Bill C-2 (Historical)

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

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

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to this legislation. It is clear that shipbuilding policy is critically important, and the Conservative government has neglected shipbuilding over the last three years.

I have worked very closely with members of my caucus, members for Halifax West, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, and Random—Burin—St. George's. We have met with and had great consultations with the shipbuilding industry and with labour.

It is very clear what we need to do in terms of an industrial strategy for shipbuilding. We need to reinvest in the structured finance facility. We need to combine the accessibility to the structured finance facility with the accessibility of the accelerated capital cost allowance—in other words, to make the two programs available at the same time to Canadian buyers.

Currently, if someone from outside of Canada wants to buy a Canadian-built vessel, they can qualify for the Canadian structured finance facility and they can qualify for the accelerated capital cost allowance in their own country. If a Canadian buyer of a Canadian-made vessel wants to do the same, they cannot. They can qualify for one or the other. That is clearly nonsensical and ought to be addressed.

We need to invest more vigorously in government procurement. When we talk about Arctic sovereignty and defence and the Coast Guard, the need to invest in vessels is clear. Governments around the world invest in domestic procurement in shipbuilding and help create national and international champions, both in shipbuilding and in defence, as well as in the aerospace industry. Governments with whom we have free trade agreements in fact pursue more vigorously procurement programs aimed at developing their domestic industries than we do.

The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca talked earlier today and has over the years presented many innovative solutions and ideas for advancing shipbuilding. With that focus we have worked with the industry critic in our party and we will continue to advance and present to Canadians a clear and important shipbuilding policy.

The issue of trade is critically important to Canada. Our prosperity as a small, open economy depends on our trading relationships. The FTA and NAFTA have been very good for creating wealth and prosperity for Canadians. It is ominous when, in recent weeks, for the first time in 33 years, we have a trade deficit. With our relatively small, open Canadian economy, we are actually now buying more than we are selling. That is ominous in terms of our capacity to create wealth and prosperity for Canadians and our capacity to use that wealth to invest in progressive social policy for Canadians.

The fact is that we are too reliant on the U.S. market, and as the U.S. market tanks, as it is doing right now, we are very vulnerable. Over the last three years the Conservative government has not effectively diversified our trading relationships and in fact has damaged our trade and foreign policy relations with what will be the fastest growing economy in the 21st century, and that is China.

China, notwithstanding what is going on globally now with the economic downturn and recession, is growing this year by 8%. China needs the commodities we produce in Canada. China needs the energy we produce in Canada. China desperately needs the clean energy solutions we can develop in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, and across Canada, both in terms of cleaner conventional sources and alternatives.

At a time when we should be deepening our trade relations with China, the Conservative government has chosen to destroy that relationship and has done everything it could to damage those types of constructive relations that would allow China and Canada to partner to research, develop, and commercialize clean energy technologies and to build their economy in a sustainable way.

The European Union is going to be the next frontier for Canada. We have a vested interest in deepening our trade relationship and pursuing a free trade agreement with the European Union, the second largest export market in the world next to the U.S.

The European Union is looking closely at the EFTA free trade agreement with Canada. The EFTA free trade agreement with Canada is seen as a bit of a qualifier for the negotiations. Currently the negotiations between the EU and Canada are only at the scoping stage, but the EFTA free trade agreement with Canada is seen as a qualifier. Whether Canada can sign a free trade deal with EFTA countries will determine whether we can pursue one with the EU.

Saying no to EFTA would be a major setback. In fact, saying no to EFTA would mean saying no to a free trade agreement with the EU. That is the practical reality.

It does not surprise me that the NDP is against the free trade agreement with the EFTA countries, because the NDP has been consistent. That party has been against NAFTA, it has been against the EFTA, and I fully expect it will be against the free trade agreement with the EU. I expect that when a Liberal government moves forward to deepen our trading relationship with China, the NDP will be with the Conservatives fighting that economic progress and the deepening of our relationship with China.

In recent weeks, when the U.S. Congress was moving forward with very significant and dangerous buy-American provisions that they added to their stimulus package that would have discriminated against Canadian steel and Canadian manufactured goods, the NDP actually supported those measures in the U.S. Congress and said the buy-American initiative was actually good, and in fact that we should be introducing our own buy-Canadian initiatives here in Canada. This would lead back to the same type of situation we saw with Smoot-Hawley in the 1930s, when U.S. protectionist action lead to other countries' protectionist actions, which led to, at a time of economic downturn, when we needed to be deepening trade relations, dividing of the world and the economy and preventing those trade relations.

It does not surprise me that the NDP was against these trade agreements, but it did surprise me a little bit that the NDP was supporting the American Congress with measures that were directly and completely against Canadian prosperity and jobs.

We do stand for a strong shipbuilding policy. A Liberal government will implement a strong shipbuilding policy. When we discuss the shipbuilding policy with the shipbuilding stakeholders, they agree with the measures we are proposing and believe that they can make a real difference in creating jobs and opportunities in the shipbuilding industry.

If the NDP argument is that we should be against all free trade agreements around the world and we should fight vigorously against liberalized trade, what do ships typically carry? Ships typically carry goods. If we do not have vigorous international trading relationships, if we do not pursue free trade, if we cut Canada off from the world, that would be the worst thing for the shipbuilding industry.

Frankly, if we do not have international trade, we do not need many ships. The more international trade we have, the better for the shipbuilding industry here in Canada, the better for shipbuilding industries around the world.

I live in a little community called Cheverie in rural Nova Scotia. In Cheverie there were shipbuilders back during the age of sail. Those shipbuilders built vessels that transported goods around the world. The reason we have an Atlantic Canadian or British Columbian or Quebec shipbuilding industry is because of trade.

If its opposition to trade was specific to this agreement, the NDP would have more credibility, but the fact that it is opposed to every trade agreement Canada ever tries to sign eliminates the NDP's credibility on trade, on shipbuilding, and on economic policy in general.

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

Mr. Speaker, stopping all free trade would be bad news for Canada, and we know how the NDP feels about bad news.

The member for Kings—Hants made some excellent points. I take a bit of issue with his references to the Conservative government not promoting trade with China as much as we could. If the member looks at the global economy, I'm sure he will realize that purchases are down in China as well as every other country. Even though its economy has grown, China's purchasing has slumped a bit, and that is a natural thing.

It is important to recognize that our trade with China is strong. We are selling a lot of forest resources to China now. We are doing everything we can, but we are not going to trump human rights in respect to trade.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, no member of the Liberal caucus or the Liberal Party would ever suggest that human rights ought to be subordinated.

The fact is that three years ago, with the Liberal government, under both Prime Minister Chrétien and Prime Minister Martin, Canada had more influence on Chinese human rights when we were deeply engaged at the foreign policy and trade level than we do now. We have less influence on Chinese human rights today because of the fact that the present Prime Minister has chosen to poke his fingers in the eyes of the Chinese government at every turn.

We have lost the capacity to influence the Chinese on human rights, and we have subordinated and destroyed a trading relationship with China that has the capacity to create great wealth and prosperity for Canadians.

China needs our energy and our commodities. We need to be deepening our relationship and working with China to research and develop and commercialize clean energy technologies. We need to be China's clean energy partner to help it develop its economy in a sustainable way, and there are great opportunities for Canada to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to the trade committee. He is still learning about trade, but I am sure over time he will get up to speed.

I need to correct one thing with respect to his comments about the European Union. The European Union recently signed an EPA with CARICOM, the Caribbean countries. The Caribbean legislature said it was not good enough and made some changes, and the E.U. is now moving to ratify that agreement.

So the issue with the NDP is not trade agreements. We favour fair trade, not Bush unregulated free trade but fair trade agreements. We are strong promoters of that. We take issue with bad trade agreements.

The Liberal caucus has admitted that it made a monumental mistake by supporting the softwood sellout. Northern Ontario and northern Manitoba reacted by throwing the Liberals out of every single seat in those areas because they made that mistake.

Now we have the shipbuilding sellout, and some hon. members in the Liberal caucus are saying they are going to support the amendment. People from British Columbia and Nova Scotia know they have to vote in the interests of their shipyard workers.

I am simply asking the member to listen to members of his caucus who are saying they need to stand up for shipyard workers.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know one liberalizing trade agreement or one free trade agreement that the NDP has ever supported.

The fact is that NAFTA and the FTA have created remarkable wealth for Canada.

The NDP should be less ideological and more economically competent and modernize its economic thinking. The fact is that social democrat parties around the world have come forward. We just need to look at the British Labour Party. Countries like Sweden have been able to embrace social progress and economic literacy. The NDP is the only social democrat party in the world that still clings to the globophobic, socialist Luddite myths of the past.

It is time for the NDP to modernize its policies and maybe at some point, 20, 30, or 40 years in the future, be a reasonable alternative for Canadians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed that the Bloc has indicated it will not support the motion, because the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is a very strong advocate for shipbuilding in this country. In fact, he is co-chair of the shipbuilding caucus, which he and I started. That caucus has representation from all parties, including representation from the Senate, as well as shipowners, shipbuilders, labour and some civic personnel across the country.

He would know that trade deals in themselves are good when they are fair and balanced on both sides. The problem is, as he knows, that the declining tariff over 15 years could seriously jeopardize the yard in his own province. In the province of Quebec the Davie yard may lose the ability in the very near future to perform shipbuilding work.

I wonder how the Bloc squares that circle. Is the Bloc willing to sacrifice those shipyard workers for other aspects of the economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows well enough that the Bloc Québécois would never sacrifice one job in Quebec, never. That is why we were hoping that the New Democratic Party would take off its blinders a bit and participate in creating a real policy, a strategy to develop shipyards. That is what is needed. We should not be discussing the NDP amendments. In this House we should be discussing an assistance program for shipyards. That is what would allow them to be competitive, and that is what Davie Shipyards needs. That is the reality. Once again, the NDP refuses to see the reality. They have moved on to something else. An agreement will be made and we should discuss a real assistance program and work together, with the government, on this program.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is just my point. If the Davie yard is unable to compete in the shipbuilding industry because of a heavily subsidized industry in Norway--which it does not subsidize anymore; Norway has got it right and has got it down pat--but if that industry is unable to compete, is the member asking that Quebec and Canadian dollars go to assist an industry that may not be able to compete in the long run?

We are saying that if the United States of America since 1924 has exempted shipbuilding marine services from any free trade deal that it has ever signed, and the U.S. is our largest trading partner, should Canada not follow suit? We have nothing against the EFTA countries. What we are saying is that this particular aspect of the deal should be set aside so that our yards, our workers and companies across the country will be able to do that job in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, this member's problem is that he should be getting legal advice. The NDP's amendment would only serve to put an end to this free trade agreement and that is not the goal. The NDP should have done this work before. If they did not do it, that is their problem. However, as we are talking, we are hoping that the free trade agreement will be put in place and that we will work immediately towards a policy to help shipyards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to debate the motion of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster to get the amendments removed from this deal.

First, I want to respond to my colleague from the Bloc. He suggests that if we carve out the shipbuilding aspect of the deal, then the deal will fall apart. It does not have to fall apart. Norway has said very clearly that it will not sign the EFTA deal if shipbuilding is not part of the package. Why would Norway hinge the entire deal on one aspect of our economy? What is in it that it wants so badly?

Let me explain exactly what Norway wants. Norway heavily subsidized its marine industry in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties, and North Sea oil. It has an awful lot of offshore supply vessels and it would love to put them in Canadian waters and yards. That is why this deal is so contingent upon it. That is why Norway is focusing on it. Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland do not care about the shipbuilding concern because it is not a major player in their economy, but that is what Norway wants.

The declining scale of the tariff may indeed jeopardize our ability to build and repair vessels in our country. The NDP is the only party with an official critic for shipbuilding. We know this is a very integral and strategic part of our economy, and it can have a fabulous future.

Let me go back a bit. In 2003 I asked John Manley, the then minister of finance, a direct question about shipbuilding. He stood in the House and said that, in his mind, shipbuilding was a sunset industry. That hurt and it was not a very nice thing to say. Thousands of shipyard workers and their families were extremely disappointed that the minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, looked at shipbuilding as a sunset industry. In other words, pound sand and go away. We are moving on to other things. We are very fearful, not just about EFTA, but that we will sacrifice the shipyards for other aspects of the economy.

The next trade deal to be talked about is with Korea, which desperately wants not only the auto sector, but the shipbuilding sector included in those trade talks.

We should ask ourselves why Canada would so willingly, on bended knee, give away this industry for other trade deals of the economy. I honestly believe there are still some Conservatives today, probably some Liberals and a few bureaucrats, who look at this industry as a sunset industry. They look at those hard-hat guys in Halifax, who I was with last week and the week before, and the hard-hat guys in Vancouver. They are arc welders who bend metal and do all kinds of things. They wear coveralls. They get dirty every day. They make a decent wage and look after their families. The bureaucrats who sit in ivory towers look at them with disdain and disgust. That has to stop now.

If this is such a great deal, all we ask the Conservatives to do is carve shipbuilding out of that package and the can have their deal. This is not unprecedented. We are not the only country to do this.

I also remind the Conservatives, when they were Reformers, they opposed supply management. Supply management was not part of their platform. When they became Conservatives and received a tremendous amount of pressure from the farm sector in Canada, they decided to support supply management. When the Conservatives go into these trade deals at WTO and the Doha rounds, et cetera, they say that supply management should not be touched. They already admit that some sectors of our society require protections.

I remind the House, 80% of our trade in Canada is with the United States of America. Ever since 1924, every FTA that America has signed has excluded shipbuilding and marine services from those trade deals. In the 1988 free trade deal that Canada signed with the United States, under the Jones Act of the United States, it was exempted.

That was accepted by the Conservatives of that time as an acceptable argument to protect the industry in the United States. However, we did not do the quid pro quo here in Canada. We just opened it up. Whatever the Americans wanted, they got. Why are our negotiators, be they Conservative or Liberal, consistently so weak, so ineffectual and so unwilling to stand up for working families, our companies and our country.

I simply do not understand why we would be so willing to give away an industry which can provide high-paying jobs in our country, an extremely high tech sector. From mineral resources to our mining companies to high tech, we could be employing, and we should be employing, thousands of workers from coast to coast to coast. We should be building the ships and the rigs in our country, which we so desperately need.

We are now down to five major yards in the country plus a bunch of smaller ones. We have the Victoria yards, the Welland yards, the Davie yards, the Halifax yards and the Marystown yards. We used to have one in Saint John, New Brunswick, which built the frigates, one of the most modern yards in the world. What happened after we built the frigates? We let it die. We gave it $55 million to shut it down. We gave it millions of dollars to upgrade the yard, then we gave it millions of dollars to shut it down.

This is the attitude that prevails in this place. We should not, under any circumstances, be sacrificing this very vital and strategic industry for other aspects of the economy. We know this is exactly what has happened.

We need $22 billion worth of work just on domestic procurement in our country: the JSS support ship vessel contracts, the Coast Guard, the Laker Fleet and our ferries, every one of those vessels can and should be built in Canada.

What is the attitude of the government, from Liberals to Conservatives? It is the same thing: “Yes, we are going to build ships in Canada”. I keep hearing that over and over and over again.

What do we get? We get the canoe budget out of the recent budget. Instead of $22 billion allocated over 20 years, we get $175 million for smaller vessels, such as hovercrafts. That is important, do not get me wrong, but we needed $22 billion allocated over 20 years and much more after that.

The government promised us in 2006 that it would build three armed icebreakers for the north. What happened to that promise? Another broken Conservative promise where it did not get the job done.

What did it promise recently? It was going to build a brand new icebreaker, called the Diefenbaker. I have no problem with an icebreaker called Diefenbaker. It would be a good name for the ship, but where is the allocation of funds for that ship? Who is going to build it?

If we allow these yards to decimate and get creamed by these trade deals, what yard is going to have the capacity in the future to build ships? Unless we are willing, as my Bloc colleague says, to heavily subsidize the industry, it would be particularly hard to do that.

We do not have to heavily subsidize yards. In 2001, minister of industry Brian Tobin said very clearly that we needed to have a comprehensive policy for shipbuilding in Canada. The management, the owners, all of them went across the country and prepared a report called “Breaking Through”. In that report were very specific recommendations to assist the industry.

Since 2001, that report as been sitting on the minister's desk and it still has not been actioned on after eight years. Why? Eight years for five basic recommendations that would have assisted this industry. Nothing.

It is most unfortunate that previous Liberals and current Conservatives are using this industry as a pawn for other circumstances. We implore those people. The NDP are not against trade deals. We do not want to close doors. We want to open them, but we do not, under any circumstances, want to close the door our shipbuilding industry. It is too important and it is too vital.

Those workers, the thousands of them who could be employed, deserve to build Canadian ships in Canadian yards, using Canadian taxpayers by Canadian owners. This is how we upgrade our economy.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without question that of all members of Parliament who have been through this place in the last decade, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is the greatest champion of the shipbuilding industry, and members would be wise to pay some heed to his words of caution.

What he is presenting today, in such passionate tones, is something we all need to understand in terms of manufacturing in general. When it is destroyed, it is so much more difficult to build back again. It is not, “Do not worry, we'll let it go by the wayside now and we'll replenish it later on”. We hear this from Liberals right now. These things take decades and decades to be built up, but can be destroyed in a very short amount of time.

When a shipbuilding yard, especially of a sizable nature, loses consistent business over time and has a government, and successive governments, design policies that undermine and undercut its ability to employ people, how much more difficult is it to regenerate the energy, the interest and the enthusiasm around its yard when orders do show up, hopefully some time in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley raises a crucial point. The fact is these highly skilled workers will not wait around for the government to make up its mind. They have to feed and look after their families. They will move on to other sectors.

When the Saint John yard in New Brunswick shut down, a lot of the workers went to the United States. They are still there working in American yards when they should be working here. Shipowners and shipbuilders need long lead times to get the yards up and running and to obtain the skilled trades they need to build the vessels. It is not something that turns on a dime.

At the end of day, all we are really asking the government to do is pay half as much attention to the shipbuilding industry as it does to the aerospace industry. If it did that, the yards would not need subsidies. We need concrete investments that allow the owners and builders to hire workers to get the job done, as my Conservative colleagues so fondly like to remind us each time they speak.