Bill C-55 (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 regulations 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.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with keen interest that I join the debate today on Bill C-55, which would implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association. The association is made up of four countries: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

To begin, I want to reiterate that after responsible analysis the Bloc Québécois will support this bill, which we believe, in general, offers promising economic trade opportunities for Quebec that are worth pointing out. However, there are also some concerns that my colleagues have mentioned and that we share.

We all know that Quebec is a trading nation. Many of our companies, especially those operating in leading-edge sectors, rely on exports to ensure their growth. That is important. International exports represent almost one-third of Quebec’s GDP. If we include trade with Canada's provinces, Quebec’s exports represented about 50% of its GDP in 2006.

In trading terms, Quebec is far too dependent on American markets. Indeed, nearly 85% of our current exports go to the United States. Given the slowdown in the American economy that we are now witnessing, the rise in the Canadian dollar and the aggressive tactics of emerging countries such as China and India, we are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain our market share with our neighbours to the south. The results have been significant for Quebec. More than 150,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past five years, including more than 80,000 since the advent of the Conservative government and its laissez-faire doctrine.

The riding that I represent, Berthier—Maskinongé, has been severely affected by the loss of jobs in the furniture and textile industries. If our trading opportunities were more diversified and we were less dependent on the United States, our manufacturing sector would not be so threatened. This is why this free trade agreement with the European association deserves to be explored and, indeed, to be supported.

For example, as is the case in Quebec, the brand name pharmaceutical industry is very strong in Switzerland. Quebec is the Canadian leader in the field of brand name drugs because of its pool of skilled researchers and its favourable tax system. One can easily imagine, and we even hope, that Swiss pharmaceutical companies could be tempted to produce their drugs in Quebec as a way of gaining easier access to the American market. We will strongly encourage that idea, which would result in new investments in Quebec. That is one of the main reasons why we support this bill.

If we look at the case of Norway, nickel accounts for more than 80% of Canadian exports to that country. The largest mine in Canada, and the third biggest in the world, is located in the Ungava region of Quebec and is owned by a Swiss company. This agreement can provide significant benefits for Quebec.

That is another reason why we support this agreement.

As I already said, we will support this agreement because it gives Quebec some good opportunities and the Bloc Québécois is here primarily to defend the interests of Quebec.

This agreement also has the advantage of not containing the same kinds of shortcomings as some other accords. For example, in contrast to NAFTA, the agreements with Costa Rica and Chile have a bad chapter on investment, as we know very well, which gives companies the right to sue a government that adopts measures that could reduce their profits. There are no such provisions in the agreement with the European Free Trade Association. The Bloc Québécois is very happy about that. These countries have a basic respect for human rights and the rights of working people and that is another reason why we support this agreement.

In addition, the agreement with the European Free Trade Association covers only goods and not services. Nothing would force us, therefore, to open public services to competition, whether provided by the government or not, because they are not included in the agreement.

Similarly, financial services and banks will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very strong banking system.

It is the same with government procurement. The government remains perfectly free to purchase in Canada, subject to the WTO agreement on government procurement. This is an indispensable aspect of any kind of trade agreement.

I would also like to mention agriculture. Our colleagues in the NDP seem to have some concerns in this regard. I want to speak more especially about supply management, which is very important to Quebec and the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé that I have the honour of representing.

We all remember it was the Bloc Québécois that got a motion passed in 2005 requiring the full maintenance of supply management. We have been assured by agriculture officials in Quebec that this agreement does not derogate from supply management and does not contradict it or call it into question.

We are very proud of this motion and will continue to defend it because we think that farmers and consumers are best served by this system. We are satisfied with the bilateral agreements on agriculture because products subject to supply management remain protected.

The in-quota tariff is eliminated of course under the agricultural agreement with Switzerland, but it applies only to the part of the market already covered by imports, or 5%. The elimination of this tariff will therefore have only a marginal effect on our dairy farmers because the tariff rate quotas and the over-quota tariffs remain the same. It is important for this to remain as is, especially since milk proteins are excluded from the agreement. This is another essential provision for keeping our agriculture strong.

The fact that the 7% tariff is eliminated under this agreement makes it all the more necessary, however, for the federal government to remain adamant at the WTO that supply management is simply not negotiable. The Bloc Québécois will continue to demand a full defence of supply management at the WTO.

This being said, we have some concerns about what the agreement means to the future of our shipyards. Imported ships are currently subject to a 25% tariff. Under this agreement, the tariffs will gradually start dropping in three years and will be eliminated in 15. I heard the international trade minister boasting about the fact that his government had managed to negotiate this 15-year adjustment period.

I think the minister must be aware that the adjustment period provided for in the agreement will be useful only if it is accompanied by vigorous adjustment and modernization programs for shipyards.

Otherwise, it will just slow the decline of our industry. Norway has grasped this quite well, by the way.

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. This is really a shame, given all the subsidies that are currently being handed out to the oil industry, which makes exorbitant profits.

As well, not only are the few aid measures still available very poorly adapted to the shipbuilding industry, but the federal government has even penalized the provinces that have instituted innovative measures, such as the refundable tax credit in Quebec, 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. Unbelievable but true.

So today, some of our shipyards are having trouble and are not really very competitive. This kind of policy has to be shelved. We have to provide more support for our shipbuilding industry.

Because it receives support from its government, the industry in Norway is productive and competitive today. And now the Norwegian government is working to open up new foreign markets for it.

The Conservatives’ policy, which amounts to leaving companies to their own devices, could be very harmful to our shipbuilding industry. We have 10 to 15 years to get back on track and implement programs to support our industry.

In the case of the manufacturing sector, we can see how Conservative inaction has led to the loss of thousands of jobs. We should learn that lesson when it comes to the shipbuilding industry. So we are calling on the federal government to abandon its laissez-faire policy and put forward a policy to support and develop the shipbuilding industry quickly. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for several years now.

In fact, this is the motion that I introduced at the Standing Committee on International Trade, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, and that received support there:

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 motion was supported by all members of the committee, but only after some discussion and some hesitation. I think it is important in this context.

We have to support our industry. We have 10 to 15 years, depending on the type of ship, to support the industry. It is therefore time for action.

In this motion we are telling this government that it has to act and put forward a comprehensive strategy to support the shipbuilding industry, because the Conservatives’ bad industrial policy must not be allowed to result in a bad trade policy.

Laissez-faire has produced no results for several years, and it is time for action. This government has the resources. The strategy should facilitate access to capital for the industry, stimulate investment, give preference to local suppliers in public procurement and of course encourage shipowners to buy their ships here at home.

When shipyard representatives appeared before the committee, they reiterated that they wanted a program to facilitate accelerated amortization that buyers of Canadian ships could use, and a structured financing mechanism.

On the question of support for struggling industries, the Conservative government is practising a hands-off, laissez-faire policy, as I said earlier, a free enterprise policy: free trade will solve everything, all by itself. That is not true.

In the case of shipyards, as in the case of manufacturing, where we have lost many jobs, we believe this policy is quite simply irresponsible.

We know how the Americans and the Europeans support their industries. We need to do the same so that we can become more competitive. That is why the Bloc Québécois will press the government to quickly introduce a series of measures to promote the development of our shipbuilding industry. I ask the opposition parties here to support us.

In closing, even though we support this agreement, we need to be aware that its impact will still be limited. The four members of the association represent nearly 12 million people and account for roughly 1% of Canadian exports. The real trade issue is the European Union. With its 495 million inhabitants who generate 31% of global gross domestic product, the European Union is the world's leading economic power. We believe that Canada should be pursuing a free trade agreement with the European Union.

As we know, Canada's petrodollar has risen substantially in value against the American dollar, which has led to a major crisis in the manufacturing industry. What people may not know is that the dollar has gone up in value much less against the Euro. As I said earlier, if our trade were more diverse and our exports less focused on the United States, our manufacturing sector would be much stronger and more robust. The European Union is an essential trading partner.

Moreover, a free trade agreement with the European Union would have benefits in terms of investment. 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 there. We will support such a free trade agreement. As 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 that the federal government will quickly reach an agreement with the European Union, because it would be the best way to diversify our economy and reduce our heavy dependence on the American market.

I am willing to answer any questions hon. members might have.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me say how delighted I am to speak on this issue. I think all members of Parliament, however they feel on this issue, whether they are in favour of it or against it, I am sure are quite pleased that we have an opportunity to debate this before this House.

It was not too long ago, and it still is to an extent today, that free trade agreements and trade agreements had been the exclusive domain at the executive branch. I think it is a positive step that the government has put forward this before this House. Bill C-55, the European free trade association agreement, is certainly an agreement worthy of debate in this House and also, I think, worthy of support because we are talking about some of the most ideal friends and countries with which we could possibly trade.

Obviously, some of us have concerns when we do trade with certain countries that have issues of human rights. This is not the case. These are, in fact, countries in Europe that we can certainly do business with because they have a proud history defending human rights as western democratic countries. They share the values that Canada and Canadians have.

Throughout our history, Canada has always been a nation of traders. From the fur traders of the early years of Canadian history to the current day when we sell the world everything from energy products to high tech products, our prosperity is dependent on our ability to trade.

In the early days of Canada, in 1867, when we founded this country, and before the Treaty of Westminster, the predominant trading partner for Canada was Great Britain. Today, 80% of our trade is done with our American partners. Diversity in trade is going to be extremely important as we get into a more competitive world.

I think that this particular deal, the European Free Trade Association agreement, is a great opportunity for all of us to broaden the trading partners that we have, and also the trading agreements that we have in place to ensure that we, as Canadians, benefit from the whole process of trade with countries in Europe.

It is important to remember that as a nation of approximately 34 million people, from the very beginning, Canada has relied upon trade for our prosperity and for our continued growth, both in terms of economics and population. We are a country blessed with resources of wealth and a labour force that is second to none in the world.

Our GDP is valued in excess of $1.4 trillion, creating a per capita wealth of over $38,000 per person. Our purchasing power as a nation is over $1.2 trillion. We export over 2.2 million barrels of oil per day. We export over 100 billion cubic metres of natural gas. We export aircraft, automobiles, industrial goods, plastics, timber and aluminum, to name but a few products.

Today, as we talk about the ever-increasing price of gasoline and the cost of a barrel of oil constantly going up, there are concerns about how this will impact on our economy.

Canada is certainly blessed with an abundance of natural resources and we are an energy super house, to say the least, because these are very valued commodities throughout the world at the moment. Canada is certainly benefiting and as we see today, the rising dollar in this country is having some positive effects and also some negative effects.

Some members in this House and I certainly have spoken before of the issues of concern in relation to the manufacturing sector. We are, of course, concerned about the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. Yesterday, it was reported in the news that today more people are working in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector.

Some people might say this is a positive things, however, others are really concerned. I would say the one issue of concern, specifically, is not just the loss of manufacturing jobs, which I think is so critical and important to this country, but it is also the fact that we are losing good-paying jobs as well.

The manufacturing sector pays twice what the average person is making in the service sector, and the service sector also has very few benefits offered to individuals and their families. This is of grave concern to all of us. We have to pay special attention to those issues of concern.

Total exports each year account for over $440 billion. What does all this mean to us as parliamentarians and, more important, to Canadians across our country who work each day to build prosperous lives for themselves and for their families?

Simply put, the future prosperity of Canada is dependent upon trade and our trading relationships as much as it was in the early days of settlement of this country. The most profound difference is that in the early days of settlement in Canada almost all trade was targeted locally or within the context of colonial realities. In later days, trade with Britain and within the context of the Commonwealth was very much the primary reality we faced as a country.

Few would argue that the world is a very different place, not only from the time of the early settlers hundreds of years ago, but from the world we knew less than 50 or even 20 years ago.There are a few realities that we as a nation must recognize and address. They are the emerging markets of Asia, the powerhouse economies of China, India and Brazil that will continue to grow and to impact upon the world economy.

We all know that Canada in the late 1980s entered into negotiations with the United States that saw the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. There are areas of the agreement that continue to cause us concern, but the reality is that our trade with the United States represents over 80% of our trade with the world. The reality is that under NAFTA Canada enjoys a substantial trade surplus with its trading partner, the United States. Possible changes to NAFTA are a debate for another day but the point is that in negotiating this agreement it was clear that new economic realities exist in the world and we must be in our best position to deal with them.

The European Free Trade Association agreement we are debating today may not appear to represent an enormous part of our economy. In fact, the European free trade agreement countries are the fifth largest merchandise exports for Canada.

There are some key points that need to be addressed and also to be highlighted on this particular bill. This bill eliminates duties on non-agricultural goods and selected agricultural products, giving Canadian exports better access to Canada's fifth largest merchandise export destination. It lays the groundwork for a more comprehensive agreement on service and investment with European free trade agreement countries as well as free trade talks with the broader European Union.

The bill addresses concerns regarding the shipbuilding sector by obtaining the longest tariff phase-out for any agreement with developed nations: 15 years for the most sensitive vessels and 10 years for other sensitive vessels, with known tariff reductions for the first three years. Shipbuilding is also supported through a $50 million renewal of Industry Canada's structured financing facility.

A snap back provision exists, raising tariff levels to the most favoured nation rate for up to three years if the agreement results in serious threats to domestic industry. A process for binding arbitration is also laid out. Canadian agricultural supply management and buy Canada government procurement programs are protected.

The European free trade countries, as I stated before, are the world's 14th largest merchandise traders and Canada's fifth largest merchandise export destinations. Two-way Canada-EFTA non-agricultural merchandise trade amounted to $12.6 billion in 2007. Canadian exports to the European free trade market amounted to $5.1 billion, as of 2007. It included some very important materials, such as nickel, copper, pharmaceuticals, machinery, precious stones and metals, medical devices, aluminum, aerospace products, pulp and paper, organic chemicals, autos and parts, art and antiques. There is a broad perspective of things that we are trading with the Europeans already and we expect this to grow with this particular agreement.

Canadian imports from the European Free Trade Association countries amounted to about $7.4 billion in 2007. These imports include mineral fuel, pharmaceuticals, organic chemicals, machinery, medical and optical instruments, and clocks and watches. Canadian foreign direct investment in the overall EFTA market was about $8.4 billion in 2006 and direct investment in Canada from the EFTA market was about $15.6 billion in 2006. We are talking about very large sums of money.

It is also important to note the reactions of some of the stakeholders. Some concerns have been raised and it is important to highlight what some of the stakeholders are saying. Despite the protections given in the agreement, there is still fear that the shipbuilding industry may be unable to compete under these terms and may result in significant job losses. That is an issue that needs to be addressed.

There are some provisions in here that address those concerns, but the government has to take those issues seriously. It must make sure that the shipbuilding industry is protected in whatever way possible, not just through these agreements but also through financial incentives that are needed to maintain that vital industry for Canada. We as a country should take very seriously the manufacturing sector and the shipbuilding industry.

The National Farmers Union believes that the agreement will negatively impact supply management by undermining Canada's position at the World Trade Organization. None of the supply management groups have indicated any concerns. One sector which is likely to feel the most effect is dairy, however, Dairy Farmers of Canada was consulted and has expressed no concerns. These are issues that need to be put on the table.

As I mentioned before, we are talking about an agreement the history of which goes back to 1998 when the Liberal government under Jean Chrétien first began negotiating this agreement. The agreement was signed on January 26, 2008 in Switzerland. It was tabled in Parliament on February 14, 2008. A committee reviewed the agreement and reported to the House on April 7, and now we are debating this government bill to enact it in legislation.

Of all the agreements we have spoken to in the past, this one deals with countries of like mind, countries for which we have a lot of respect and with which we have built long term alliances over many years. There are many historic and cultural ties that bind Canada and those European nations.

We have also seen the birth of the European common market, which has been a huge success. It has brought countries that at one time were in poverty into first world status and improved the quality of life of all people who live in those countries. The European Union has done a magnificent job of raising the standard of living of all Europeans, creating a common market that has been a huge success.

Every day I read about what is taking place in Europe. There was a major meeting to sign the treaty of Lisbon. Once it has been voted on by the parliaments in Europe and comes to fruition, it will certainly solidify a truly great united nations of Europe, if we could call it that.

It is a great leap of faith for all of these countries to work together. It is something they realized they had to do because of some of the strifes and wars that had taken place in the past, but also, the European nations realize this is a new reality that is important for the 21st century.

We here in Canada are quite pleased with the development that is taking place in Europe. We certainly want to solidify our ties not only socially, but also economically. This particular agreement that has been put forward will go a long way to doing that.

I am pleased to lend my support, notwithstanding the fact that there are still some concerns out there. I am not unsympathetic to those concerns. Those concerns need to be addressed. There are different mechanisms that can be put in place. It is beholden upon the government to do so and make sure that our sectors and industries are protected.

At the end of the day we want to ensure the well-being of all Canadians to make sure that they have a decent job and earn a decent wage. We want fair trade, as has been talked about. Fair trade is the important ingredient to make sure that these agreements stand the test of time and that they produce positive results for all Canadians.

I am delighted to once again state how pleased I am that this bill is before this House and that the executive has allowed Parliament to have a debate on a trade agreement.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP, I am happy to join in the debate on Bill C-55.

What I understand from the speeches of my colleagues from Scarborough—Rouge River and Sherbrooke is that the NDP might be the only party standing in opposition to Bill C-55, the enabling legislation for the Canada-European free trade association agreement.

We in the NDP have some compelling reasons to oppose this legislation, most of which have been cited by the other opposition critics, and yet they still seem fit to support the bill even though they have raised very legitimate concerns about its shortcomings and potential hazards in the context of the shipbuilding industry in Canada, or what is left of it, and in agriculture.

As my colleague from the Bloc pointed out, the supply management of our agricultural products is important to our Canadian agricultural-industrial strategy and we do not want to do anything that will jeopardize, undermine or diminish, in any way, our commitment to supply management.

I point out to my colleague that this particular bill was criticized heavily by Mr. Terry Pugh, the executive director of the National Farmers Union, because he noticed that the provisions of the agreement concerning agriculture defer to the World Trade Organization's principles and mechanisms if there is arbitration or a disagreement.

We know the World Trade Organization's view on supply management and we do not trust its dispute mechanism when it comes to maintaining the strength and integrity of the Canadian supply management, be it the Canadian Wheat Board or supply management in various sectors in the province of Quebec. I would have thought that alone would be reason enough for my colleagues in the Bloc to oppose the adoption of this enabling legislation.

Until the shipbuilding provision was carved out and until the provision of using the WTO's dispute mechanism was pulled out, the NDP was not prepared to support this bill, and we maintain that principle today. We are not alone in that. Even though there are a few people who agree, apparently, in the House of Commons today in standing up for the Canadian shipbuilding industry and supply management, there are important third party validators in civil society who have made their opinions known at the committee and who spoke very well in defence of the NDP's stated position that we cannot support this legislation as it stands currently.

I will get into detailed specifics about the bill in a moment but I want to express my bewilderment over how it was that Canada abandoned and walked away from shipbuilding as a key industrial sector that we want to promote, support and maintain. What gang of chimpanzees decided that Canada should get out of shipbuilding? It seems to me that was the policy decision that was made.

I was the head of the Carpenters' Union in my home province of Manitoba and I know, from the history of my union, that in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s the Carpenters' Union had 30,000 members working in the Burrard Dry Dock shipyards alone in downtown Vancouver. Those were 30,000 good paying union jobs in my union alone. That does not include the marine workers, the boilermakers, the ironworkers or the other tradespeople who were involved in the fitting out and production of ships in British Columbia.

My colleague from Victoria has tried to defend what is left of the shipbuilding industry in her coastal city. We had a burgeoning shipbuilding industry in this country. We were at the leading edge. At the Burrard Dry Dock alone, where my colleagues in the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners worked, they were producing a ship a week for the convoy to support Great Britain during the second world war, the merchant marine supply ships. The Burrard Dry Dock was setting the industry standard in the massive production of a certain category of ships that today cannot be built in Canada. That was 60 years ago.

We were at the leading edge, but by somebody's design, by some convoluted pretzel logic, somebody in the policy and decision making area of the federal government decided that shipbuilding was not really an industry in which we wanted to specialize as a nation. Maybe that someone had a grandiose idea that we would go on to more high tech industries or into the knowledge industry sector.

That is all well and good, but we should not think for a minute that shipbuilding is some smokestack blue-collar industry that is obsolete. It is not. Anyone who has ever been to Norway, as I have, would know that in Oslo the slips and the shipyards that build some of the world's finest ships are in a state of the art, computerized, high tech facility. It is on a par with the technology associated with the Canadarm in the robotics and magnificence of the machinery.

I have been to Lévis in Quebec, where there has been a fabulous tradition of shipbuilding throughout the 1800s and 1900s right up to today. If that were prioritized and nurtured the way other industry sectors have been, Canada would be right up there with Norway, Korea and Japan as one of the leading shipbuilding countries in the world.

However, there was a policy decision made many years ago to abandon that sector. People said, “Our kids do not want to work on those dirty tradesmen types of jobs, so we will move on to other types of work”. That was a tragic mistake.

No one can claim ignorance on this, because they have been reminded time and time again that abandoning the shipbuilding sector was a mistake. This bill that we are debating today compounds that mistake. It adds insult to injury in terms of abandoning that important sector.

Yesterday we sat in the House and listened to the president of the Ukraine outline the many bold, courageous moves that his struggling, burgeoning and newly independent country is going through. One of the things he focused on in his speech is how proud Ukraine is of the inroads it is making in getting competitive in shipbuilding.

Ukraine will be surpassing Canada in shipbuilding capacity and capability, because its government, through what I would argue is bold leadership on this front at least, has targeted shipbuilding as one of the industry sectors that it intends to promote.

We have a lot more shoreline than the Ukraine. We have deep sea ports in three oceans, including the port at Churchill, Manitoba. Of all countries, Canada should be at the leading edge of the shipbuilding industry. We are being left in the dust.

Members have talked about phasing out the tariffs on shipbuilding in order to enable and facilitate trade with these countries in this free trade agreement. Some have said that Norway has phased out its subsidies and is willing to drop its tariffs and therefore it is a fair trade relationship with a comparable country with high wages, et cetera. I am willing to admit that it is a social democratic country with a high wage, high cost economy similar to Canada's. That is a level playing field.

However, where it is not a level playing field is that Norway's shipbuilding industry was very heavily subsidized right up until the year 2000, when shipbuilders could stand on their own two feet and they did not need that subsidy any longer. We cannot compare that with the industry in Canada, which has been starved and systematically dismantled and is a mere shadow of its former self.

I argue that our shipbuilding industry cannot stand in fair competition with an industry that was nurtured, developed and fed for many years by public subsidy until the year 2000 and now is a successful, burgeoning, contemporary industry sector. It is folly to not acknowledge the inequity in these two businesses in these two countries as an example.

I said at the outset that the NDP is not alone in its opposition to this particular free trade agreement. While it has few supporters in the House, it seems, and our arguments have not moved MPs of other parties off their positions to support our position, there are many important third parties in civil society who validate and support the NDP's position.

Let me mention one. It is perhaps no surprise that the president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of British Columbia, Mr. George MacPherson, says:

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.

Les Holloway, the Atlantic Canadian director of the Canadian Auto Workers and an outspoken champion of the shipbuilding industry, has made representations many times at committees before Parliament and before the House of Commons and said to the international trade committee that it “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” these new trading partners.

That in and of itself, I would have thought, should have motivated my colleagues from the Bloc to say that this bill in its current form is not acceptable until some of these very real concerns are addressed.

Andrew McArthur, from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and the Irving Shipbuilding yards, said before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 2:

--our position from day one has been that shipbuilding should be carved out of this 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?

That is a legitimate question. The Americans are better negotiators than we are. Their negotiating stance is from a position of strength. They have decided that they are going to protect their shipbuilding industry under the Jones act. Eleven separate times, the Americans have challenged the Canadian Wheat Board as being somehow an unfair trade subsidy or advantage. We have never challenged the Jones act even though it is protectionism pure and simple, in its purest form.

I remember going down to Washington to argue with American senators on trade related issues. One time, in fact, it was on Devils Lake. One senator put it very succinctly to me and Mr. Lloyd Axworthy, who was the minister of foreign affairs at the time. We were sitting around a table with that American senator, who looked us in the eye and said, “Son, if it ever comes down to what is good for you and what is good for us, we are going to do what is good for us. Thanks for coming”. Then he showed us the door.

That is the bargaining stance of the Americans. The bargaining stance of Canadians seems to be one of weakness. We are lucky to get out of the room with some dignity after what we leave on the table.

I am no stranger to negotiations. I have negotiated collective agreements for the better part of my adult life. I know that we do not always get everything we want at the bargaining table, but I also know that we do not fold when issues of key importance to us are still on the table and there are still steps to be taken.

I put it to the House that there are still options for Canada if we want to make a statement about the integrity and the strength of our shipbuilding industry.

Mr. McArthur from the Irving Shipbuilding company also said:

We have to do something to ensure shipbuilding continues. The easiest thing is to carve it out from EFTA...if you do one thing, convince your colleagues in government to extend the ship financing facility, make it available to Canadian owners in combination with the accelerated capital cost allowance, and you will have as vibrant an industry as exists.

The capital cost allowance is something with which we are all familiar, something that is touted when it comes to promoting and supporting other industry sectors.

Those are two simple key recommendations that would be a vote of confidence in our industry instead of cutting it adrift and abandoning it to other actors and other players in other countries.

I was surprised at some of the things my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River was saying. He said that we have to put in place these free trade agreements with no tariffs and barriers because we need to be able to compete with these countries of low wages and low costs that may be able to produce ships at a cheaper rate.

Korea is no longer considered a low wage, low cost country. Norway has a higher average industrial wage than Canada does. The people we have to worry about competing with are not, frankly, the low wage, low cost actors in this particular competitive environment.

Let us listen to what Karl Risser Jr., president, Halifax Local 1, Canadian Auto Workers Shipbuilding, Waterways and Marine Workers Council, said before the Standing Committee on International Trade. He said:

I am here on behalf of the workers in the marine sector of our union to express our opposition to this agreement. Canadian shipbuilders find themselves competing for work in domestic and international markets on far from a level [playing field]...Other governments, Norway for one, have supported their shipbuilding industries for years and have built them into [key] 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.

Why are we giving this away? To what end? What greater power are we serving here? It boggles my mind. Mine is not a very scientific, professional or academic approach but a gut feeling that we are making a tragic mistake. I despair sometimes. Where are my kids going to work if Canada does not build anything any more, if everything is built somewhere else? Are we willing to abandon those key manufacturing sectors so lightly and so readily?

Karl Risser Jr. ends his comments by saying:

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.

He closes by saying:

Again, the one question I have is, what is the benefit to Canada from this agreement? The last thing I would like to ask is, will this agreement be put before Parliament, as [the current Minister of Foreign Affairs] has said, for a full debate and vote?

I guess his question is answered. We are here for a full debate. We are not here in quite the context that we were told we would be when it came to free trade agreements and some of the points of concern that have been raised regarding the process, as we were told.

I do have some comments and notes to make on that subject. We are not entirely satisfied that free trade agreements are getting quite the vetting that was committed to us over the years. This debate today is still subject to the fact that the government “may” bring it before the House of Commons and “may” put it to a vote. I do not know at this stage what we can do to satisfy ourselves that the concerns of Canadians are being met in the context of at least the shipbuilding industry.

Second, with what time I have left, I would like to express again our concerns in the context of the integrity of supply management in this country, which is put in jeopardy by the dispute mechanism stipulated in this free trade agreement. If the government is going to subject disputes over supply management to the WTO, which we know is no friend of supply management, then the National Farmers Union and its counterparts in the province of Quebec would have serious concerns.

For those two reasons alone, we feel confident that we are doing the right thing in voicing our opposition to this bill. We are not opposed to free trade. We are not opposed to fair trade, especially with countries that are virtually our equals in terms of economies.

With social democratic countries such as Norway, I believe there should be a free movement of goods and services and products, but we should not trade away the farm. We do not have to be Jack and the Beanstalk here, where we trade the family cow for three beans, none of which may actually sprout. With that analogy, I will end my remarks.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to engage in the debate today on Bill C-55. It is actually a happy event. It is a trade agreement and my party, the Liberal Party, is in the normal flow of events very supportive of trade and has been for all 140-some odd years of our country's existence.

Before I get into remarks on this actual trade bill, a related matter has to do with what we can call ratification. I recall when the current government took office there was some talk, in fact I believe there was a statement, that the government would be submitting international treaties to the House for some informal ratification. It certainly was not a formal statutory required ratification, but I am not too sure whether the government has forgotten about that or whether it is going to live up to its commitment or not.

However, in this particular case, the treaty that has been entered into by Canada requires legislation that has to come to the House in any event, so there certainly is not a practical need for any kind of an informal or specific ratification. I wanted to put on the record that the announcement by the government that it would embark on this ratification mechanism was quite a significant change in the parliamentary process.

I will give credit to the government for that. We have not yet seen the fruits of that announcement. It has not played out the way we believed it would, however, I want to remind the government that it did make the commitment and while government officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade are probably squirming with that commitment, that is the way I believe the House is headed and the government has certainly reflected that in its announcement. I encourage the government to live up to its commitment.

Now, I will revert to this trade bill. As previous speakers have said, this is a new trade agreement which Canada has entered into with four European countries. It is a happy event with the trading stars of five countries coming into alignment with all of the countries potentially benefiting from the freer trade and access provided for in this treaty.

There is something actually quite grand happening in Europe which most of us and the world are aware of. But after some thousand years of conflict and fighting, killing, burning, looting, shifting of borders, and tribal inter-tribal conflicts, Europe, after the last war, came together and decided to form a union, and to adopt mechanisms which would pre-empt and get rid of this sordid history of war and conflict. It is succeeding beyond the dreams of most people who lived through the horrors of the first half of the 20th century.

The European Union has adopted models for trade, international relations, monetary and fiscal matters, criminal law, the environment, and certainly succeeding in making the EU a new focus for global presence. I was going to use the word “power”, but there is more going here than just that. The EU is certainly a focal point for economic and political leadership in the world. Recently, at a meeting Europe of course is grappling with what we sometimes call multiculturalism. We can see dozens and dozens of cultures and languages in Europe, not so much coming together, but living together, interspersing, accommodating and flowering, and that is all happening in Europe now, as much as it is happening in Canada. In fact, I heard the Europeans refer to the Canadian model of multiculturalism when they were looking for a kind of a road map as to how to handle many of their internal issues involving culture, language, religion, heritage and preserving these things.

The European Union has approximately 20 to 30 countries and it is a market of about half a billion people. The EU and the countries we are dealing with here is a part of the world that is highly educated and very well off. The point I want to make is that the four countries we are dealing with are not in the EU. They are interspersed throughout the geography of the European Union but they are not actually members. For their own reasons they are not a part of the European Union. Those four countries are Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland.

Those particular countries, while they may each individually seem small, are actually a fairly significant group of traders with Canada. As I said, my party is usually very keen to endorse, support and promote improved trading relationships around the world, and I know the current government is following a similar policy.

We are a big exporting country. We would like to have access to as many world markets as we can gain access to. I should say that in this particular set of circumstances as we enter into this trade agreement and change our domestic laws to align with the treaty, and they are minor adjustments, not major ones, but as we do this, one of the issues we do not have in this particular trade agreement is the potential problem of having a trade agreement with a country that has a labour force that is very inexpensive and has low labour wage rates. We do not have that issue here because these European countries all have fairly standard European level wage rate structures.

If we were doing a trade agreement with a country that had very low labour wage rates, organized labour and labour generally here in Canada would have some concerns. Those types of arrangements often involve significant adjustments in the marketplace with one country making use of the relatively valuable low wage labour rates in the other party to the treaty. In this case, those adjustments are not present. The labour wage rates are pretty typical and similar to those in Canada.

Some people will wonder what we are really dealing with here. We are talking theory; we are talking some money, but what are we talking about when we are talking about trade with these countries.

In this particular case Canada exports to these four countries which call themselves the European Free Trade Association. This is what we in Canada sell to them: pharmaceuticals, copper, nickel, machinery, precious stones, metals, medical devices, aluminum, aerospace products, pulp and paper, organic chemicals, autos and auto parts, art and antiques. That is a pretty eclectic list. What do we buy from them? Not the same type of things. We buy specific types of mineral fuels, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, machinery, medical and optical instruments, clocks and all those expensive watches that we see in the jewellery stores at the malls. A lot of those come from these countries in Europe.

We have a great trading relationship. In 2007 we sold to them about $5.1 billion worth of merchandise trade and they sold to us approximately $7.4 billion of merchandise trade. There is lots of other trade going on as well in agricultural goods and in services.

There is investment moving around. In 2006 Canada invested $8.4 billion in these countries and the four of them invested $15.6 billion in Canada. There is a fairly healthy foreign direct investment movement going on here. I think Canadians should be aware of that. Our entrepreneurs and our investors do not only invest in Canada, but Canada now is a capital exporting nation. We invest in businesses, places and countries all over the world. That may scare some people, but many of us have pension plans and I think it should be reassuring that Canada's investments now span the world, at least the investments of individuals and of our pension plans, and on a global scale, our pension plans are looking rather large.

There are some highlights that I want to mention for the record. There are special provisions in this trade agreement. Do not forget that this agreement has been negotiated and there were some Canadian interests that needed to be recognized in the agreement, just as there were interests of these four countries that had to be recognized.

The first one has to do with agriculture. As we all know, Canada has a fairly robust system of supply management for many agricultural products. We think this has served our country well, domestically and internationally. There is some debate about some components of our supply management system here in Canada, but generally, I think the agricultural community believes that it has served us well.

When we enter into a trade agreement such as this, it is necessary to take some steps to protect the supply management system we have here, because supply management is not total unrestricted free internal trade; it is a supply managed pricing and supply. The countries with which we trade want to know, are we really free traders with the market governing freely or do we have a supply management system. In this particular treaty, for those countries themselves that have some supply management mechanisms as well, we have recognized the Canadian supply management system in agriculture and it will carry on unimpaired by the provisions of this trade agreement. That should be good news that makes entering into the treaty a lot easier.

The second is in terms of shipbuilding. Canada's shipbuilding industry has been under pressure economically for many years now. Many members of the House ensure that their remarks and their work in Parliament are calculated to support and sustain the shipbuilding industry where it carries on in Canada.

This treaty, therefore, had to be adapted to ensure that our Canadian shipbuilding industry was reasonably protected. The means chosen for that involves tariffication, putting tariffs on ships that would come into Canada from these countries. I am sure that Liechtenstein does not have much of a shipbuilding industry, being landlocked in the European Alps, but I know that Norway does and I think Iceland does.

We have created a very long period of tariffication for different types of ships, which runs 10 to 15 years. For 10 to 15 years after this treaty is put in place there will be protective tariffs for the Canadian shipbuilding industry. At the end of 10 or 15 years, however, those tariffs must come to an end. They will be tapered off. Our Canadian shipbuilding industry must compete with these other countries, but there is 10 to 15 years of adjustment. That is good news for our shipbuilding industry.

The third component that was added is a component one finds often in trade agreements like this. It is called a snap back provision. I believe that in most treaties it is invoked unilaterally. It is there to protect areas of the domestic market where there is a serious threat by the import of a foreign product.

Where there is a threat, perhaps by very low predatory pricing or dumping of a product from outside Canada in Canada, Canada would have the ability under this agreement to adopt the snap back provision which would reimpose a tariff. We have to keep in mind that this is a free trade agreement where there are no tariffs. If there were a dumping situation and a serious threat to a Canadian industry, Canada could reimpose a tariff up to the level of what is called most favoured nation. That tariff would be reimposed to protect, for a period of time, against the unanticipated threat from this offshore dumped product, merchandise, whatever it might be.

Those are the three specific provisions. In retrospect, it looks like this trade agreement was actually quite easily reached. However, let the record show that it took 10 years to put it together. Negotiations on this trade agreement began in 1998 and were completed in 2007, and we are now moving to implement the completed treaty.

In the view of this particular member and my party, on balance this trade agreement is a keeper. It is a good one. It will serve our country well. It will serve the four countries of the European Free Trade Association well. Our trade showing will undoubtedly increase and improve. Exports, jobs, and prosperity in all the countries will undoubtedly improve.

We are planning to vote in favour of the bill.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was caught off guard because I thought there would be someone speaking before me.

Bill C-55 would implement the Free Trade Agreement with the European Free Trade Association. The Bloc Québécois will be in favour of Bill C-55 primarily because this agreement does not have the same flaws as some previous agreements. There is also the fact that it does not affect supply management in the agricultural sector.

Obviously, one important point has to do with shipyards, but another is the fact that what is really at stake is the European Union. I will provide some context for the Bloc's position on this agreement, or rather the supplementary opinion of the Bloc Québécois. I will conclude with a caution about free trade agreements throughout the world.

The international economy is currently in an era of globalization. Multinational companies and big businesses are practically in a mad dash to make money from situations all over the world. They are making profits from the working conditions, human rights conditions and environmental conditions in various countries.

A closer look reveals that there are plenty of multilateral agreements. The WTO has 152 member nations, while the UN has 192. In 1955, the WTO had 89 members and the UN had 76. Twenty years later, in 1975, 157 countries belonged to the WTO and 144 to the UN. Today, the UN has 192 member countries and the WTO has 152. It seems that a lot of countries have signed on to multilateral agreements.

In the current context, however, particularly in the context of WTO negotiations—the Doha round, to be precise—more and more countries are taking part in the headlong race to sign bilateral free trade agreements. Nearly 200 countries want to sign free trade agreements—bilateral ones, of course.

At some point, Canada wants to sign as many as possible. It is hoping to sign agreements with close to 200 countries, and each of those 200 countries wants to sign agreements that will benefit them. We all know that for an economic transaction to work, both parties have to win. That is not always the case, but most people try to win most of the time. In many cases, a country might have general considerations that are not industry-specific.

That is the spirit in which Canada has signed some agreements and is negotiating others. We find such agreements perplexing. For example, consider an agreement that is currently being negotiated and that Canada would like to sign as soon as possible: the agreement with Colombia, a country with a deplorable human rights record.

I would like to go back to the European Free Trade Association, which is an association of four countries: Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. We believe it is a good agreement because, for one thing, Quebec stands to benefit the most.

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 in Quebec, or rather on the other side of the river, to be more precise.

In addiction, the mecca of brand-name drugs, with its pool of skilled researchers and advantageous tax rules, is Quebec. So a free trade agreement to facilitate trade between a corporation and its subsidiaries would likely bring new investments in the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec.

As for Norway, nickel accounts for over 80% of what we export there. The biggest mine in Canada, ranking third in the world, is in Quebec, in Ungava, owned by the Swiss company Xstrata. Our leading export to Iceland is aluminum. There again, production is concentrated in Quebec.

I was saying earlier that we were also in favour of this agreement because it did not have the same flaws as other agreements Canada has signed in the past. For example, NAFTA, the agreement with Costa Rica and the agreement with Chile all contain a bad chapter on investments that gives corporations the right to bring proceedings directly against a government if it adopts measures that reduce their profits.

There are no such provisions in the agreement with the European Free Trade Association. The agreement with that association covers only goods, and not services. So there is nothing that will mean we have to open up competition in public services, whether they are delivered by the government or not, since they are not covered. Similarly, financial services and banks will not be exposed to competition from Switzerland, which has a very solid and also very discreet banking system.

Liechtenstein is a veritable paradise for the financial world because of its tax system and bank secrecy. That country, with its population of 35,000, has no fewer than 74,000 corporations, primarily financial. In fact, the Prince of Liechtenstein himself owns the largest bank in the country.

The same thing is true for government procurement. The government will continue to be completely free to give preference to procurement here, subject to the WTO agreement on public procurement. Obviously it would be somewhat ridiculous for the government to negotiate latitude for itself and then decide not to use it actively. We fervently hope that the federal government, the largest purchaser of goods and services in Canada, will give preference to suppliers here and think about the benefits that flow from its purchases.

I started out by saying we would support it because when it comes to agriculture, supply management is not affected. Bill C-55 also allows for implementation of the bilateral agricultural agreements in addition to the free trade agreement with the European association. 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. 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.

There is some concern in relation to shipyards. We know that a policy to provide for support and development in that industry is needed quickly. That is the main point on which concerns could be expressed.

Naturally, we have concerns about the future of our shipyards. At present, imported vessels are subject to a 25% tariff. Under the agreement, these tariffs will gradually decrease over 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 could disappear.

For economic, strategic and environmental reasons, we must have shipyards. 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 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 and deputy critic. It reads as follows:

Therefore, 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.

This is practically the only major 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, something the government specializes in. This time, we will not be content with rhetoric. We need a real policy that covers all aspects of the industry.

The four member countries of the association offer good opportunities for Canada and Quebec. They represent a total population of roughly 12 million inhabitants. These are economically sound countries. The GDP per capita is $60,000 in Switzerland, $82,000 in Norway, $62,214 in Liechtenstein and $60,000 in Iceland. Canada's is $44,389.

This is a good endeavour. Somewhere at the end of the tunnel, we can see a dim light. Does the Conservative government intend to drop the philosophy it might have had during previous negotiations? This is a good endeavour. The outlook is good, but there are far higher stakes for a number of industries in Quebec and Canada, namely the European Union.

We see the government putting its energy into free trade agreements, like the ones with the European association and Colombia. The agreement with Colombia has not been ratified by the U.S. Congress for human rights reasons, but Canada is proceeding with the negotiations. In fact, two weeks ago, we went to Colombia and Panama.

We have heard witnesses and met with government representatives, people from non governmental organizations, unions and businesspeople.

Of course there have been some improvements, but there is still a nagging doubt. Without prejudging the Bloc Québécois position in these negotiations, there are nonetheless some points that need to be considered. In today's context, as far as international agreements are concerned, whether they are multilateral or bilateral, there is a growing sense that certain elements need to be incorporated into various trade agreements.

In the context of the European Free Trade Association, there are no cases of exploitation of people or workers. As far as the environment is concerned, some countries are cited as models. Nevertheless, the international economic movement is expressing its will to include in trade agreements such elements as human rights, labour rights and environmental aspects. These elements will increasingly have to be incorporated into agreements and will have to be assessed according to the situation in each country.

A country is responsible for distributing wealth among its population. Canada has not set the best example because, in 1989, this House unanimously adopted a motion whereby Canada was committed to the elimination of poverty in 10 years. That was almost 20 years ago and we now have more poverty than at that time and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Yet, it is a governmental responsibility.

On the international scene, governments will also have to give greater consideration to this international responsibility towards countries with much bleaker economic situations than ours. This responsibility must be reflected in agreements by including provisions covering human rights, labour law and the environment, of course.

Let us return to the main issue, that is the European Union. A free trade agreement with Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein is quite positive but we must be aware of the limits of this agreement. The total population of these countries is about 12 million and they account for 1% of Canadian exports.

The real opportunity lies with the European Union. With a population of 495 million generating 31% of global GDP, the European Union is the global economic powerhouse.

Canada is far too dependent on the United States, which has accounted for more than 85% of our exports; today, that figure stands at 79%.

That is the warning I wanted to convey. We should remember the committee's recommendations contained in the Bloc Québécois Supplementary Report. I would advise the Conservative government to truly realize that it must now follow the new direction being laid out—and it is unfolding quickly—and which consists of including employment rights, human rights, environmental considerations and even, in the near future, food sovereignty in bilateral agreements. This should also be adopted by the WTO.

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of the motion that C-55, 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 committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our theme for this week, which is strengthening democracy and human rights, today we will continue to debate Bill C-47, which is a bill to provide basic rights to on reserve individuals to protect them and their children in the event of a relationship breakdown, which are rights that Canadians off reserve enjoy every day.

We will debate our bill to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, Bill C-34, and Bill C-21, which would extend the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act to aboriginals living on reserve.

We will also debate Bill C-29, which is our bill to close the loophole that was used most recently by Liberal leadership candidates to bypass the personal contribution limit provisions of the election financing laws with large personal loans from wealthy, powerful individuals, and Bill C-19, which is our bill to limit the terms of senators to eight years from the current maximum of 45.

Next week will be honouring our monarch week. Members of Parliament will return to their ridings to join constituents in celebrating Queen Victoria, our sovereign with whom Sir John A. Macdonald worked in establishing Confederation, and honouring our contemporary head of state, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The week the House returns will be sound economic management without a carbon tax week. The highlight of the week will be the return of the budget bill to this House on May 28.

This bill proposes a balanced budget, controlled spending, investments in priority areas and lower taxes, all without forcing Canadian families to pay a tax on carbon, gas and heating. Furthermore, the budget implementation bill proposes much needed changes to the immigration system. These measures will help us ensure the competitiveness of our economy. I would like to assure this House that we are determined to see this bill pass before the House rises for the summer.

We will start the week by debating, at third reading, Bill C-33, our biofuels bill to require that by 2010 5% of gasoline and by 2012 2% of diesel and home heating oil will be comprised of renewable fuels, with our hope that there will be no carbon tax on them.

We will debate Bill C-55, our bill to implement the free trade agreement with the states of the European Free Trade Association.

This free trade agreement, the first in six years, reflects our desire to find new markets for Canadian products and services.

We will also debate Bill C-5 dealing with nuclear liability issues for our energy sector; Bill C-7 to modernize our aeronautics sector; Bill C-43 to modernize our customs rules; Bill C-39 to modernize the Canada Grain Act for farmers; Bill C-46 to give farmers more choice in marketing grain; Bill C-14, which allows enterprises choice for communicating with their customers through the mail; and Bill C-32 to modernize our fisheries sector.

The opposition House leader raises the question of two evenings being set aside for committee of the whole. He is quite right. Those two evenings will have to be set aside sometime between now and May 31.

With regard to the notes that were quoted from by the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, they were their notes and referred of course to announcements that clearly have been made about the need and the imperative of restoring our military's equipment and needs in the way in which the Canadian government is doing so.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-55, the Canada-EFTA free trade agreement.

As other members in the House have pointed out, this agreement has been in discussions for a long time. In fact, the European Free Trade Association and Canada first started their negotiations under the Liberals in 1997 but, ironically, it stalled in the year 2000 over shipbuilding issues. Here we are once again, in 2008, talking about concerns over the shipbuilding issues.

There are a number of good reasons why New Democrats have raised concerns about this agreement. Part of it is about the track record of the current Conservative government. All we have to do is look to the softwood sellout and look at the impact of what is happening in ridings from coast to coast to coast around the softwood agreement and some of the subsequent impacts on forestry policy. What we do not have, of course, is any kind of national strategy around forestry.

In addition, in the House today the government was talking about 22,000 jobs being created but what it failed to say is that the jobless rate rose in April to 6.1% and, in fact, manufacturing continued to decline in April with losses in Ontario and British Columbia. The number of factory workers has decreased by 112,000 since April 2007, according to Statistics Canada.

I want to return to forestry for one second because it directly relates to what we are seeing in the shipbuilding sector. With the government's policies around softwood and raw log exports, because of course it has a federal role, what we have seen particularly in British Columbia and my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan is one sawmill after another close. This has had an impact on the pulp and paper industry because it does not have access to fibre supply.

An article by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in June 2007 stated:

Numerous opportunities to generate jobs from forest resources are routinely squandered. Absent much-needed provincial forest policy reforms, the situation is poised to get worse.

This short paper addresses two of the more troubling trends plaguing the coastal industry – rising log exports and mounting wood waste...The cost of not turning those logs into lumber and other wood products here in BC was the loss of an estimated 5,872 jobs in 2005 and 5,756 jobs in 2006.

I know we are talking about a free trade agreement and shipbuilding, so I want to turn my attention to shipbuilding. But I think the record in the forestry sector is an important one to note in the House because it directly relates to trade agreements.

The government is saying, “Trust us. We have built in a 15 year window to protect the shipbuilding industry. Just trust us that somehow or other our workers and communities will survive throughout this”. Because the softwood agreement is so fresh in people's memories, it is very difficult to believe that the government will put the measures in place that will actually protect the shipbuilding industry.

In the early 1980s, the shipbuilding industry was a robust industry in Canada and there were a number of shipyards from coast to coast that were very successful, but in the mid-1980s, 1986 or thereabouts, we started to see a rationalization in the shipbuilding industry.

I want to acknowledge the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. We all know that any time a question comes up in the House with regard to industrial strategy in this country, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore will remind members that we must put shipbuilding into that context. Although he has been tireless with his advocacy for this, the government and the former Liberal government simply failed to do that.

I also want to mention the member for Halifax who acknowledged the fact that some work has been done to shore up, so to speak, the shipbuilding industry over the last while. However, we do not have a long term sustainable plan. The government itself has acknowledged the critical role that shipbuilding plays in terms of our sovereignty. Yet, it simply has not put the effort into developing that plan.

When the NDP expressed its concerns about the lack of carve-out provisions in this particular agreement, this position was not developed in isolation. This position was developed in conjunction with the industry and the trade unions.

The board of directors from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers Union came before the committee and talked about some elements that they saw as being essential to be included.

We are not just opposing the agreement. We are proposing solutions in conjunction with people who are on the ground in this industry. They have asked for a carve out, saying that shipbuilding must be excluded from the agreement. They said that the federal government should immediately help put together a structured financing facility and an accelerated capital cost allowance for the industry.

Earlier when we heard the minister speak, I put a question to him about the Jones act and the minister said that it was domestic policy. Let me talk about the Jones act for one second.

The U.S. has always refused to repeal the Jones act. It is legislation that has been in place since 1920. It was legislation that was deliberately developed to protect 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. In addition to that, and the minister said that this was domestic policy, the U.S. has also refused to include shipbuilding under NAFTA and has implemented in recent years a heavily subsidized naval reconstruction program.

If the United States, and many members of the House will tout it as the bastion of free enterprise, could see fit to work to protect its shipbuilding industry, surely Canada could do the same thing. This is even more critical in light of the sovereignty issue, but also we have the longest coastline in the world. We should have a vibrant and healthy shipbuilding industry, and it should be everything from small pleasure craft right the way up to the large vessels.

I talked earlier about some of the closures. I come from British Columbia and although this was a provincial government decision, we all know that many times provincial government decisions are influenced by policy at the federal government level.

I want to read from a press release of December 13, 2007, from the B.C. Federation of Labour. It said:

While B.C. Ferries holds a $60,000 party in Germany for 3,000 people on Friday, there will be no celebrating the launch of the first 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.

That release was put out by the B.C. Shipyard General Workers' Federation.

About the B.C. Ferries' tendering, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said:

Buying Canadian is no longer procurement policy—at least in British Columbia....If BC shipyards do not receive a significant portion of BC Ferries vessel refits and replacement work over the next five years it is doubtful that a single major shipyard will survive—a substantial de-industralization of the BC economy.

Why would the provincial government choose to forfeit a significant tool of industrial development and throw out its ability to use a major crown corporation to support local well-paying jobs?

Further on down in the article it talks about this being:

—simplistic bottom line economics—search the world for ferry bargains. This approach fails to recognize the spin-off benefits to the BC economy of local procurement. Assuming $175 million is spent in BC on ferry refits and a small new vessel over the next five years, these benefits include 1,500 person years of employment, a $78 million increase in household income, a $101 million increase in provincial GDP, and a $32 million return to government revenues.

Those were 2002 numbers so we can only imagine that those numbers would have substantially increased over the last few years.

What we see in British Columbia is a growing income gap. We have a province that is reeling not only from forestry, but from the lack of attention and investment in the shipbuilding sector. In July 2007 the B.C. shipyard workers put out another release. It said:

BC Shipyard Workers Federation says federal Conservative government betraying shipbuilding industry—free trade deal between Canada and European Free Trade Association expected today could throw away thousands of jobs and hundreds of million of investment in BC and Canada.

George MacPherson, president of the shipyard workers, said:

—a federal announcement today to add $50 million over three years to a Canadian shipbuilding financing program is money previously removed from the same program and won't do much to protect the industry.

Therefore, we have this shell game again, where money is taken away, then it is given back and another press release comes out from the government to talk about how wonderful it is.

MacPherson said:

British Columbia has already lost nearly $1 billion worth of shipbuilding work because BC Ferries is constructing several new ferries in Germany...

A national strategic policy development is required, which supports the shipbuilding industry. When the government talks about a 15 year window to do that, it needs to move on it now. In fact, the U.K. has a shipbuilding strategy. I want to read a couple of points from it because these are things that Canada could building on. Its Defence Industrial Strategy: Defence White Paper, of December 2005, stated:

—it is a high priority for the UK to retain the suite of capabilities required to design complex ships and submarines, from concept to point of build; and the complementary skills to manage the build, integration, assurance, test, acceptance, support and upgrade of maritime platforms through-life;...We also need to retain the ability to maintain and support the Navy....To sustain this requires a minimum ability to build as well as integrate complex ships in the UK, not least to develop the workforce, and to adjust first-of-class designs as they develop.

Surely Canada could learn from other nations that have really made efforts to protect their shipbuilding industry.

Again, earlier today people talked about the fact that Norway did not currently subsidize its industry. It does not subsidize its industry because the government of Norway, over a number of years, put subsidies in place, developed a long term industrial strategy and looked at training and support of the workforce.

We would expect to see that kind of initiative from the government. Because people keep talking about how long a time span 15 years is, what should be done is the carve out should happen so those plans can be put in place and our shipbuilding industry can build on its already considerable strength, because we are world class shipbuilders. However, we need to ensure we invigorate and support that industry.

I would argue it is even more important we carve it out and ensure that we put those supports in place.

The member for Halifax mentioned this, but I want to re-emphasize it. The president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of British Columbia 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.

Again, that is the labour side of it.

Let us talk about the president of the Shipyard Association of Canada, who retired from Irving Shipbuilding Inc. He 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?

We have to do something to ensure shipbuilding continues. The easiest thing is to carve it out from EFTA. And if you do one thing, convince your colleagues in government to extend the ship financing facility, make it available to Canadian owners in combination with the accelerated capital cost allowance, and you will have as vibrant an industry as exists.

It is very important that we continue to push for an amendment of this agreement which carves out shipbuilding to ensure our industry stays viable.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-55, which would implement the free trade agreement that Canada has negotiated with the European Free Trade Association, which is composed of Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

It marks the successful end of nine years of negotiations. This process began under the leadership of the former Liberal government and represents a significant achievement for Canada as a trading nation. It secures free trade with our fifth largest merchandise export destination.

Canada has always been a trading nation. From the early days of fur and fish to the present, when a remarkable 90% of our gross national product is attributable to exports and imports, Canadians have relied on international trade to bolster our economy.

Trade is the way of the future. The ratio of world exports to GDP has more than doubled since 1950.

This agreement is a proud achievement for our trading nation.

That being said, I share the legitimate concerns of our country's shipbuilding industry, and I have been careful to examine the provisions affecting that industry before offering my support.

The EFTA agreement strikes a balanced approach by providing new and important market access for Canada's exporters, while also ensuring that an important domestic industry is protected against unfair competition from Norway. Norway subsidized its shipbuilders and built up a tremendous shipbuilding infrastructure, growing the industry into a world leader. However, Norway eliminated its subsidies in 2005 and has no plans to reintroduce them in the future.

Nonetheless, the effect of this buildup still gives the Norwegian industry an advantage. As responsible legislators, we must be careful to ensure that this advantage does not allow it to compete unfairly against our own shipbuilders.

The EFTA agreement provides several protections against this historical advantage. First, it phases out tariffs on ship imports over 15 years, the second longest phase-out ever negotiated in a free trade agreement. This is also the longest tariff phase-out that Canada has ever negotiated. Our negotiators are to be commended for this achievement.

Furthermore, if imports from EFTA countries cause harm to our Canadian shipbuilders during that time, we can revert our tariffs to the pre-free trade tariff rate for up to three years.

This two-pronged approach provides important protection and a long transition period for our shipbuilders. This is the fairest, most balanced deal that can be achieved in the real world.

The only exception to these rules is for the largest type of ships, the post-panamax cargo ships, which is not a size of vessel that our shipyards can produce.

These provisions are critical. A carve-out option for these ships, as suggested by my hon. colleagues in the NDP, was a huge stumbling block to making this important agreement a reality.

All of this is not to say that shipbuilders will not see some benefits as well. Earlier, the NDP member for Halifax in fact said that the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia and Atlantic Canada will see some benefits from this agreement.

The buy Canada procurement policy for ships will not be threatened by this agreement, and shipbuilding is also being supported through a $50 million renewal of Industry Canada's structured financing facility.

The objective of the program is to stimulate demand for Canadian-built vessels and increase innovation in our shipyards. It has been able to attract foreign buyers to Canadian shipyards, and the $50 million reinvestment is an important part of continuing this trend.

We should also note that the EFTA agreement presents no threat to our agricultural supply management system. This system is specifically exempted in this agreement.

In my remaining time, I want to talk about the benefits of the trade agreement with EFTA.

The European Free Trade Association is a significant bloc of countries when it comes to their combined economic strength. They are our fifth largest export destination in the world and our twelfth largest destination for foreign direct investment.

Canadian exporters and producers will benefit considerably through the reduction and elimination of tariffs under this agreement. Benefits include the elimination of duties on all non-agricultural goods, the elimination or reduction of tariffs on selected agricultural products, and a level playing field with the European Union exporters in EFTA markets.

There are many farm owners and workers in my community who will be pleased to know that this agreement also eliminates the EFTA countries' agricultural export subsidies for products covered by the agreement. A significant number of agrifood products will receive tariff treatment no less favourable than the tariff treatment accorded to the European Union for the same goods. This is an important competitive gain for our farmers.

The agreement itself is a first generation agreement: it focuses on tariff elimination and trade in goods. Unlike NAFTA, the agreement does not include provisions on investment, services or intellectual property.

The focus on goods is justified. The activities of goods producers account for roughly one-third of total value-added of all industries in the Canadian economy. Between 1997 and 2004, the GDP growth for goods producers averaged 3% per year.

These exclusions have made it an easier deal to secure. However, these provisions should remain long term goals for Canada.

We need to secure provisions on services in the future. Services are the fastest growing part of the economy. Services are things that we cannot drop on our foot. Service producers account for two-thirds of industry-based GDP.

We also need to negotiate agreements on investment. Canadians need to be able to invest abroad with the full confidence that they will be treated equally to domestic producers. If they are not, they need the ability to seek legal solutions.

Finally, we will also need to secure an agreement on intellectual property. An intellectual property policy provides the foundation for investment and growth opportunities in the knowledge-based economy. When we look at our future generation, if we have to compete with giant markets like China and India, we will have to be a self-sustained knowledge-based economy here in Canada.

The free trade agreement with EFTA does not cover safeguards, anti-dumping and countervailing duties, which will continue to be addressed at the World Trade Organization. However, there are provisions that will allow these issues to be revisited after three years, leading to more negotiations and potential gains later on.

The EFTA agreement also has a strategic importance that cannot be discounted. It shows the European Union that we are a serious and important partner, which will help our hope to eventually secure free trade with the European Union.

Yet, the EFTA countries are important in their own right. There has been significant growth in our exports to them, with the past few years showing an amazing 27.6% annual increase in merchandise exports. They are an important market for Canadian natural resources, industrial products and forestry products.

The EFTA countries are also our seventh largest source of imports, including medical products, chemicals and machinery. My colleagues may not be surprised to know that Switzerland is also a key supplier of clocks and chocolate to Canada.

There is also strong foreign direct investment between both sides of this new agreement. Canadian direct investment abroad within these four countries totalled $8.4 billion in 2006. Similarly, Canada is an attractive place for foreign direct investment from EFTA. In 2006, the EFTA bloc invested a total of $15.6 billion in Canada, which was up an unbelievable $9.7 billion from 2004.

This agreement is also welcomed from the point of view of the relationship with Europe more widely. We have found common ground with four European countries. My daughter is currently studying medicine at a school in Europe.

As I go on with this case, I can see that we have a market that we should also be looking forward to because of the strength that the European Union brings to this agreement. We can have a marketplace to go to. This should also help us to find common ground with a much larger and more diverse European Union in the future. The EFTA agreement is an important stepping stone on the path to a Canada-European Union free trade agreement.

Other immediate advantages also include opportunities for trade diversification and enhanced industrial cooperation. We will also have a leg up on the U.S., which has yet to sign such an agreement with EFTA. It also keeps Canada ahead of China, which is already negotiating its own free trade agreement, and India, which is expected to begin negotiations this year.

The Liberal Party supports the broad, multilateral process of trade liberalization under the World Trade Organization. Securing equal access to all countries is ideal. It is especially important for countries where it would be difficult for Canada to get a deal with on the same terms, or even at all, due to our relative size.

Multilateral, non-discriminatory trade liberalization is the ideal. However, given what we are currently experiencing, the multilateral process is often cumbersome and slow. Regional trade agreements, like the one concluded between Canada and the EFTA, can be good and useful supplements to the multilateral process.

Finally, the agreement also has symbolic importance: it increases investor confidence, even without provisions on investment in the deal.

Culturally, Canada shares close ties with the EFTA countries. The largest Icelandic population outside Iceland is in Canada, estimated at more than 100,000 people. Large numbers of Canadians hail from the other member countries of the EFTA. Our countries share the values of democracy, freedom, human rights, freedom of expression and free market economies. We have so much in common with these countries.

Canada is a trading nation and the Liberal Party is the party of free trade. The EFTA agreement is an important agreement and it represents a launching pad to larger trade possibilities down the road. This is a trading relationship that every member in this House should rise to support. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to share my views. I welcome questions from hon. members.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-55.

I was in the House earlier today when the minister of trade made his very enthusiastic uncritical comments in support of the bill that is before us. I listened very carefully to what the minister of trade had to say about what the impact of Bill C-55 if implemented in its current form would be on the shipbuilding industry of this country.

I expected that he would speak in an informed way about what are some very serious concerns which are widely shared not just by a small corner of this House, not just by 30 New Democrat members of Parliament, but by a great many people across this country, particularly on both coasts, in terms of the very worrisome impact this free trade deal will have on the shipbuilding industry. Far from hearing him give appropriate attention to the very legitimate concerns that are widely shared and widely expressed, he more or less dismissed those concerns. I do not want to misrepresent him in any way, but I think he referred to them as certain sensitivities. He said there were certain sensitivities that had arisen in regard to shipbuilding.

I do not know the minister of trade personally, but I have to say that is one of the world's greatest understatements. Perhaps he is prone to understatement, I do not know, but it certainly does not do justice and it does not deal fairly with what are very deeply rooted concerns. From my point of view and that of the New Democratic caucus, these are well-founded concerns about what the impact of this deal, if it goes ahead unamended, will be on thousands of jobs in this country.

Having said that, there is a very unhappy history, one that is very much shared by and is the joint responsibility of a succession of Conservative, Liberal and Conservative governments. There has been a complete failure by any of those governments over the decades to put in place the kind of comprehensive, coherent, national shipbuilding policy that would have served this country so much better than the kind of fits and starts, piecemeal approach to shipbuilding. It has often been an approach that has been based more on short term electoral considerations than on the very fundamental issues that underlie the need for a comprehensive national shipbuilding policy.

My own experience and exposure to the inadequate responses of the succession of governments began when I was leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia. There were very real, well-founded concerns about the impact of that lack of a national shipbuilding policy in my own riding in Halifax. At that time I was proud to represent the riding of Halifax Fairview, and before that, Halifax Chebucto. Both of those provincial ridings were very much impacted by the policy, or more accurately, the absence of a national shipbuilding policy. That had an impact on the Halifax shipyards. We have systematically allowed that to happen in this country. Other countries, and one most notable in the context of this debate is Norway, have understood that there cannot be a sound, competitive shipbuilding industry if there is not a net comprehensive national policy.

I recall attending federal NDP conventions in the early 1990s. I think 1991 was one of the occasions when I was part of crafting and piloting through a very comprehensive policy that was adopted by the New Democratic Party. We called for that national shipbuilding policy. Before I ever came to Ottawa and continuing since I entered this chamber in 1997, the New Democratic Party has been very consistent and very persistent in continuing to press for that national shipbuilding policy.

We still do not have it. When the Minister of International Trade refers to “certain sensitivities”, his words, with respect to the disastrous impact that this trade deal, unamended, could have on our shipbuilding industry, he is being extremely insensitive to both that pathetic history of governments of his party's stripe and of the Liberals in not securing a sound base for a robust shipbuilding industry that can continue to compete in today's world.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with our current shipbuilders and our current shipyard workers in terms of their ability to compete, but we have had such a fits and starts approach to this industry that what has effectively happened is that Norway foremost, but other countries as well, has invested in a smart, orderly and far-sighted way in its shipbuilding industry. It has in the process established itself as a competitor that will be a huge winner from the trade deal that is before us. I say good for it.

Some people ask, what is wrong with New Democrats? After all Norway has had a proud tradition of being a social democratic country committed to high wages, committed to practically the whole range of policy objectives that the current government and the Liberal government before it completely pushed aside as not the domain of government intervention. In fact in Norway the government has intervened in a very smart way to build up its shipbuilding capacity, to train, to invest in the hardware, software and infrastructure needed, in the tax policies and so on.

It is not some kind of unexpected development that Canada finds itself at such a disadvantage in relation to competing with a country like Norway. What is unexpected, but I suppose we should come to expect it, what is absolutely unacceptable and impossible to understand for a lot of people whose jobs are at stake is what on earth Canada has been doing in the meantime that has allowed us to be so vulnerable.

It is not just New Democrats who are speaking out on this, although before I go to some of the other voices and some of the other interests very much concerned about the devastation in the shipbuilding industry that can result from this trade deal, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, who is not able to be here today. I have to say that if he had been in the House to hear the minister talk about certain sensitivities, I think he probably would have had a heart attack. In fact, he had an accident and because of his injury was in hospital yesterday being operated on, and therefore, he was not able to be here today. He has never failed to take a stand on behalf of the shipbuilders and the shipyard workers in this country from the day he entered public life.

It is not just the Nova Scotian members of Parliament in the New Democratic caucus who have been very vocal, knowledgeable and persistent in putting forward their concerns. There are several members from British Columbia. For example, there is the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. The Nanaimo shipyards are very important to the local economy and obviously for local jobs. There is the member for Victoria. In Victoria the Esquimalt dry dock is very important. The Lower Mainland and the Vancouver members all have expressed their concerns articulately. However, it is not just New Democrats who have spoken out.

I would like to read briefly from some of the testimony before the parliamentary committee when Karl Risser, president of Local 1, which was originally the Marine Workers' Federation but is now affiliated with the Canadian Auto Workers Shipbuilding, appeared before the committee. He did so not just on behalf of the proud members who have a long history with the Marine Workers' Federation and today are affiliated with CAW, but also on behalf of the Shipbuilding, Waterways and Marine Workers Council that has done a lot of collaboration and coordination around its concerns about this impending devastation to the shipbuilding industry. He stated in committee:

I am here on behalf of the workers in the marine sector...to express our opposition to this agreement. Canadian shipbuilders find themselves competing for work in domestic and international markets on far from a level ground. Other governments, Norway for one, have supported the shipbuilding industries 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 will not go on at length, but he makes the important point that ministers of defence over the years have acknowledged how important shipbuilding is to our defence. I know there are some members who will rush forward in this context and ask what my concern is now because we have some important new shipbuilding activity happening with respect to the submarine refits and to the frigates. That is absolutely true and it is very welcome, and I acknowledge that, but with respect to defence and shipbuilding, there has never been a comprehensive approach taken to this and, therefore, we have not had orderly procurement nor long term planning and investments. We have had major investments into important contracts from time to time but then just a drought for very long periods.

Someone who is not familiar with the shipbuilding industry may say that it is not the government's problem. Do we want the government investing and awarding contracts to shipyards to build naval vessels that we do not need? No, but that is not the point. The reason we need a comprehensive national shipbuilding policy is because of the very heavy investment of public dollars into contracts that are awarded for naval vessels and, most recently, major contracts with respect to frigates and subs. Without a comprehensive national shipbuilding policy, all that investment would fall idle if we did not have a commitment to Canadian shipbuilding of non-defence vessels.

It is not surprising that a lot of concern has been expressed. Unwisely, the government felt that, because of opposition from the existing shipyards and in the absence of a national shipbuilding policy, which, understandably, marine and shipyard workers across the country will be very opposed to, it could award the major contracts for both the frigate and the submarine refits and that would shut them up. It felt that would keep them busy in the short term and that they would not dare speak out because they would be so grateful.

However, what they understand, what they committed to and what they lobbied a long time for was not just the immediate investment in contracts that would benefit them individually as workers or their families, but they had pleaded the case and put forward comprehensive proposals for what a national shipbuilding policy should look like and they still do not have it.

Therefore, there are major concerns about what will happen to our shipyards and to the jobs of our shipyard workers over time.

The point was made that Norway should be the kind of country with which we would welcome entering into trade deals, and that is true, but that does not mean we can turn our backs on the legitimate problems that have arisen, not because of what it is looking for but because of what we have failed to do in terms or appropriate investments.

As I indicated, many other people have expressed concerns about the impact of this. Some may suggest that it only affects the shipyard workers. However, in his testimony before the committee, the president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation in British Columbia stated:

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.

Is it only the workers who have spoken out? No it is not.

In his testimony before committee, Andrew McArthur, speaking on behalf of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada but long-associated with Irving Shipbuilding Inc. and now in retirement, 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? ...We have to do something to ensure shipbuilding continues. The easiest thing is to carve it out from EFTA. And if you do one thing, convince your colleagues in government to extend the ship financing facility, make it available to Canadian owners in combination with the accelerated capital cost allowance, and you will have as vibrant an industry as exists

However, what has not happened is the kind of response to the expert advice given by those involved in the shipbuilding industry and by the concerns put forward by the shipyard workers themselves.

I want to come back to where the Liberals stand on this. I could not help but think how consistent they have been, and they are consistent if nothing else, on the budget, on the extension of the Afghan counter-insurgency mission and with regard to climate change. They have railed against them, have talked about the problems with them and then have voted for them or did not vote at all.

Today we heard the trade critic for the Liberals say that they really had concerns about shipbuilding. He knows the problems and spoke a bit about them but then said that they would monitor the effect of this on the shipbuilding industry.

In conclusion, I want to indicate that the New Democratic Party cannot support this bill without a carve out for the shipbuilding industry and without any indication that some of the agricultural implications have been adequately addressed.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the debate concerns the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association, which is made up of Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill and the agreement.

In the first part of my speech, I talked about how the agreement could mean attractive opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec. The same is true of the nickel sector, especially for one mine in Ungava, in Quebec. The agreement could also benefit aluminum exports to Iceland. Consequently, Quebec is very interested in seeing this agreement implemented.

Moreover, we have ascertained that the agreement will have no impact on agricultural supply management. The existing systems in Quebec and Canada can be maintained.

However, at the end of my speech, just before question period, I made the point that the federal government will have to take far more aggressive steps to support the shipbuilding industry once this free trade agreement takes effect. The agreement provides that tariffs will decrease over 15 years.

I believe that the shipbuilding industry in Norway, in particular, is much better equipped today than Canada's. Canada has abandoned the shipyards. The industry was not really given the tools to grow.

In that context, I would like to point out that one recommendation in the report presented by the Standing Committee on International Trade was adopted by that committee. It had been proposed by the hon. members for Sherbrooke and Berthier—Maskinongé from the Bloc Québécois, our two spokespeople in this matter. They did their work in a very conscientious manner and got support from the committee on the following motion:

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 is to raise a red flag. Indeed, the free trade agreement is desirable. However, in practice, for the marine industry the government truly has to make a significant shift and implement a support strategy for the shipbuilding industry.

This currently does not exist and our shipyards have often been left to fend for themselves over the past few years. We are seeing the results of that. It is possible to have a healthy and competitive shipbuilding industry, but we have to have a policy to that effect. That is no reason not to support the free trade agreement with European countries.

We are sending a message to all of Europe. The agreement I am currently referring to is the agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association, which includes Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. It is important to note that these are countries Quebec does a lot of trade with. However, this now suggests that the real target should be signing a free trade agreement with the European Union that will help achieve results for all our exchanges with Europe.

For example, the four countries involved in the current agreement represent 12 million people and roughly 1% of Canadian exports. With the European Union, it would be 495 million inhabitants who generate 31% of global GDP. In fact, the European Union is currently the strongest economic power in the world.

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 downturn in consumerism such as we are seeing now in the United States, when we see that the Americans are committing a lot of money to the war in Iraq, when we see the commercial paper crisis, when we see the economic slowdown in the United States, when we see the obvious aggression of emerging countries such as India and China, we can see that it is getting more and more difficult to keep our place in the American market.

This agreement gives us an opportunity to move forward and guarantee that we have access to Europe.

The current free trade agreement indicates that we are moving in the right direction. We should have a similar agreement for the entire European Union, but we do not. We believe that the federal government should speed up its attempts to access Europe so that we can arrive at an even more significant agreement that will give the best possible results.

This is the reality. We have lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs in five years, more than 80,00 of which were lost since the Conservatives came to power. They follow the laissez-faire doctrine, meaning that the market regulates everything, but that does not mean that we should not be open to new markets, as we would be with the free trade agreement we are talking about today, and of course a more widespread agreement with the whole of Europe. The European Union is absolutely essential to diversifying our markets and reducing our dependency on the United States. 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.

At this point in my speech, I would like to say that the Canadian government must realize that it is essential to move forward on environmental issues. Other countries must see that we are respecting Kyoto, and that we will be firmly committed to Kyoto plus, which will be developed at the Copenhagen conference next year. As it stands, we could end up paying export taxes because the international community does not recognize that we have made an adequate effort on environmental issues. The government will have to be tougher and much more active in this respect, and it will have to recognize that sustainable development is not only good for the environment, but it is also good for the economy. Canada is not currently a leader, as it could have been if it had truly decided to accept Kyoto, to implement it and to create resources more quickly, such as a carbon exchange, so that we could reap all the necessary benefits.

Let us go back to the possibility of a free trade agreement with Europe. With the rise of the petrodollar, European companies have tended to open subsidiaries in the United States and leave out Canada. That is another reason why it would be a good idea to sign a free trade agreement with all of Europe.

Canada's share of direct European investments in North America dropped from 3% in 1992 to 1% in 2004. The alarm bells are ringing. We need to change our attitude, we need to change the way we do things, and we need to come to an agreement with all of Europe, like the one we are debating today, as quickly as possible. It would be to Quebec's and Canada's advantage to sign and implement an agreement as soon as possible.

I should also point out that the European Union and Mexico have had a free trade agreement in place since 2000. As such, 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. It is important to both companies and workers for the federal government to change its attitude and speed things up in terms of opening up markets. Being open to globalization when the conditions are right means that our companies have to be in a competitive position. We have to give them the fiscal tools they need, and we have to give them the tools they need to access the market.

The example I just gave is the best one. A Quebec company does not have the same access to the European market as a Mexican company, and companies in Mexico have access to both North American and European markets. This is an aberration that should be rectified as soon as possible.

Quebec would be the first to benefit from a free trade agreement with Europe. The Bloc Québécois has been promoting this for some time now. We proposed it as part of our election platform and our political agenda. We believe that if we persevere in this file as we have in others, we will eventually get a free trade agreement with Europe.

For example, 70% 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.

Thus, we see what the prevailing spirit was when the free trade agreement was signed with the United States, the agreement that later became NAFTA. Thanks to that spirit, Quebeckers rallied behind their leaders who wanted to implement free trade. Quebec has benefited from this free trade. Unfortunately, market conditions have changed considerably. Since the markets have opened up to China and other countries around the world, we are now facing a new reality. This reality calls for new tools for international trade. Free trade agreements are the best example.

Today, the Bloc Québécois is very pleased to support Bill C-55, which would implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the EFTA, that is, the European Free Trade Association, consisting of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

We believe this is a step towards adopting such an agreement with Europe as a whole. Quebec is open to this position and hopes to see it come to fruition. Quebec as a whole shares this desire to move forward on such agreements. We hope the federal government will pick up the pace and conclude an agreement with the European Union. That would be the best way to diversify our economy, which really needs a boost, due to the slowdown in the American economy and the emergence of new competition from China.

I am pleased to confirm once again that the Bloc Québécois supports this free trade agreement and hopes to see it implemented as soon as possible. It will be beneficial for businesses and workers in Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When we were discussing Bill C-55, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup had 13 minutes to finish his speech. He now has the floor.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in the fact that I have an opportunity today to speak to this very important bill, Bill C-55, with respect to Canada-EFTA, now referred to as CEFTA, the Canada-European free trade association agreement.

From the outset I want to indicate our party's position on this very important bill, which is that the Liberal Party supports this deal, but calls on the government to continue to monitor and consider the issues around shipbuilding and the shipbuilding industry because this is something that has been brought to our attention on numerous occasions.

We look forward to working with stakeholders in the shipbuilding industry and with the government to make sure it addresses these concerns. I will allude to some of these concerns in my remarks as well.

Before I begin, I want to take a step back and create a context for the reason why we are supporting the bill. It is very important for the members in the House to recognize that we are the party of free and fair trade. We are the party of Wilfrid Laurier. We are the party, since that time, that has expanded Canada's trade opportunities abroad. We recognize that we are a trading nation.

It was during the Liberal Party's regime that we signed and even created side agreements that were very important, beginning with NAFTA in 1994, then, as the minister alluded to, Chile and Israel in 1996, then Costa Rica in 2002. All these agreements gave Canada additional opportunities and allowed us to succeed in the international community.

Currently, under the leader of the Liberal Party, the leader of the official opposition, and understanding points of trade, we recently made an announcement. I just want to remind members about the importance of trade because as the minister alluded to, we need to look at opportunities and we need to ensure that we take advantage of the opportunities.

In my opinion I feel the government has done limited work. I understand the minister has done a lot of good work, but I think he is constrained by the Prime Minister in that the Conservatives have done very little work when it comes to Asia, for example, and that is an area where there are tremendous opportunities.

On February 20 the Liberals made an announcement to allocate $50 million for the creation of the South Asian foundation to really harness the growth potential in a booming Asian economy.

I mention this in the context that we need to look at trade from a macro level. We promote the Doha round discussions very much and we think trade is very important, but we also need to look at how we deal with an emerging Asia, how we deal with a united European Union, and how we position ourselves within North America for economic prosperity and for the opportunities that exist.

In terms of this particular free trade agreement, I would also like to remind the House that it was under the Liberal government that this initiative was started, but we recognize there were some legitimate concerns around shipbuilding, and so we worked extensively with the shipbuilders to see if those issues could be addressed.

This is a generation one agreement. It strictly deals with goods. It does not have provisions for investment or services, and those are areas where there have tremendous opportunity and potential. We need to work with that. That was the question I asked the minister earlier because I felt that it was very important and needed to be addressed.

With respect to the trade agreement, people sometimes do not recognize our trade with EFTA and how important it is, but it is actually a very important trading partner. It is Canada's fifth largest merchandising export destination. It has two-way trade of approximately $13 billion. It is a tremendous opportunity for our businesses here in Canada to export into those markets.

People sometimes underestimate their importance when we allude to some of the countries involved in this agreement: Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. People do not think of those as countries that we necessarily trade with, but we do a lot of trade, However,t more importantly, there is a lot of investment and two-way investment between those countries.

I have 2006 data with me. Investment has increased, but we actually invest around $8.4 billion into those countries and they in turn invest $15.6 billion in Canada. There is tremendous opportunity there with respect to trade. Those trade statistics allude to the importance of our trading relationship and this will enhance that relationship. However, there is a tremendous potential that exists in the service sector and the investment regime as well.

The other area that was mentioned that I thought was very important to discuss, and the member opposite mentioned it as well, is with regard to agriculture and agricultural products. This is an important issue that was raised during a committee discussion as well. When the free trade agreement was initiated and eventually signed, there were legitimate concerns around supply management.

We support this free trade agreement because it maintains the Canadian supply management program. That is very important to us. As a Liberal Party, we have been staunch defenders of this initiative and we feel supply management is very important for our domestic market.

Therefore, because of the provisions in the agreement and the fact that Canadian supply management programs are maintained, the agricultural issues by and large are addressed. This was our primary concern with respect to agriculture. We understand the importance of agriculture. We raised this issue and ensured this issue was dealt with in the appropriate fashion in the agreement.

I alluded earlier in my remarks to non-agricultural goods. I said we supported this deal but we had concerns specifically around shipbuilding and the shipbuilding industry. We are supportive of the deal because it legitimately address some of those concerns, for example, the fact that for the first three years there is no tariff reduction, which is very important for shipbuilders. Once the deal is signed, hopefully effective January 1, 2009, if all goes well, it will ultimately mean that by 2012 there will be no tariff reductions for shipbuilders.

Subsequent to that, there will be a 15 year phase-out on Canada's most sensitive vessels. Those sensitive vessels range from ferries to cruise ships to offshore supply ships to basically salvage ships. Those vessels will have a 15 year phase-out. The other vessels such as tankers, those having to do with drilling platforms, drill ships, ice breakers are given a 10 year phase-out period. Those are sufficient safeguards to allow for the reduction of shipbuilding tariffs and allow the Canadian industry the opportunity to rebuild itself in some context, to redefine itself and ensure that it can compete not only domestically, but abroad as well.

The other issue we felt was important was whether the requirements for buy in Canada procurement policy would remain intact, which was important to us. When we saw the deal, this had been maintained and honoured in the free trade agreement. There was no requirement to modify the buy in Canada procurement policy.

Therefore, not only do we have a long tariff reduction phase, but we have a buy in Canada procurement policy that is maintained and protected.

The other concern we had was with respect to the dispute mechanism and how we would deal with any disputes if they were to occur. We again have very little confidence in the government. If we take, for example, the softwood lumber agreement, or as some refer to it, the softwood sellout, that very much questions the government's judgment and the way it represents Canada.

I remind the viewers and the members in the House, that agreement cost $1 billion of Canadian taxpayer money. It left $1 billion on the table. It created a quota system in Canada. It in effect forced companies in Canada, the softwood lumber industry, to be subjected to quotas. Now we are going to the courts again with the U.S. government on these issues again. We are being sued on these matters, or being taken to court in litigation over this.

More important, the fundamental issue we had with that was we lost our sovereignty. We lost the ability to genuinely be able to create programs in Canada to work with industry, and that concerned us.

Therefore, we want to ensure the dispute mechanism does not reinvent the problems we incurred with the softwood lumber agreement. The dispute mechanism in this agreement addresses some legitimate concerns around snap-back provisions, about the fact that it will establish a joint committee to supervise the implementation of CEFTA. Disputes will be resolved through cooperation and consultation and any matter not settled in 90 days may be referred to a tribunal to interpret the agreement and determine consistency with obligations. These important provisions have been addressed in the agreement.

We support the bill. We support the free trade agreement. As I said before, we are the party of free and fair trade. Liberals understand the importance of trade and of creating opportunities for our businesses.

I want to share one small example with the House. I come from the riding of Mississauga—Brampton South, which is situated close to the airport. Many logistical companies, owners of small business and others rely on trade and look for opportunities to expand trade. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance is attacking Ontario. He has said not to invest in Ontario. I hope the Minister of International Trade will not follow suit and will use his better judgment.

The reason I bring that up is because Canada's trade surplus has been in decline since the Conservatives took power. Our trade surplus is shrinking each month and our export market opportunities are fairly limited. The government needs to continuously examine foreign markets to look for opportunities for our businesses, specifically small and medium sized enterprises, like the ones in my riding, that depend on trade, and create a lot of jobs and economic opportunity.

This is a first generation trade agreement. It is a step in the right direction. It addresses some legitimate concerns around agriculture, supply management, and the shipbuilding industry, but we still have some concerns.

I asked a question earlier today with respect to the structured financing facility. The shipbuilding industry is supported through Industry Canada by a $50 million renewal. This is not sufficient. The government needs to do more.

The Minister of International Trade, in his previous job as a minister in the Liberal government, was also the minister responsible for Industry Canada. He looked at this issue. I asked my question in that capacity. I wanted him to explain to the House what more was being done to help this industry in terms of financing. The minister is very optimistic about shipbuilding. He feels it is a dynamic industry with a lot of potential. I want to ensure that the minister understands we share those same concerns. There is tremendous opportunity as well in that industry. Perhaps the minister could speak to that issue and explain what more is being done to help it out.

I look forward to any questions or concerns by members opposite.

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

moved that Bill C-55, 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 a great honour for me to stand in the House today and lead off debate on this trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association.

It is important when we debate our trade relationships to bear in mind that Canada has been, is now and always will be a highly trade dependent country. Indeed, there is probably not a member in the House or a person in Canada who is not dramatically affected by Canada's trade and Canada's trade performance.

I should note that we are unlike the United States, for example, as we are nearly two and a half times more trade dependent than the United States. We have a domestic market of 34 million people compared to nearly 400 million in the United States.

Trade is Canada's lifeblood. We can look at the forces of protectionism, which will be damaging to the United States over time if they continue, and we can see that if such forces were to be unleashed in Canada, I can assure hon. members it would be not just hurtful but devastating to Canada. Therefore, it is critically important that Canada continue to develop trade relationships such as the one we are debating today.

As you have noted, Mr. Speaker, this agreement is with four countries: Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. It is really a milestone in terms of Canadian trade policy. It is a milestone for a couple of reasons.

First, it is really our first substantial trade agreement in over a decade. Canada had a small agreement with Costa Rica in 2001, but I have to tell hon. members that the trade and investment numbers between Canada and the EFTA countries are nearly 30 times that of our relationship with Costa Rica. Really, our previous most significant trade agreement was back in 1996-97, when we made the deal with Chile.

We can look at the trade numbers and see that the combined exports and imports between Canada and the EFTA countries were over $13 billion in 2007. That is of course higher than our trade with Korea. It is a very substantial volume of trade and has grown rapidly in recent years.

When we look at foreign direct investment, we can see that two way investment flows between Canada and the EFTA countries are in the $28 billion range as of 2007. While people may make light of the fact that this is not a deal with the entire European Union, which would be our next priority on that side of the Atlantic, this is a very significant trade deal. These countries are relatively wealthy. Their GDP per capita is among the highest in the industrial world. They are technologically advanced countries. As I say, it is our first trade deal with a European bloc or country in terms of our bilateral free trade agreements.

When we look at it strategically for both countries, we can see that this is a trade deal that allows the EFTA countries to think of Canada as a gateway to the entire North American market, a market of 440 million people, and it allows Canadian businesses to look at the EFTA countries as a gateway into the European Union, because the EFTA countries do have a free trade arrangement with the European Union.

It is also important because Canada, and I think the majority of Canadians, most provinces and certainly the Government of Canada, is anxious to deepen our economic relationship with the larger European Union. To have shown that we can establish a free trade deal of the kind we have done with EFTA puts us in a very strong position to maintain and improve momentum in terms of doing a deeper trade deal with the European Union. That is a very high priority of this government.

As I look at our trade relationships, it is very important for members to recognize that we really have been on the sidelines for the better part of a decade in terms of our trade policies. We have become extremely dependent on the United States market because of NAFTA. That is all good, but for our trade it does mean that roughly 76% of our exports are going into the United States market. That is highly concentrated.

There are protectionist pressures in the United States these days, so it is critically important that we not focus just on improving NAFTA, which is a focus for us, but that we also look at diversifying our trade relationships. Other countries are doing it and they are doing it aggressively.

We can look at the United States. It has free trade agreements with 16 countries. Mexico has free trade agreements with 40 countries. Chile has trade agreements with 53 countries. Many of these countries are negotiating additional agreements as we speak.

We can look at Canada. Before this agreement, we have had free trade agreements with five countries through four agreements covering five countries. That is not good enough for a trade dependent economy like Canada's, which is why Canada is actively negotiating free trade agreements with a number of countries.

We have active trade negotiations going on with some 27 countries. When we broaden it to cover air bilaterals, investment agreements and free trade agreements, we are negotiating presently with something in the order of 100 countries.

This government is committed to a re-energized trade policy. We are moving forward aggressively to ensure that Canada is back in the game and that Canadian producers and Canadian jobs are not disadvantaged because we are sitting on the sidelines.

I would also note that on the same day we signed the EFTA agreement in Davos, Switzerland, we also concluded negotiations with Peru. That is another very significant trade agreement. It is a new generation trade agreement. When it comes before the House I will be able to explain to members some of the new and innovative elements in the agreement with Peru.

This agreement is what we call a first generation trade agreement because it was initiated roughly a decade or so ago, so it does not cover trade in services. It does not have an investment chapter, although it does have provision for those chapters to be added within the next three years.

I should say that this deal is a good one for both agricultural and non-agricultural interests in Canada. It has certain sensitivities that have been inhibiting the closure of this agreement over the years. The shipbuilding industry was one particular area in which we have had some sensitivities.

This agreement has the best provisions on shipbuilding of any free trade agreement that Canada has ever signed. The tariff phase-out is 15 years on the most sensitive products and 10 years on the next most sensitive products, and the first 3 years is a period during which there would be no tariff reductions at all.

When we combine what is in this agreement with the buy Canada shipbuilding program that the Government of Canada is bringing along, with over $8 billion in shipbuilding, and when we combine that with the replenished structured financing facility for shipbuilding, I think we are on the threshold of a renaissance in the shipbuilding industry in Canada. I think it will be very good for the shipbuilding industry.

Even today as we speak, the Davie shipyard in Quebec, which has gone through serious financial problems over the last 10 years, is now owned by a Norwegian company and its order book goes out at least five years, with many of the vessels and work being done in that shipyard being sold back into the Norwegian and European markets.

I would also note on the agriculture front that this agreement does exclude the supply managed sectors. As members know, we have committed not to put those on the table in our free trade negotiations with other countries, and we have not done so in this case.

Let me wrap up by saying that this is part of the government's approach to enhancing Canadian competitiveness and to recognizing that while we have had the strongest economy among the group of eight, certainly fiscally and economically, we do see risks on the horizon. Everyone knows there are some serious economic adjustments taking place in the United States and the rest of world. We are aggressively moving to ensure that Canada's economic performance in the long term is enhanced, because Canada's economic performance will be driven by our trade performance.

There will be no way that we can spend our way to prosperity in Canada. It does not work that way. It leaks out in terms of just enhancing imports for Canada. We have to trade. We have to export. We have to sell to other countries. Our global commerce strategy, which is part of “Advantage Canada”, is designed to do just that.

I would note that our approach is driven by the modern integrated approach to international trade which recognizes that trade today is driven by global value chains. Global value chains are driven by investment. Global value chains are driven by technology. Global value chains are driven by the movement of capital and people around the globe.

Rooting those value chains deeply into Canada is a critical part of our trade strategy, which is why our free trade agreements are important. It is important to expand our free trade agreements from goods to cover services and investment. It is important to bring air bilaterals into the mix, because if we do not have good air services between Canada and our trading partners, we cannot service and be efficient in terms of being part of global supply chains.

We are also doing investment agreements. As I noted earlier, investment agreements are critical because investment carries with it technology and opportunity in terms of driving exports and imports.

We are looking at transportation and logistics in a way that integrates this, like no other country and like never before in Canada, with our trade policy. Our transportation and logistics gateways in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, through Churchill in the north, and north and south between Ontario and Quebec and the United States, are critical elements of trade policy. Without transportation and logistics at a globally competitive level, we simply will not be a competitive trader in the world economy today.

This is part of a larger mosaic of policies that are fitting together in a comprehensive way to ensure that Canada, Canadians and our kids and grandkids have opportunities like those we have enjoyed in the past. I welcome the discussion on this agreement today.