. The so-called generous 10 to 15 year phase-out terms simply mean a stay of execution for Canada's shipbuilding industry.

Andrew McArthur from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada made a compelling case on behalf of Canadian shipbuilders to have that industry explicitly excluded from the Canada-EFTA agreement, as it is from NAFTA. He noted that Norway's world class shipbuilding industry is not subsidized today, but it owes its present competitiveness to the serious government support it received in the past years. Andrew McArthur said:

So our position from day one has been that shipbuilding should be carved out from the trade agreement. 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. If the Americans, under the Jones Act, can carve out shipbuilding from NAFTA and other free trade agreements, as I believe the Americans are doing today with Korea, or have done, why can Canada not do the same?

It is precisely this type of policy that has allowed Norway to become a world class player that it is today and this is precisely what the federal government failed to do by completely gutting Canada's shipbuilding industry.

Canada has the largest coastline in the world. It has no strategy for its shipbuilding industry. This situation is absolutely unacceptable. When the tariffs come down in 15 years Canada's industry will be unable to cope with Norwegian competition. The current state of Canada's shipbuilding industry is directly related to the absence of a vigorous industrial development policy by successive federal and Conservative governments. Canada's shipyard industry is only a shadow of its former self, roughly one-third to one-quarter of where it was 10 or 15 years ago.

Recently, the Harper government and the B.C. Campbell government again refused to stand up for our shipbuilding industry. I do not want to go into too much detail, but we all know the story of the B.C. Ferries. The first ship arrived last December. The Harper government has refused to commit to put toward--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The member knows that he cannot refer to members of Parliament by their given names.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House. Hon. members might want to ask a couple of questions on that.

Even those in the business community who have a vested interest in supporting the acceleration of EFTA, such as the Canadian Shipowners Association, justify their support on the basis that Canada has forever lost its ability to build ships, but we do not share that pessimism. With proper and intelligent support from the federal government, Canada's domestic shipbuilding industry could be rapidly up and running. All that is missing is the political will of the federal government.

The U.S. has always refused to repeal the Jones act and it has been mentioned a couple of times today. I would like to remind the House of what that act says. The legislation has been in place since 1920 and protects the U.S. capacity to produce commercial ships. The Jones act requires that commerce between U.S. ports on the inland and intercoastal waterways be reserved for vessels that are U.S. built, U.S. owned, registered under U.S. law and U.S. manned. The U.S. has also refused to include shipbuilding under NAFTA and has implemented in recent years a heavily subsidized naval reconstruction program.

Therefore, the shipbuilding sector must be excluded from this agreement and the federal government should immediately help put together a structured financing facility, SFF, an accelerated capital cost allowance for the industry, and an effective buy Canada policy for all government procurement.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am not talking about protectionism. I am talking about fair play and I am talking about looking out for the future of our children, our families, and our capacity to produce goods which are needed in Canada and around the world. We have that capacity.

In closing, I would like to invite some questions from the government side and the opposition. I know there are probably a couple.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not standing up and defending this agreement. They have completely backed off. For the first hour or so the minister and the parliamentary secretary defended it. However, since all the facts have come to light, the Conservatives, even Conservatives from areas that have an important shipbuilding industry, are completely silent on this bill. They are not defending it. I guess we could say it would be a tough act anyhow that they would be defending the indefensible. How does one stand up in the House and say that their government is moving to kill thousands of jobs in the shipbuilding industry? I guess that would be difficult to defend.

However, I think those people who are listening to Parliament today, those who are concerned about the possible impacts of the bill, must be quite disappointed to learn that Conservatives cannot defend the bill. They cannot stand up in the House and speak to the bill. They are completely silent on all the impacts and the loss of jobs that would result from it. The Liberals are their sidekicks. The new Liberal leader is like the Robin of Canadian politics, Batman and Robin, the sidekicks of the Conservatives. However, neither party is standing up to defend the bill brought forward by the government.

Given the member has outlined very clearly the impacts, the loss of jobs, the failure of the government to stand up for good Canadian jobs in the shipbuilding industry, does he think the Conservatives are ashamed of their own bill?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the government side and say whether they are ashamed of the bill. I suspect they probably are.

However, just as the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has said, there are some things in EFTA that are worthwhile, and we do not have any objections to that. What we are asking is that shipbuilding be excluded from the bill before it goes forward. It just a simple request. It has nothing to do with many of the other trade parts of the agreement.

I have seen the devastation in Thunder Bay over the years as shipbuilding has declined. As I said, it is very difficult to understand why, when we have a shipbuilding capacity in a city like Thunder Bay that has been hard hit in other areas, such as forestry, because of ill-advised agreements and a lack of caring by various levels of government. It is difficult for me to stay clear eyed as I speak when I know about families that have been devastated and people who have lost their jobs and probably some peripheral things, such as the loss of skilled labour. When that kind of thing happens, skilled labour leaves the area, the region and the province. We cannot afford to have any more out-migrations.

I hope the government will have a look at this, consider the shipbuilding element of this and decide that what we have talked about today is the right way to go.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regards to shipbuilding, it is not only just in terms of commercial importance and the skills, value-added work, especially because it also involves a lot of Canadian aggregate involved with the construction as well, it is also issues related to skilled trades, professions that are very important not only just in terms of the value of income they bring in but also a skills set that is necessary. One of the things that is important about the carve-out policy we are advocating for is the issues around national defence. Many countries are very clear about ensuring they have a significant portion of their manufacturing base protected so in times of conflict or war or other types of challenges they have the capacity to produce the necessary means to protect their citizens. We saw that historically through the great wars with our country as factories were converted into operation mechanisms to help win over a tyranny.

As well, it is important to recognize that even today we still have important measures that we have to contribute in the global world. Part of this is keeping the capacities available to ensure we can contribute and be there.

The government has been very much one that is turned inward. It is one that has decided not to even lobby for a seat on the National Security Council of the United Nations. It has also been very much inward looking and given that impression quite significantly in many degrees. The most recent is the U.S. buy American policy that has come up without any type of measure in terms of even understanding it was approaching.

I would like to ask my colleague about the defence issue related to that, as we sell out all our industries and do not have that capacity to respond.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member a good example of capacity.

Last week the last fine paper mill in Ontario went into receivership. Fine paper is the paper we use every day, the paper we have on our desks and the paper we put in our computers. The last fine paper mill in Ontario is now gone. At the same time, as that one disappeared from Ontario, one opened up in New York. The irony is that the major investors in the New York operation are Canadians. Why did they not invest in our own?

The Conservative government, and in that particular case the Ontario government, is putting those of us in northern Ontario back into the dark ages, where we are hewers of wood and drawers of water. Anything that requires finishing is leaving our province and our country.

Perhaps we will still have one mill operating in Ontario that will supply pulp, but that pulp will not be processed into finished goods here. It will go to the United States to make fine papers. That is where all the high quality, highly skilled and highly paid jobs are in much more abundance.

Are we going to go back to a situation in our country where all we are is a source for primary resources and nothing else? I beg the government to truly consider what is happening.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is new here and he has done a great job.

Does he not believe that using Canadian taxpayer dollars, Canadian workers, Canadian materials, Canadian raw resources, Canadian industry and management to hire Canadian workers to build Canadian ships is such a bad idea?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for a number of months now. We do not always expect answers, particularly when the question only requires a yes or no answer. In this case it is easy to do: no is the answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has said.

Conservative MPs in the House are refusing to speak up to defend the bill. None of them have stood up since the parliamentary secretary spoke. Since the inconsistencies and the discrepancies in his statements have been brought to light by the NDP, the Conservatives have been utterly and completely silent.

Does that show respect for Canadians in the shipbuilding industry whose jobs are on the line? Does it show respect when Conservatives refuse to speak up and defend the bill that they have brought forward in the House?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Sackville—Eastern Shore spoke very eloquently. I think I meant to say yes and not no to his question. I am not sure exactly what his question was, but I think I meant to say yes. That is why, I guess, we do not get any simple answers in the House.

Part of the problem is the fact that many members in the House do not think of shipbuilding as a major industry in our country. It is a major industry and it could be a much more major industry and employ tens of thousands more Canadians.

[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.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

He is here today.

[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.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the position of my colleague's party is that it will allow the bill to go to committee. It is unfortunate. We would like to send a stronger message to carve out the shipbuilding elements right now. It is disturbing, but I give members of that party credit for speaking and being heard in the House of Commons today.

It is interesting that the official opposition has disappeared. I do not know if the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has told his members to stand down on this. It reminds me of Lurch, the butler in the Addams Family, who would basically hang around and do nothing all the time. Perhaps that is the strategy of the Liberal Party in terms of opposition and keeping the government accountable.

Is it more important to lay out some of the terms and conditions in the carve out, the principles of a position to oppose, or at least get a concession with regard to this deal? It has some elements that are very positive, but others that would undermine our national defence and also procurement policies for workers in Canada.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to what my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska had to say. He said that this bill could be improved in committee, but he knows that we cannot change anything in this bill or in the agreement. The question is whether it is in the interests of the people of Canada and Quebec. The member must consider this. We cannot change anything. We must either support the government once again, as we did on the softwood lumber agreement, or vote against this bill.

As my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska is aware, this agreement will affect supply management. The tariff table removes the tariffs on dairy products imported from Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. That will have an impact on the industries in Quebec and British Columbia. Removing these tariff tables threatens supply management. That is what the representative of the farmers' union told the committee.

Given the impact this agreement will have on jobs in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, is the member prepared to vote against this bill, knowing that he cannot amend it?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague has asked this question throughout the afternoon. Each of my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have spent long minutes stating that we are in favour of this bill. The answer, therefore, is no; we have no intention of voting against the bill because we support it. I spent about 20 minutes—if not more—explaining the advantages it has for Quebec. The members of the Bloc Québécois were elected for the purpose of defending the interests of Quebec. We are the only ones here dedicated to doing that every day.

In terms of supply management, it is obvious that if there were any threat at all, we would not support such a bill. 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. Although I stated that we will be vigilant with regard to the bilateral agreement with Switzerland, that will not stop us from voting for this bill which, overall, is good for Quebec companies.