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

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join with my colleagues in denouncing this bill which will have long-term implications for the workers of this country. It is a bill which further commits Canada to a free trade agenda when what we should really be pursuing is a fair trade agenda.

I find it interesting that we are continuing to negotiate these types of trade deals given the difficulty we have had recently with the rise in protectionism, particularly from the U.S., our biggest trading partner and close signatory in the North American free trade agreement. It can be argued that we are the poor cousin in that arrangement, bringing only concessions to the table and having to live with the whims of our partners. We are seeing this with respect to iron and steel procurement in the U.S. stimulus package.

We have also witnessed the long struggle to get an acceptable softwood lumber agreement with our American partners. In northern Ontario we are particularly aware of the failure of successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, to protect an industry that goes to the heart of our economy. In northern Ontario we have watched the trend in the softwood industry as workers are being asked for concessions, mills are shutting down and those lucky enough to still have jobs in the forestry sector are not confident those jobs will be there in the future.

It is not because of a crisis in confidence of our products, work ethics or the future of the resource. It is because these people recognize that they are working within the confines of a flawed agreement that does little to protect jobs here in Canada.

In my riding, there was the loss of 120 jobs at the Haavalsrud mill in Hornepayne, the closing for four weeks of the Tembec mill in Kapuskasing and its announcement yesterday of lay-offs in Hearst, not to mention the concessions that Columbia Forest Products in Hearst tried to obtain from its workers. All these events have an immediate impact on our small towns.

Forgive me if I fail to see the silver lining in this latest free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association, comprised of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Although we are the larger partner in this agreement, at least in terms of population, once again we are conceding ground and making it difficult to ensure the future survival of important national industries.

I am talking about our shipbuilding industry now. We are entering into an agreement that will all but guarantee that our shipbuilding industry continues to contract and loses ground to foreign producers. This trade agreement will reduce tariffs on ships from 25% to zero in a period of 10 to 15 years, depending on the type of ship.

The main source of competition for shipbuilding will be Norway. Norway has pursued a long-term industrial strategy for shipbuilding. It has a state-of-the-art yard that has been subsidized and is well established. Canada does not. We do not have an industrial policy for shipbuilding and the infrastructure in the yards we do have is not state-of-the-art. Canadian yards are not on a level playing field as we set them loose to compete under the terms of this agreement.

I would be remiss to go on any further without mentioning the good work of my colleague, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. Had governments listened to his call for improvements in Canadian shipbuilding capacity, we would not be voicing many of our concerns today. We would be entering into this agreement on a level playing field and be able to compete not only with Norway but Japan, Korea and any of the best shipbuilding yards in the world. Sadly, his repeated call for a shipbuilding industrial strategy has been ignored, and we in the NDP are forced to fight on behalf of the remnants of this once proud industry to ensure it does not simply vanish.

I would also like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River. I too am appalled that not one ship is being built in the Thunder Bay shipyard, not now or even in the past year, yet at the same time we are moving ahead with an agreement that will forever hamstring this industry. It is inconceivable that we would like to merely walk away from these good jobs in a time when we are meant to be moving heaven and earth to protect jobs in Canada.

It does not end with shipbuilding though. Our concerns go beyond that. There are serious implications for our agricultural sector in this agreement as well. The provisions within the agreement concerning agriculture defer to the World Trade Organization principles and dispute mechanisms, which will have a very negative impact on supply management by weakening Canada's position. The NDP opposes these WTO mechanisms and has strong concerns about their effect on our domestic agriculture capacity.

Terry Pugh, the executive secretary of the National Farmers Union, told the Standing Committee on International Trade in April of 2008:

--the most critical and highly negative aspect of this deal...is its impact on supply management, for example, in the dairy industry. It's true that our access commitments remain in place for imports of certain commodities, as specified under the WTO agreement, but the tariff rates on some of those imports have been dramatically lowered, some of them to the point of elimination entirely.

He points out that butter coming into Canada in shipments of under 4,000 tonnes has a 7% tariff. Under this deal, that 7% goes down to 0%. The amount that is coming in stays the same but the tariff rate is actually reduced. That just opens up Canadian markets to offshore products, and every time we do that, we shut Canadian producers out of their own domestic market. Is that not a shame? It might be free trade but it certainly is not fair trade.

We have standards in Canada and our dairy farmers are demanding. They work hard and they deliver a safe product through reliable supply routes, operating under a supply management system that ensures as much.

They operate under the basic tenets of fair trade. These are commitments to health and safety, respect for human rights, worker rights and right to assembly. They operate in good faith. That is more than can be said about a government that rushes through trade agreements just to be seen to be doing something, a government that has made promises on icebreakers, the Arctic patrol vessel and the joint support ship project, none of which are moving ahead despite the fact that they could all be done in Canada.

I would like to quote Andrew McArthur of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 2, 2008. I know it has been mentioned a few times in the House already, but I think it is important that we keep hammering away at it. 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.

In closing, I would like to remind the government that this agreement threatens Canadian industry and agriculture. This agreement sets adrift, perhaps forever, our shipbuilding history and its industry. It could also have dire consequences on dairy producers and should be reviewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

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

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Vancouver Kingsway made a wonderful presentation. Mill after mill has closed down in the past several years in Northern Ontario because of the policies of the Conservative government, especially its signing away of $1 billion to the American government.

The hon. member spoke about fair trade in his statement. Would he tell me how not only British Columbia, which he represents, but also the rest of Canada would benefit if we had a fair trade agreement in the softwood lumber and shipbuilding industries as well as in agriculture?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will focus a little on the agriculture aspect of the member's question. I will start by answering with a quote from Terry Pugh, the executive secretary of the National Farmers Union, who said:

—the most critical and highly negative aspect of this deal, from our point of view, is its impact on supply management, for example, in the dairy industry. It's true that our access commitments remain in place for imports of certain commodities, as specified under the WTO agreement, but the tariff rates on some of those imports have been dramatically lowered, some of them to the point of elimination entirely.

It's good when the tariff rates on our exports are reduced. It's another matter when we see tariff rates on imports of dairy products, for example, coming into Canada reduced....I think the Ag Canada representative, in early March, pointed out that, for example, on butter, under 4,000 tonnes of butter coming into Canada, which is our access quota, right now under the WTO—that's a 7% tariff. Under this deal, that 7% goes down to 0%. That is, without a doubt, a tariff cut...The amount that's coming in stays the same, but the tariff rate is actually reduced.

That is a key point, because what that does is effectively facilitate access to the Canadian market for imports of dairy products....the more [this happens], the more we shut out Canadian producers from their own domestic market.

That is a good illustration for the hon. member. When we have free trade but not fair trade, our Canadian producers have difficulty competing because the playing fields are not the same.

We must ensure that any country that wants to import or export products into our country, that wants to trade with us is committed to principles of fair wages and of respect for environmental protection, ensuring the environment is not degraded to the point where our environment is sacrificed so it can lower the price of its goods. We also must have reciprocal access to that country's markets.

If any one of those three factors is not respected, then we see cheap imports flooding into our market without the reciprocal ability of our domestic producers to export our products there. In the case of the dairy producers, as I just mentioned, it even harms the ability of our domestic producers to supply our domestic market. That just hurts our businesses and it hurts Canadians across the country.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, this past week the Dairy Farmers of Canada have come to visit many of us on the anniversary of its 75th year as being an organization which was absolutely memorable. It was great to meet with those members, especially since those dairy producers are actually close to our own ridings and in some cases in our ridings. One of the things that they wanted to talk about was the supply management system. My question for my colleague will be around that issue and what that means in the sense of fair trade.

They asked me what was my sense of the quality and the security of the product they were delivering, in particular milk, and what were my constituents saying to me. One of the things that came to mind was that one of the most secure systems in the world is the supply management system. One of the validators for that is mothers. It is mothers who buy milk for the youngest of us, for their children, and who never have a question about its quality and the security of it. That speaks immensely to the supply management system and how well it works.

I think that is a tribute to the type of system that we have had and continue to have, and indeed could build upon if we so chose. Then again, it is the choice that we have to make and one that is in front of us today. It is that very choice, that we could look to build on that type of a system, augment it in other sectors, and look to that and ask what are the good parts of that.

Consumers are very satisfied across the country with the dairy products they receive from the perspective of quality and security. We have seen around the world, when it comes to dairy products, that there are some systems that are not as secure as our own. I am not so sure that we would want to have those systems given to us, because we had no other choice, because we let ours disappear.

If we look at that system and we were to say to ourselves, what are the good attributes of that system and could we take those attributes and indeed overlay them on to things like shipbuilding and to other parts of agriculture in the context of a fair trade system in this particular case? Could we allow the shipbuilding industry to have a kind of managed system, not so much like dairy but use those attributes that say that once we allow it to be on a level playing field with its competition, it would be more than happy to compete?

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on that. Does he see any kind of linkages and does he see any overlap? Can we use and learn from those good things that we see in the supply management system in those particular dairy products?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Welland for his astute observations and for bringing up a player in this entire debate that perhaps has not been focused on enough and that is the Canadian consumer, and the fact that we take for granted in this country that we have a safe and fair system of delivering food and bringing it to market. We can easily take that for granted when we start opening our borders in trade agreements to the introduction of foodstuffs from other countries.

I neglected to identify before that my own grandfather was a farmer who homesteaded on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border and began that in 1926. He was an ardent and firm believer in supply management and the need to make sure that the people who grow our food and produce, all of our foodstuffs in this country, are treated fairly.

Once again, this was reinforced last night in the meeting with the dairy producers of this country who also have made a further plea for us to remain committed to supply management in this country.

With the focus on the environment that has really begun in the last 20 years, I think it is very important that we all become very aware of the fact that we have a very clean and safe food production system. Not only that, it allows us to produce food locally, so we do not have to, nor would we want to, begin having a trade system that sees us transporting foodstuffs from thousands of kilometres away when we can produce those foodstuffs locally and consume those products locally.

Therefore, not only does it benefit our farmers, not only does it benefit our agricultural industry, not only does it benefit our consumers but it also benefits our environment by having a strong trade deal that is based on supply management and principles that go beyond simply price, and simply introducing products into this country that are cheap. There is so much more to a trade deal than just the price of cheap goods.

Once again, our party is standing up to enshrine those principles into trade legislation and the bill before the House unfortunately falls a little bit short in that regard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, if his uncle MacNeil was alive today what would he think about the bill we are discussing today?

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

Madam Speaker, I would never deign to put words in the mouth of a MacNeil because they certainly were never afraid to speak loudly and, being somewhat superstitious, my good old Uncle Lindsay might actually pay a visit. However, I know one of the principles of trade that he always talked about was that one needed to have a really clear agreement in place. I think that is what we are talking about.

It is not that an agreement with Liechtenstein and Switzerland is not in the national interest. I certainly think the more trade agreements that we have the stronger we are because we are a trading nation, and the more that we can actually get our products out there, with rules based, that is what we need.

I believe there are problems with this agreement and we need to look at them.

We can look at the complete unwillingness of the European Union and the Americans to play by the rules by which Canada always plays. There are EU export subsidies on agricultural products and it is dumping its products internationally. The U.S. is continually mucking with the price of grain and distorting the price. Our farmers and our industries play by the rules internationally and we are always on the losing end.

We need to learn a lesson when we sit down with trade partners. Liechtenstein might not be the biggest country that we have ever dealt with but it becomes an equal partner and we need to ensure there are not huge flaws in the agreement. The fact that we would be losing our shipbuilding capacity in a country that has probably the largest sets of coastlines in the world is simply not good public policy. The refusal of the government ideologically to actually have a coherent industrial policy is clear.

General Motors is musing publicly about leaving Canada. Ten years ago that would have been unheard of. The government sits back and tells us all to whistle a happy tune and everything will be all right. The lack of an industrial sector strategy is devastating, particularly in Ontario right now and regions of Quebec.

As I said earlier, we can count on one hand the amount of sawmills that are running from northwestern Ontario to Abitibi. That would have been a situation unfathomable 15 years ago and yet we see a government that shows complete and utter indifference to the devastation in the forestry communities and the devastation facing forestry families as they slip through the EI cracks.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was thinking through all of the interventions I have heard over the past two days in talking about workers, we would all be remiss in this House if we did not think back to all those veterans of the merchant marine who served this country, not from the perspective of an armed combat role but sailed those seas in perilous times. I think back to those veterans of the merchant navy who are today looking at us and saying, “Whatever happened to our shipbuilding? Why is it disappearing?”

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on what it means to those veterans, in a sense, to see this slip away.

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

Madam Speaker, my father-in-law was on the Murmansk run. He was in Burma with the Navy. At that time, Canada, a country of 11 million, as poor as we were coming out of the depression, ended up with the fourth largest navy in the world. It showed the will of this nation, not only of our air force, our massive armed presence in Europe, but our navy. What we built in ships in that period of time is a marvel that we should be proud of. Many of those ships are long gone and Canada walked away on the incredible capacity that we built in that period. I think that to our previous generation, we dropped the ball and we cannot allow the ball to be dropped any further.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, in our discussions today on Bill C-2 and the discussion around the trade agreement in question, the question we really need to be asking is: What is our vision of Canada?

Growing up as a proud Canadian, I know that words like fairness, equality and justice are words that characterize who we are. Today we stand reeling from a budget so recently passed without our support, where we believe that a failed and disjointed attempt was made to deal with the current economic challenges and a failed attempt to look at the future and build a country that is better for all of us.

We felt that in so many ways the budget was wanting, wanting in terms of establishing that fairness for working people who are losing their jobs, in giving support for people whose industries are now falling apart and in establishing equality. We saw the taking away of pay equity and issues around collective bargaining. We also saw a failure to achieve justice for so many Canadians, Canadians living in poverty, Canadians of different backgrounds, women and aboriginal peoples.

We need to be looking ahead at how we can ensure that vision. We also need to be asking serious questions about this trade agreement and encourage members to vote against it. This trade agreement is fundamentally about our trade relationship with European countries. I am proud to be of European descent. I am proud to be of Greek and British descent and we have a great deal to learn from Europe.

We can look closely at the trade partners we are talking about in terms of this bill. Countries like Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein of course. We have a great deal to learn from countries like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland that have been leaders in terms of establishing fairness, equality and justice in their own countries. While they are open to trade, they ensure it is part of a vision in which their country is better off for it.

That is where Canada can learn. Canada ought to learn and our government ought to stand up on the fact that this trade deal is bad for the country that we want to build. We can learn from the way these countries profit from certain lucrative industries. We have heard that Norway is a leader in terms of its shipbuilding industry and how it reinvests into social programs, whether it is child care, health care programs or women's advocacy groups and other programs that aim to achieve gender equality in their country. Canada has a great deal to learn from countries like Iceland, which has the highest number of women parliamentarians in the world, whereas I believe only 21% of Canada's parliamentary representatives are women. This is shameful in a country where 51% of our population is made up of women.

Let us learn from these countries in terms of building a vision where trade and economic development serve to strengthen us socially in terms of our economy but also in terms of our social rights, equality and quality of being in general. What we are saying here is that we should continue building relationships with countries and to applaud building relationships with countries that are forward-looking in terms of their dealings while ensuring that what we are going for as Canadians benefits us across the board.

I would like to turn to the region that I represent, a region that many people would classify as rural. I know that in northern Manitoba we refer to ourselves as being north, but in terms of many characteristics there are similarities to rural regions. In our region, we are suffering a great deal as a result of the economic downturn. The softwood lumber deal and the economic downturn have led to losses of jobs and the shutting down of what was once a lucrative lumber mill in The Pas, Manitoba. We are also dealing with losses of jobs generally in the forestry industry across our region.

Another industry that is hurting is mining, an industry that, except for a positive commitment to mine exploration, was not referenced in the budget despite a government commitment in December to do so. Mining is an area in which many Canadians in our region are also losing their jobs and families are suffering for it.

I think in both of those industries we have seen what many of us are warning against today. It is the loss of the Canadian government and of Canada to say, “Wait a second, let's look at the benefit for our country. Let's look at the benefit for Canadians”. As a result of the softwood lumber industry, the softwood sellout, an agreement that was signed by the Canadian government, thousands of jobs are being lost and mills are shutting down all across the country. That was our opportunity to act in terms of looking out for the well-being of our own people.

In terms of mining, we have seen in the last few years a rise in foreign ownership of what were previously Canadian companies. That is certainly something that concerns us a great deal in northern Manitoba as we saw a major company being bought out by foreign owners. Once again, we see Canada unable to step up and say, “Wait a second. Let's look out for the benefit of our own people”.

We are seeing the palpable threat of this continuing to happen to the shipping industry, an industry that we hear is not just part of the economic fabric but is part of the cultural and social fabric of our country in so many regions.

Shipping has a very deep connection in our riding, the home of the Port of Churchill, where a great deal of trade goes through Manitoba and all across Canada. We have a great deal of international trade but there are also Canadian ships and Canadian industries that benefit as a result.

We need to be making those linkages between the steel that is produced in Ontario, the nickel that is mined in Ontario that goes to producing the steel, that goes to producing the ships, and also looking at the lumber that goes to building infrastructure all across our country and contributes to the shipping industry.

We need to be making those linkages and seeing how these linkages are actually the stories of people all across the country who are working and making a living off these jobs. The moment we cut off one part of it, whether it is shipping, forestry or mining, when we see the shutting down of these industries, it is people's lives and well-being that is at stake.

It is Canada that has the ability to step up and say that it will not stand for it. That is what we in the NDP are doing and that is what we are looking forward to seeing from the government.

Another real point of contention as a result of the bill is the issue around supply management. Yesterday many members of Parliament from the opposition and from the NDP had the opportunity to meet with dairy farmers. I had the opportunity to meet with three dairy farmers from Manitoba. These were gentlemen who had their farm passed on to them from their fathers and, thankfully, all three of them assured me that they were planning to pass it on to their children as well.

Those people are taking a real leadership position because they are afraid of what might come to be, whereby Canada will not stand up and say that this kind of legislation helps our communities. Besides the contribution of healthy food in the dairy industry, milk, yoghurt, butter or whatever it might be, these are people who build communities and these are the communities that Canada is made up of.

I know many of these communities, speaking as a rural member, are actually represented by people on the governing side. What concerns me is that representatives of these communities would stand to support a bill that goes against the protection of people's jobs in the communities they represent and of the well-being of not just families but the communities and regions. It is a concern I share for my region where there are dairy farmers, but also all across Manitoba,. I would urge the Conservatives to look at that. We are certainly concerned on this side in terms of what that might mean in terms of other areas of agriculture with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Finally, I would like to conclude with that question of vision. Speaking as one of the youngest members of Parliament, I am concerned about the future of our country. I believe we all are concerned. However, we have the opportunity to stand up and say no to legislation that is bad for the future of our country, that is bad for the present, that is bad for young people in Canada, that is bad for people involved in industries all across Canada and ultimately bad for the whole of Canada.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech from our hon. NDP colleague. She mentioned that she met with representatives from Dairy Farmers of Canada, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year.

I also met with representatives from the Quebec group yesterday. One of the points they raised was about yogourt production and how it is regulated. I imagine the representatives that the member met with also raised this question.

Did the farmers she met with suggest, as those from Quebec did, that the federal government adopt a national strategy and regulations, using Quebec's standards—which are the highest in Canada—as a model? Quebec produces 90% of Canada's yogourt. And if they were to make such a proposal, would her political party agree? I can say that we would.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, we definitely foresee serious problems in terms of the future of this industry. The people I spoke with mentioned the leadership of both Quebec and Canada in cheese production.

Why not say the same thing about yogourt, a product that we are all familiar with and that is now touted as essential for health?

There must be a frank and honest discussion with the government in order to protect the quality of this product, of course, but also to support the work these people do in every Canadian community.

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

Madam Speaker, I was very thrilled to hear my hon. colleague talk about the importance of yogourt, cheese and milk, because it deals with issues of trade.

For example, in my region we had Parmalat, the largest milk company in the world. Parmalat decided that it did not want to be in the Temiskaming region any more, that it had bigger things to do and it would simply take its quota and leave. It would not matter how much money was being made in that little plant in Temiskaming, it was not enough for Parmalat.

Through our local efforts, we pushed back and said no to Parmalat, the same as we should say to forestry companies or anything else, that if they want to leave, they can leave, but the quota stays. The quota stayed in Temiskaming and our local farmers took over that plant. Now the Thornloe cheese plant is not only sustainable, it has moved from 30,000 litres to 90,000 litres because it is so successful.

There is a lack of vision in this country where there is no plan to ensure that regional and local operations are sustained. If we simply allow ourselves to be governed by larger and larger multinational units, we will reach a point where there will never be enough money coming from the regions unless they are being basically pillaged to entice these multinationals. We have seen this in forestry, in mining and in cheese.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what her experience in the wonderful region of Thompson and Churchill, Manitoba is on the need to have a local and regional strategy for the economy?