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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-2. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I shall now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

Motion in amendment

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

moved:

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important amendment to this bill, which has been called by the shipbuilding industry “the shipbuilding sellout”. We have had debates in this House about trade agreements before, and the sorry history of this Conservative government is that it has been an incredibly ineffective negotiator.

We saw that with the softwood sellout, which continues to have profound repercussions for our softwood industry across the country. Softwood mills are closing down and softwood workers are being thrown out of work, all because the Conservative government was ineffectual at the negotiating table.

The EFTA agreement has the same problem. Essentially what it does is expressed in the words of unanimous recommendations by the shipbuilding industry itself, saying that this agreement constitutes a shipbuilding sellout, a sellout of our shipbuilding industry. Whether we are talking about marine workers from British Columbia or marine workers from Nova Scotia or the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, witness after witness says this agreement will kill shipbuilding jobs in Canada and will kill them in an irreparable way.

This amendment will carve out shipbuilding from the agreement. As we all know, around the world legislators do their due diligence when trade agreements are negotiated, whether it is the U.S. Congress, most recently with the U.S.-Peru deal, or whether it is the European Union in the most recent EPA signed with Caricom. In every case the legislators must look at the text of the bill, look at the implementation legislation, and decide what is in the interests of Canada.

What we are hearing unanimously from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada and from shipbuilding workers on both coasts is that this agreement, unless shipbuilding is carved out, will kill the shipbuilding industry in Canada.

The witnesses were very compelling. They were not only talking about the fact that this will kill shipbuilding, but the fact that this will, in a very real sense, have implications for all the sectors in the industry, whether we're talking about shipowners or ship repair facilities.

I'll quote Mr. Andrew McArthur, who was speaking on behalf of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. This is what he said earlier this week at the Standing Committee on International Trade:

It's not only the shipbuilding industry that's jeopardized, it's the shipowners. On the east coast you've got owners who operate offshore supply vessels. Norway operates one of the biggest fleets in the world. They have something like over 50% of the total world supply of offshore supply vessels. The North Sea is in a downtrend where they're looking for places to send these ships that were built with subsidies that have been written off. They could come in here and undercut any Canadian operator on the east coast for charter rates. It's not only the shipyards, it's the ship owners.

From the shipbuilding industry, we also had comments about the ongoing viability of our shipbuilding industry, because as the shipyards shut down, the repair facilities are menaced as well. Essentially what we are doing is triple jeopardy: killing the shipbuilding industry, killing ship repair facilities, and killing the possibility for shipowners to be competitive.

In the long term, what we heard from Mr. McArthur on behalf of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada is that the technology comes from new construction and design, and without the ongoing technology and education of our total workforce, the industry is just going to die. We need the new construction to sustain the ongoing technical capability, so repair would suffer.

We have heard a lot about the brain drain in our shipbuilding facilities. Essentially over time we are losing people who are qualified and trained in shipbuilding. This is not an industry that can be rebuilt overnight by snapping our fingers. Whether we are talking about Marystown in Newfoundland and Labrador, Halifax--and I know very well that Halifax shipyard workers are imploring Nova Scotia Liberal MPs to vote for this amendment to carve out shipbuilding--Welland, Ontario, or Victoria, Vancouver, and Nanaimo in British Columbia, marine workers are calling on this Parliament to carve out shipbuilding.

As for shipyards, the Davie shipyards, for example, would be threatened by this agreement. It is our duty to carve out shipbuilding from this agreement. Whether we are talking about Quebec, Ontario, western Canada or Atlantic Canada, jobs in all regions are at risk in these tough times, the worst recession we have seen since the 1930s.

The Conservatives are pushing forward. They are refusing at any point to allow for our shipbuilding carve-out. They have their own reasons for that, and I think certain Conservatives, particularly in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, will bear the brunt of that irresponsible action. However, the opposition in a minority Parliament has an important role to play.

Conservatives have said that they are going to withdraw the bill if this amendment is passed. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that is ridiculous. The government lost on iron and steel in the United States because of a botched negotiating strategy, and the softwood sellout has been appallingly bad across the country. Because the government has had so few successes in the area of trade--in fact, none--they will re-introduce this bill to committee with the changes so that we can clean up and restore some of the paragraphs in clause 33. However, the government's threats to withdraw the bill are simply not credible.

Accordingly, I ask my Bloc Québécois colleagues to vote in favour of this amendment, as they did at committee, in order to carve out shipbuilding from this agreement. The Bloc supported our motion at committee so it stands in the House.

The Conservatives' threat to withdraw the bill is simply not credible. I ask the members of the Bloc Québécois, who are concerned about the future of the Davie shipyards, to consider our amendment and support it in the coming weeks. I know my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke agrees that we should follow up on the committee's work with a well formulated amendment.

Of course we ask Liberal members of Parliament to vote for this amendment to carve out shipbuilding. This is what shipyard workers in Halifax are asking for. This is what marine workers in Newfoundland and Labrador are asking for. This is what marine workers in British Columbia are asking for. For Liberal members of Parliament, it is quite clear. I believe they must choose to vote with what those shipbuilding workers across the country have said unanimously.

I have to stress this point. There is not a single representative from the shipbuilding industry, whether workers or owners, who came forward and said, “Oh, this is not a bad deal”. All of them said the impact will be catastrophic and all of them said there will be losses of jobs. Can we take that risk at a time when we are essentially hemorrhaging jobs in so many sectors? Can we take the risk of a botched negotiating strategy by a government that simply does not understand how to be tough at the negotiating table? It is tough with ordinary Canadians, but it is very weak when it comes to the United States softwood industry or Liechtenstein. It just caves at the negotiating table.

Our responsibilities as opposition members of Parliament are to vote for the carve-out and for this amendment. This is a shipbuilding sellout. There is no doubt about that. We have heard compelling, unanimous testimony from our shipbuilding friends and colleagues across the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. It is very clear what course this Parliament must take. By voting for the carve-out, we are defending the interests of our shipbuilding industry and we are defending the interests of our shipyards across the country.

We are allowing that opportunity to stop the brain drain, to stop the collapse of our shipbuilding industry and to start to restore our shipbuilding industry to the prominence it once enjoyed. We have the longest coastline in the world by far. It is inconceivable that the country with the longest coastline in the world and a proud shipbuilding tradition would knowingly have its Parliament adopt a trade agreement untouched and unamended when we know the impacts would be disastrous. I ask for my opposition colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure to contribute to this debate on a subject of huge importance to the economy of Canada.

In January 2008 Canada, along with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, collectively known as the European Free Trade Association, or EFTA, signed the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement.

In today's economic times, we have to continue to open doors for our businesses in global markets, in contrast to the NDP's desire to close doors and try to make it as a stand-alone trade zone within Canada. It is simply impossible to do that.

The November 2008 throne speech underscored the importance this government places on trade and investment and reaffirmed our commitment to actively pursue trade negotiations and partners around the world. The Standing Committee on International Trade has reviewed Bill C-2 and has now reported back to the House with just one minor technical amendment.

The opposition, the NDP, proposed to vote 16 amendments to this bill, claiming that Bill C-2 did not effectively recognize Canada's shipbuilding industry, as we just heard from the member from Burnaby. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The government is fully aware of the views of the shipbuilding industry. We negotiated and consulted extensively with stakeholders in the industry to ensure their concerns and interests were fully understood and considered during the negotiations.

Government officials also consulted with the provinces and the territories on the treatment of ships in the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement, and today we are about to sign a free trade agreement that we can be proud of. It is a deal that addresses Canadian shipbuilding concerns in a number of different ways.

For example, it contains a 15-year tariff phase-out on the most sensitive shipbuilding products, and a 10-year phase-out on all other sensitive shipbuilding products, protecting our shipbuilders in Canada. These phase-out periods include a bridge period of three years, during which tariffs will be maintained at the most favoured nation level. These provisions give our shipbuilders considerable time to adjust to a duty-free environment.

This is important. Fifteen years is the longest tariff phase-out period for an industrial tariff in free trade agreement history in this country. These provisions respond directly to the concerns vocalized by the shipbuilding industry and by the NDP.

On rules of origin, the provisions under the EFTA are those sought by the Canadian industry. They are consistent with those in Canada's other free trade agreements. The EFTA also contains specific provisions for the collection of customs duties in accordance with the tariff phase-out program on the value of repairs and alterations to ships that are temporarily exported from Canada to EFTA countries.

We have ensured that this new agreement does not introduce any new obligations for Canada in the area of government procurement, whether for ships or any other products. Accordingly, and this is important, federal and provincial governments will continue to have the right to restrict their bids to Canadian shipyards for the purchase, lease, repair or refit of all types of vehicles.

That is very important. That is something that the NDP does not recognize exists in this contract.

Separately, this Conservative government has announced more than $43 billion--that is billion--for the procurement of maritime vessels in the next 30 years. These are vessels that the government will purchase.

Furthermore, the government continues to encourage the use of Canadian shipyards through the renewed structured financing facility--

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but unfortunately it is 11 o'clock. We have to proceed with statements by members, but the hon. member is going to have a full five minutes to complete his remarks when debate resumes on this bill a little later.

The House resumed from March 5 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

When debate was interrupted, the member for Cariboo—Prince George had five minutes remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had just spoken about a very important part of Bill C-2, and I think it is worth going over it again. It is that Bill C-2 does not introduce any new obligations on Canada in the area of government procurement, whether for ships or for any other products. Accordingly, federal and provincial governments in Canada will continue to have the right to restrict their bids to Canadian shipyards in the purchase, lease and repair of vessels of all types.

This is good news for the shipbuilding industry in Canada. This is good news for Canada's economy. This goes along very well with the recent announcement by the government that it is putting more than $43 billion into the procurement of maritime vessels over the next 30 years. That is good news for the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and the industry is rejoicing about that huge government infusion of cash.

That is good news for the economy of Canada. That is good news for everyone but the NDP, because the NDP does not like good news. It cannot survive with good news. Whenever there is good news happening, NDP members do whatever they can to try to carve out some little portion of it to make it into bad news, because that makes them happy.

That is why the member for Burnaby—New Westminster does not like Bill C-2 at all. As a matter of fact, he does not like any free trade agreements. If people listened closely when he was talking about the softwood lumber agreement, which he wants to rip up, they would have heard huge applause coming from the American softwood lumber dealers in the southeastern part of the U.S.A. They were cheering him on. They want to rip up that softwood lumber agreement, go back to the courts and stop any sales of Canadian wood to the U.S. That would be the best thing for them. They were cheering the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. They do it regularly whenever he talks about scrapping the softwood lumber agreement.

The government continuously encourages the use of Canadian shipyards for building ships through the structured financing facility. That allows shipowners who buy their ships from Canadian shipyards to reduce their interest cost on their financing. The government has put an additional $50 million into that fund, and that is good news for the shipbuilding industry. It is bad news for the NDP, because that party does not like good news and has trouble with it.

The government also recognizes the importance of Canada's domestic government procurement market for our shipbuilding industry. We are taking steps to address the many challenges faced by Canada's shipbuilding industry by buying down the interest rate of the loans that shipowners are using to purchase ships from Canadian shipyards.

The government has shown its support for our ship industry. In budget 2009 we invested $175 million on a cash basis for the procurement of new Coast Guard vessels and to undertake some life extensions and refits.

I could go on, but I want to remind members that Bill C-2 passed second reading by a vote of 258 to 36. That vote was a clear show of support for this agreement in the House, except from the NDP, which, as I said, does not like good news.

I would like to ask all members of the House to continue to support this government and its efforts as we continue creating a strong competitive economy for Canada today. It will give our children the opportunities they need to succeed in tomorrow's world. Bill C-2 is an example of that.

We appreciate the support of the Liberals and the Bloc in getting this agreement. We have been trying to do it for 10 years and finally we have an opportunity. Notwithstanding the NDP, which does not like agreements such as this one, we are going to get this passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a load of claptrap.

For members and people who are watching from Cariboo--Prince George, this is the member who did not even bother to read the softwood lumber sellout. They can look that up in the Prince George Citizen. He did not even do that on behalf of his constituents. The result has been hundreds of lost jobs in Cariboo--Prince George.

For the folks who want to look that up, it was in the online edition of the Prince George Citizen a couple of years ago.

Perhaps he has read this agreement. I certainly hope so, but the shipbuilding industry does not see this as good news. In fact, the shipbuilding industry came before committee to ask unanimously to be carved out. Those were shipyard workers from Halifax, shipyard workers from Vancouver, British Columbia, and the Shipbuilding Association of Canada.

They were very clear. George MacPherson said that the position of the association from day one was that shipbuilding should be carved out from the EFTA. Mr. Andrew McArthur said, “It is not only the EFTA that concerns us. The ground rules may be set.... Once you've set the ground rules...the industry would be in very tough conditions”.

Why does the member think he knows more about shipbuilding than all the shipbuilding association representatives and workers who said, “No. Carve this out of the agreement”?

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

Mr. Speaker, for the member for Burnaby—New Westminster's edification, of course I was working on the softwood lumber agreement all through the completion of it. I certainly had an understanding of it. Even before the text came out, I knew all the salient points. I knew it was a good agreement.

As a matter of fact, during the committee stage I had to assist the member for Burnaby—New Westminster in many cases to understand the softwood lumber agreement. I do not take a back seat to him at any time.

The fact is that the government has put a $43 billion commitment into building new vessels for Canadian waters. They are all going to go to Canadian shipyards. The shipbuilding industry is going to get a huge infusion of cash from that money. We have protected the shipbuilding yards on the tariffs. It is a 15-year phase-in.

Many things are going to be good from this EFTA deal, but then again it is good news, and of course the NDP and the member do not like good news, ever.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a couple of questions.

There is an interesting opportunity for us to have a true national shipbuilding strategy. In my riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, we have outstanding men and women who work on shipbuilding.

The questions I have are these.

First, a section of Bill C-10 tore up an arbitrated agreement that our shipworkers had. This agreement actually eliminates the arbitrated wage settlement for which they have been waiting for a long time. Will the hon. member bring this matter to the attention of the minister and ask his government to reinstate that agreement? It is the right and fair thing to do for the shipworkers who work in our government shipbuilding and ship repair yards.

Second, will he support a national shipbuilding strategy and the movement of the import tax that we have when we buy ships abroad so that the import tax would go into a dedicated fund, matched by the private sector, that could be used for infrastructure for our shipbuilders?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for those two excellent questions. I know that the member certainly does like good news when it comes to the shipbuilding industry. He is looking for a revival of that industry in his riding, and good for him.

I will certainly bring those two points he has made to the minister's attention and work with him and members from all parties who want to see the shipbuilding industry complete this revival and once again make Canada a world force to be reckoned with by competition around the world.

That is exactly what Bill C-2 is trying to do. It is unfortunate that the NDP is opposing it so strongly. The Liberals and the Bloc are supporting it. They know a good-news story when they hear it. Unfortunately, the NDP does not like good-news stories, so we expect them to oppose it.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my understanding that when the member for Burnaby—New Westminster gave his speech earlier today, his five-minute question and answer period was overlooked, so at this point, before I resume debate, I would like to go back to the five-minute question and answer period to be put to the member for Burnaby--New Westminster.

Questions and comment. The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to one very specific solution for which I have been fighting for a long time. It could provide the moneys for our shipbuilding industry. As I said before, we have an import tax on purchasing ships abroad. Let us take that import tax and put it into a fund that is matched by the private sector. Those moneys could then be an injection into infrastructure for our shipbuilding industry. Would my colleague from the NDP support that proposal?

Would he also support a national shipbuilding strategy? In my riding and indeed nationally, our navy, BC Ferries and the Coast Guard have enough work for the next 20 years. Frankly, our navy needs our ships now. They need the frigates and the joint supply ship, which is absolutely essential for our navy to be able to do its job. It is actually a crucial piece of infrastructure for our navy. Would the member put his back into it and fully support our Canadian navy's ability to get the joint supply ships, the frigates and the long-term 20-year infrastructure plan that we need for our Coast Guard, our navy and BC Ferries?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes I do. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca asks a pretty substantive question, because if he does not vote for the amendment on the carve-out, the tariff is eliminated. The Shipbuilding Association of Canada and the marine workers in his riding, in Nova Scotia and across the country have been saying that is the reason the carve-out is needed.

That is why he needs to vote for the amendment the NDP has brought forward here. If we do not do the carve-out, then what he suggests cannot be done. What he suggests is very much in line with what the NDP has been proposing. My colleague for Sackville—Eastern Shore has been the strongest advocate for shipbuilding in this whole Parliament, and he has been talking about a wide variety of measures. We cannot do it if the carve-out is not put in place.

I ask the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to stand up for B.C. marine workers, like his colleagues in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who are considering voting for the amendment. I hope that he does too, because in doing so, we save the shipbuilding industry, and the other things he suggests become possible.

[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.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a broken promise and I am sure he is aware of a few more that he could outline. I would like him to do that.

He specifically mentioned the icebreaker. The Prime Minister's first promise to the north was three armed icebreakers. That vanished for a few years, but after we pushed and pushed, the government finally agreed to build one. As the member says, we have no idea when that will happen and it will go to the Coast Guard, not the navy.

There were ice-strengthened supply ships promised to help support the north, another broken promise. Those are completely gone.

What about ships that can go through 18 feet of ice in the north? The government has decided to build patrol boats that can go through one metre of ice. There are a lot of problems and I am sure the member has some other broken promises that are favourites of his.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we switch to veterans for one second, there is a myriad of broken promises. However, I will stick to the subject at hand.

My hon. colleague from the great Yukon, a place I used to call home, is absolutely correct. The north is getting a lot of attention these days, and rightfully so, but what the north requires are capable vessels. The Coast Guard requires these vessels.

We heard countless times from previous Liberals and the current Conservative government that they would get these contracts out for the patrol vessels for the midshore Coast Guard. However, we still have not seen those.

Domestic recruitment is just one tool in the tool box of shipbuilding in the country. We need to heed the recommendations of the “Breaking Through” document. We have to ensure that we do not sacrifice this industry in other trade deals because the United States knows the importance of shipbuilding and marine services in that country. We in Canada should be doing the same.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this issue again and it is a pleasure to follow my colleague who has worked so many years in these halls on the issue of shipbuilding, officially through the transcripts of Hansard and also in the background yelling “What about shipbuilding?”

That is a common phrase, and one of the things that I have seen over the years, and I have been here since 2002, coming from an industrial automotive area, is really a lack of policy for sectoral strategies. One of the things that separates our party from other parties in this House is the belief that the government does not have to always be involved in the actual industry but should set out some conditions and some structures that make it prosper and compete, similar to other countries. That is not done in this country.

The philosophy of the Liberals and Conservatives over the last number of years has been to just lower corporate taxes and then industries will thrive. Whereas in other countries, there have been successful models. In Norway, which is one of the concerns we have with regard to the trade agreement that we are talking about today, it has been able to develop a very competitive shipbuilding industry through a sectoral strategy. That is one of the reasons Norway will have a successful penetration into the Canadian market after years of government assistance and structures.

It is important to note, as we look at the current economic issues that our country is facing, that we are continuing, and I think Canadians will be shocked to hear this, with the Liberals and Conservatives passing this budget, to beat out a path of corporate tax cuts.

Right now, with the deficit and the debt and all the borrowing that we are going to do, we are actually going to be borrowing more money to give it to the corporations and actually have to pay more interest on that. We do not even have the money for those tax cuts right now, but we are going to continue to do that. That does not make any sense when we look at what the government has been doing. Basically, the Conservatives have been on the side of the banking sector, quite explicitly. The banks are bringing in profits right now, and they are not even doing the things they have been asked to do by the government and other Canadians, which is to extend credit.

I would just point to the automotive sector, for example, where right now we have people who want to borrow to buy a new vehicle or lease a vehicle, and they cannot do that. The bank rates are just absolutely unacceptable. They are anywhere between 7% to 11%. That prevents people from getting into a new vehicle and keeping a Canadian at work, or it gouges them as consumers which is totally unacceptable. The banks are the only ones actually making money on automobiles right now. That is not acceptable.

What we are hoping to see here is a sectoral strategy evolve that involves our industrial bases. That includes the issue of shipbuilding. As my colleague has noted, it is not only important for a manufacturing base, it is also important for this country from a national security perspective. That is why the United States has policies set in place. We have not challenged those policies because in some respects we have actually accepted the fact that the Americans are going to have some procurement for their own interest in terms of a defence policy. That is something we have agreed to in terms of understanding.

I will point to a good example, a classic, with regard to the Navistar truck plant, where right now the government has provided a $300 million contract to Navistar, which has a plant in Texas, but it also has a plant in Chatham, Ontario. We are actually allowing Navistar to produce these military trucks in Texas when retooling was only $800,000 in Chatham. So we are going to fire all those workers and send them home. It is actually going to cost us around $17 million to $19 million in employment insurance instead of retooling that truck plant.

I am sure they would understand in the United States that Canadians would want to build their military trucks, themselves, for their men and women serving here in our country and also abroad. They would understand that, just like we understand that they would likely do the same for those in Texas, where they would not actually send the procurement here. It does not make any sense when we look at the economic conditions that are facing us right now.

There has been a lot of debate in this chamber and also in the United States about some of these policies. There was a lot of discussion about the United States having a buy America clause as part of its overall stimulus package, but the reality is whether or not that is in fact in that act, unless it is actually disclaimed, it actually counts no matter what because it is part of the American policy going back to the amendments made on separate legislation.

We can protest and say what we want, but the reality is it stays in the actual package because it goes down to the state funding level where those officials have no jurisdictional accountability for the trade agreements or it goes to the municipal level and the same thing happens. So, the Americans can make those choices. We never in the past have contested that and a broader discussion needs to be had.

The Liberal Party has been attacking us saying that we are going to create some type of a trade war, but for heaven's sake, what would happen if we actually had a buy Canadian policy in place? We could then go to the United States and start talking about a buy North American policy. It would lead to a great engagement on those issues. But we do not have anything here. We just send it and let it go. We have a trade deficit this year. That is one of the reasons. It is because we have lost our manufacturing base and we do not do anything to support it in terms of public policy.

That is what is really nice about shipbuilding. I had the opportunity to go to Halifax and tour the Irving yards where I talked to the men and women working there. I know the Conservatives encourage labour mobility if workers cannot find work there. Labour mobility means that men and women, instead of working on policies that actually protect those communities and grow those opportunities, can go somewhere else for a couple of months and leave their family behind, and that is okay. Well sometimes we have to do that in life and we all understand those things, but that should not be the public policy.

To have strong communities, we need people who are taking their kids to soccer games and hockey games. They are the parents who can go home every single night and see their kids, and can help grow their community, to volunteer, and to have an attachment to their neighbourhood. It lowers crime. It improves the social values of the community. We should not be saying public policy-wise that “Well, you know what, if you don't like it, then we're going to help you get on a plane to stay in a camp somewhere else, bunk up with a bunch of people and that's the best thing we can do for you”. Then come back later on and say, “ And by the way, you have to find another job two months later somewhere else in this country or some other country”.

That is not right and that is what is happening in regard to some of the workers in Halifax where the skilled trades are short of work. There has been an insinuation that we do not have the capacity to do some of these things, but we can build that capacity. It is quite easy to do so.

I always thought the closing of the Collingwood shipbuilding facility was a step back. In the Great Lakes, where I come from, it used to be a thriving shipbuilding industry and that is gone these days. The ones that are left are small and not as significant as they used to be. I would like to see us go forward. We need a big turnover in Great Lakes shipping cargo fleets soon. So why not be part of that building process? Why not have some of those work skills happening here?

I know that my colleague noted the military procurements that have disappeared and vanished. Those are great opportunities to build the private and public sector elements necessary for the infrastructure investment to make it worthwhile. There is a pent-up need for that right now.

I hope that the proposed amendment passes. It would carve out the shipbuilding element. It would be sent back to committee to be worked on. Hopefully, we could go forward with something that is good for Canadians. It is not just the New Democrats saying this. I want to read into the record a couple of quotes. The first is from Andrew McArthur, representing the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. He said:

The position of the association from day one is that shipbuilding should be carved out from EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government we do not carve industries out. We raise the question the Jones Act in the U.S. was carved out from NAFTA. We are not allowed to build or repair for the Americans. The Americans have free access to our market. So industries do get carved out. I'm sure there are numerous other examples.

It is important to recognize that what we are asking for is very much a common practice, but it is also something that could give us a negotiable stance when dealing with other trading countries. New Democrats do believe in trade. We just want fair trade. Part of fair trade is making sure we are open and going to discuss these issues even if they are very difficult, but at the same time we will also strategically do that as we look at the industries. Most countries do that. I think we should too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague, the NDP industry critic, has a breadth of knowledge on all aspects of the manufacturing sector in Canada. He is also right when he talks about the domestic procurement in terms of the lakers and so on that need to be built and should be built here in Canada.

The member knows very well that Canada has the world's largest coastline. If we continue down this path, there may be a few more yards that close down. Britain builds its military vessels, China builds its military vessels, the U.S. builds its military vessels, Italy builds its military vessels, and so on. But with trade deals like this one and lack of action by the government, Canada may not be able to have the capacity in the future even to build our own Coast Guard or naval fleet. Would that not be a sad, sad day in Canada when we lose the ability to build our own domestic procurement for vessels that we so desperately need in Canada? I would like my hon. colleague from Windsor to respond to that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being able to respond to both domestic and external threats and having the structures in place to be able to handle that capacity are really important parts of a country's strategy. It is interesting that even at the best of times, as we have procurements outside of this country, we also become more vulnerable to timelines.

We are not only just vulnerable to the timelines and the manufacturer that we are buying from. Another country could jump the line on us, get the procurement that we had sought because their capacity had not been expanded and they were based on a business model over a series of years. They could jump the queue on Canada and get some of the vehicles, ships or whatever else we might be purchasing as a preference.

We have a strategic disadvantage there. It is important to recognize that this is also very much the psychological aspect of a nation being able to control its own destiny and for people to be a part of that. I will talk about the Navistar experience again. The people in the Chatham, Essex County and Kent County area want to be part of the people who assemble the vehicles that protect our nation and serve the people here and abroad. They want to be the men and women who do that. They obviously want jobs, as we all do, but they also want to be part of the process to defend our nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about the trade aspect of this legislation. It has been suggested before that certain industries get used as bargaining chips when Canada hits the trade negotiation table, whether it is with Europeans or the Americans. Certain industries are protected and other industries are not. Certain industries are accounted for and other ones are not.

As my hon. colleague for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned, we see that the Americans, when negotiating with Canada, had all sorts of protections built around the safeguards of their shipbuilding industry. The Canadian negotiators accepted that and found that to be reasonable. We still negotiated with them, whereas on the Canadian side of the table, we presented no such similar measures to protect our own industry.

Not accounting for the same things that our allies are doing in the same negotiations seems to be a perpetual condition within Canada's bargaining position in international agreements. We see it here again. I wonder if the member can account for this strange lapse in judgment or national interest that is presented by Canadians over and over again.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if our negotiators have a poor self-esteem when they go into these negotiations, but it seems to be a common thing. I think it really goes to the philosophical element that we have had in the last 10 to 20 years in this country: if we just lower corporate taxes, everything will be okay and everything will be fine.

How well has it worked right now, when we have lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs in five years? Right now, we are actually borrowing money to pay for corporate tax cuts. That is what we are doing right now. We are going to borrow that money, incur the debt, and give the banks and oil companies, that are making profits right now, more of the money that our children will have to pay back.

It does not make any sense. All the taxpayers out there should be really upset about this fraudulent practice. Money should be reinvested back into purchasing assets that are going to recoup some value for taxpayers. Those could be ships that are going to serve our men and women, and protect our navy and coastlines.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will have about four minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the principle of this debate before the House today is looking at an international trade agreement in its full aspects and zeroing in on one aspect of that agreement that needs greater consideration by the House.

It seems that the men and women who are involved in the shipbuilding industries of Canada would thank the members of this place to give it that due consideration. While our negotiators went forward and tasked this agreement together, which has many aspects, this one piece, and we have seen it as a precedent in agreements before, that the piece around the shipbuilding industry internationally is often protected on a national basis.

This speaks to a lack of a national dream or a national vision that the present government and previous governments have failed to express. When we lose sight of where we want the country to be in years to come, we simply allow that famous invisible hand to come in and adjust, manipulate and allow things to go where they will. Sometimes that works out but in some cases it does not.

When we look at an industry like the shipbuilding industry, which requires enormous amounts of investment and expertise that is not widespread, when we lose the people who know exactly what they are doing around a shipyard, they are so much harder to get back.

As every member of the House can attest, when any kind of announcement of a new company coming into any of our constituencies, particularly on value added and manufacturing, we celebrate the 25, 50 or 100 jobs. We think it is fantastic because it is good news and it so difficult to do.

We have witnessed over the last number of years, as the hon. member quoted, 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost. Some of them have been replaced by much lower paying jobs and very much less in value added jobs. There are members who are sitting in the House today who have witnessed that firsthand in their constituencies and who understand politically and economically how difficult it is to recover an industry once lost, how difficult it is to pull back the skilled workers, to re-encourage the investment and to bring the sense of optimism required to build those jobs in their constituencies and across this great country.

To lose those jobs and to simply say that it is part of an agreement that we need to sign on to and there is no consideration otherwise, is patently false. We have seen our trading partners do this with us time and time again. They identify key industries, as the Americans have done on shipbuilding and as the Europeans will do on shipbuilding in many circumstances, and say that those are unique industries that require government protection.

It seems that, regardless of the industry at this point, we have a government refusing to implement any kind of a national strategy. On the auto industry, for example, for years the New Democrats have called for an independent auto strategy to be built with the manufacturers and the labourers to design where the auto industry will be in years to come. Instead, we have the laissez-faire attitude of telling us not to worry and that everything will be fine. Well, it is not fine. It is simply not fine for the government to say that we are doing better comparatively than the others. We are doing terribly and it will only get worse.

The economic indicator that the government can point to right now says that things are looking up. It is high time that the government actually fulfilled its role and set the rules of the game and the parameters through things like trade policy and industrial strategies that give Canadians that renewed sense of hope. A penny on the GST is not doing it. Canadians know that because of the pink slips sitting in their mailboxes. They know that because they are not able to tell their families not too worry, that they know they are going through rough times but things will improve.

On this amendment, we can do something. We can express some future vision for our country. We can make an industry viable again and make it possible for Canadians to celebrate the actions of this place, rather than bemoan the lack of leadership they see from the benches of the government.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt at this point to tell the member he will have six minutes remaining when the House returns to this item.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has six minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, we continue to press the government to understand the critical nature of splitting off this one significant piece from the bill. It would do several things all at the same time. Most important, it would send a signal to Canadian industry and value-added manufacturers in this country that Parliament cares about the families and workers involved in that industry.

It seems, after hearing the government's comments in defending its practice of putting this one piece into the agreement with Europe, that it is unable to defend its position. That is unfortunate, because whether we agree or disagree on issues, all members are sent to this place with the expectation that they can defend their positions, that they can provide reasons and substance for why they consider one thing or another to be true.

To remind Canadians who have been following this debate, we are asking for a hiving off of the shipbuilding industry from this agreement. Members of Parliament have been receiving mail from constituents from coast to coast to coast, particularly the constituencies in which the few remaining shipyards still operate, expressing their concern. Over the years, this industry has been hammered by agreements that the present government and previous governments have signed, by government policies that slowly squeeze out the very oxygen this industry needs in order to survive.

Recently, my colleague from Burnaby gave me a letter from the Lauzon ship workers' union that said, “We represent CSN-affiliated workers working at the Lévis shipyard. We stand with workers in all Canadian shipyards in supporting your efforts to exclude Canadian shipyards from the Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement”.

This is really important, particularly to our Bloc Québécois colleague, because this speaks to the needs of workers in all provinces, of all workers connected to this industry.

The time has come to protect these workers. If we do not, we are basically saying that this Parliament and our work here are not important. The NDP believes that is unacceptable. We will continue to talk about our disagreement with the government. We have a different perspective on the economy and negotiations.

The Conservative government slips into an ideology far too easily. There is not a trade agreement in the world it would not sign. It negotiates looking backward instead of forward to what needs to be established.

At the very least, to most Canadians the notion that all trade agreements would have a net benefit to the Canadian economy would seem very straightforward and plausible. Yet we see time and again across the table at these negotiations representatives from other countries defend the interests of their nations, protect the industries they believe need protecting and make trade arrangements to the net benefit of their nations. Yet we have to appeal on bended knee. We have to fight tooth and nail with our own government to represent our own industries at the table.

The NDP has been a long and consistent supporter of fair trade. The NDP has been a long and consistent ally of those around the world looking to establish trade agreements that protect the environment, labour relations and standards, and enhance the capacity of our country to trade. We are a trading nation. Time and again we see governments come forward with the idea of sensible trade but present other ideas.

When the Americans negotiated with us and set up caveats for their own shipping industry and steel industry that exempted them from that agreement, Canada had no problem at all accepting that condition of trade and yet made no such considerations for Canada's own industry.

I have some vague recollection of the Conservatives having a little saying in the election, something about Canada first or stand up for Canada. I do not hear it much any more and we do not hear it when the government negotiates trade agreements.

This is an opportunity for Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc members to join the NDP and understand that we can protect and enhance this industry and make it a viable one for future generations. That industry helped build this country. To turn our backs on that industry at this time would only continue the economic ruin that has been put upon this country by the Conservative government. It is time for it to stop now.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley because he has reflected the concerns that our caucus has about the real problems in Bill C-2.

I am the member for the riding of Vancouver East, which includes the port of Vancouver. I can remember the days when we had a great shipbuilding industry in the greater Vancouver area along both sides of Burrard Inlet. The demise of that industry and what is going to happen now under this bill deeply concerns us, as well as the Canadians who have been involved in this important industry for generations. I was taking note of the comments of George MacPherson, the president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation. He said that the Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. He pointed out that with the passage of this trade agreement, Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. He said that the government's plan is an outrage.

Would the member comment, in terms of the impact on workers who have built up this industry and have developed those skills only now to see it be lost?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is something to note how difficult those jobs were to create in the first place. If we were to look back through the records of this Parliament and other legislatures across this country when the establishment of shipyards was first debated, it took an enormous amount of effort not only on the part of industry, but also on the part of government, to establish this fine and solid industry.

The expertise that is required to work within this industry is very hard to come by. We know that these workers are in demand around the world. We know that when those talents and that experience leave an area or a country, which has been happening in Canada, it is very hard to attract them back.

If nothing else, it would be a sign of good faith on the part of the government to agree with New Democrats to assist the industry and allow it to have a fair shake, to put it on a level playing field with the industries in other countries around the world with which we compete so that there is a sense of hopefulness within the industry and for the families of the workers in it.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP critic on this issue has shared with us some of the letters that he has received, and one is particularly striking to me. I come from the labour movement originally. This letter is from a disheartened worker who has signed his letter, “Another soon-to-be unemployed shipyard worker”. In his letter, he said, in part:

One of the most surprising things to me as a shipyard worker is that all stakeholders in the industry including owners and operators and unions from coast-to-coast have emphasized the need for the support during the many committee meetings....It's a shame that the Liberal party of Canada feels that it has to remain a puppet of the Conservative government in supporting another bad free trade deal for Canada.

I would like the member's view. I am sure he has seen the same letter. It goes on further, but I do not want to make it partisan here. This letter is from a hurting worker in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, this points to an extraordinary contradiction. We almost need a hypocrisy meter in this place to measure how the Liberals are going to react from one day to the next. When people come to our committees they hear the platitudes and the nice words, which are so easy for members of Parliament to say, but when the rubber hits the road and it is time to act, or to fall down, we have seen it far too many times that I am losing track. Is it 62 times? Something like that. Maybe it is 63, but the numbers are getting higher and higher every week of the Liberals supporting the Conservatives' agenda, while in question period and at committees, they are trying to convince Canadians of something different.

Here is an issue on which we clearly need the Liberals to show a bit of backbone. We have that power. This is a minority Parliament. It should conduct itself like one. Otherwise, all members supporting the government should simply stand and say so. That would be more honest and it would show more integrity than what we have seen so far.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in connection with Bill C-2 , but this time at the report stage. I hardly need mention that we in the Bloc are here first and foremost to defend the interests of Quebec. We also count on the people of Quebec to keep us informed, and at times that makes us almost a substitute for the government. To date the government has never really given us any impact studies to provide an overview of the repercussions of a free trade agreement on the economy of Canada or Quebec as a whole.

But some careful analysis is required. Overall, in Quebec, we see that we will stand to benefit from the free trade agreement with the European free trade association. As hon. members know, pharmaceuticals are hugely important to Quebec. We export and import with one of the countries, Switzerland. As well, nickel is an important mineral and some 80% of trade in nickel is with Norway. Then there is aluminum with Iceland. Those three factors mean that Quebec would stand to gain from this free trade agreement, and would have huge potential opportunities in future.

As we can see from a closer analysis, the shipbuilding industry is an important component of this free trade agreement. The agreement has been in negotiations since 1998. Preparations to sign it have taken 10 years. We know there have been slowdowns, and even interruptions in the negotiations, in large part due to the shipbuilding component. This industry is an important part of the negotiations. Today we see that, whether or not there is a free trade agreement that would do away with duties applicable to ships after 15 years, after an initial 3 year period—so 18 years in all—that is not the only thing that threatens shipbuilding. What does threaten it is the lack of a policy for this industry, particularly on the part of the federal government.

The federal government, for all intents and purposes, has not given any type of subsidy to the shipbuilding industry since 1988. Norway has heavily subsidized this industry, allowing it to modernize, progress and become more productive, while Canada and Quebec were dealing with gaps in the federal government's shipbuilding policy. For one thing, measures to assist the shipbuilding industry were ill-suited. As well, the Quebec government had a refundable tax credit 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. Not only did the federal government cut assistance to the industry but it raked in 20% to 25% of the funding and refundable tax credits that Quebec gave the industry.

So, with or without an agreement, if we want to preserve the shipbuilding industry, it is imperative that the government invest heavily in it.

The government appeared before the committee today to testify. It said that the help it is giving to the industry is sufficient, be it structured facility financing or accelerated capital cost allowance. That is far from sufficient.

My NDP colleague stated earlier that his party recently received the support of the union at the Davie shipyard in Lauzon. The union is supporting the NDP attempt to have the shipbuilding industry excluded from this free trade agreement. However, this agreement has been under negotiation for 10 years with countries in the European Free Trade Association. Since the shipbuilding industry is the problem, if it is excluded from this agreement, another agreement will have to be negotiated.

The Bloc Québécois is here to work in the interests of Quebec. Those interests are well served by this agreement in various ways, even in terms of the shipbuilding industry. As we can see, the agreement covers a period of over 18 years. The federal government will definitely change during that time, and a new government would see the need to invest heavily in the shipbuilding industry. If it were to receive nothing from the government one way or another, free trade agreement or not, the shipbuilding industry would probably not survive. We must give it a fighting chance of surviving through direct assistance, which could take many forms.

We often hear about loans and loan guarantees these days. This is important. The government can also provide assistance for lease agreements for boats, which would have the same effect as accelerated capital cost allowance and have an impact on the working capital of the various businesses. We could also talk about funding for the purchase of boats. A responsible government could bring all of these elements together in such a way as to establish a real policy for the shipbuilding industry. The term “responsible”, however, applies less and less to the current government . It is hard to say if it was any more applicable to the previous government. People often learn from their mistakes. Perhaps one day this country will have a truly responsible government to the great benefit of these industries, which make such an important contribution to Canada and Quebec.

In any case, 18 years is a long time. That is enough time for Quebeckers to give themselves their own country, one that will take charge of its shipbuilding industry and its own trade agreements with the rest of the countries on the planet. We would then have the best of all possible worlds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to every word my colleague from Sherbrooke said. As members know, there may be a preliminary vote in the next few days, but the final vote on the decision to remove shipbuilding and shipyards from this agreement will not take place for a few weeks.

Workers in Quebec are unanimously calling on the Bloc Québécois to support the NDP proposal to exclude shipyards from this agreement. Workers in Quebec are very clear. There is no nuance or difference of opinion. Shipbuilding workers in Quebec are very clear that the Bloc Québécois should vote with the NDP.

In the coming weeks, this issue will be raised repeatedly. It will not soon go away, even though that is what the Conservatives would like.

My question is simple. What do workers in Quebec have to do so that the Bloc Québécois supports the NDP's efforts to help shipyard workers in Quebec?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as soon as I can get away—I will not say from my NDP colleague's incessant questions, but as soon as I can go to my office—I will get in touch with the union. The previous NDP member informed us of the support of the union of shipyard workers in Lauzon. The time on the document indicates that we received it during question period. I spoke earlier about responsibilities, and my primary responsibility is to verify the union's position and expectations and see how we can reach an agreement.

I was an accountant in a former life, and I have worked for unions. When they gave me mandates, I always made sure they could keep their jobs, and that is my goal now.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments. I have before me a letter from a shipbuilding and marine union, signed by Jamie Vaslet, asking the Liberal Party to support excluding shipbuilding from this agreement.

Why must a union ask this or that political party to protect Canadian jobs? I do not know, but I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.

Despite our political allegiances, I thought that this House would be unanimous and exclude shipbuilding from this agreement in order to protect our Canadian industry. That seems straightforward to me.

Why does my colleague think that some members of this House do not support what we are discussing?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke only has time for a short reply.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is probably referring to a letter of support from a different union.

In Quebec, there are two main shipyards: the Davie Yards and the Groupe Maritime Verreault. I have to admit that we have not spoken directly with the management of these two firms, or with the union.

Furthermore, we have never received a clear indication of their position. However, as the previous member stated, there is still time. Therefore, I will ensure that I obtain the required information and study the impact this could have on the Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I stand today to speak to Bill C-2, yet another free trade agreement, I am concerned for the workers of Hamilton and for Canadian workers as a whole.

Canada has gone through over 20 years of free trade agreements. In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, particular the Hamilton East portion, I have watched this seemingly endless parade of companies that have left Hamilton or closed as a direct result of free trade. My observation is that most Canadians do not feel free trade is free at all.

I watched Burlington Street in Hamilton go from a dynamic, bustling centre of manufacturing to a mere shadow of its former self. In fact, the very day the original draft free trade agreement was tabled, the first one between Canada and the United States, Firestone Canada in Hamilton, on the words of that draft agreement, closed its once proud plant on Burlington Street.

We, the labour movement and organizations like the then brand new Council of Canadians warned them, Because most Canadian cities were within 100 miles of the American border, we warned them that with free trade and the removal tariff barriers our plants owned by American companies would move or close.

I take absolutely no satisfaction in having been right. During the first two years of that original free trade agreement, between 1988 and 1990, Ontario lost 524,000 manufacturing jobs. Canada and Hamilton, in particular, quite literally bled jobs to the United States and Mexico.

Hamilton, long known for steel production, was once one of the leading textile manufacturing sites in all of North America. Those plants are long gone. During the past 20 to 25 years, Canada and, to a great degree, much of the free world has been on the track, a track comprised of deregulation and free trade as espoused first by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney.

For evidence, look to today's crisis in the American market, a place where business was conducted in this wild west environment. Now we can see the outcome, the lack of proper regulation or deregulation and the requirement of enforcement. It is almost like the sheriff left town and Wall Street ran rampant with that reckless abandon, which we have become so aware of in the last few months.

Canada once had an auto pact, which protected our market and ensured employment in that important industry and the associated support industries. The Liberals, when in government, let that agreement slip away. Now we not only have cuts to auto plants, but Hamiltonian steelworkers are being laid off. In fact, we are seeing thousands upon thousands of support jobs lost along with those direct manufacturing jobs.

For Hamilton and Hamilton steel plants, this has proven to be devastating. No orders means no work which means layoffs.

As I said before, I can recall in 1988 when the labour movement and other organizations like that newly minted Council of Canadians were warning that this day would come if the Government of Canada signed on to that free trade agreement.

Similar warnings were issued in 1993, regarding NAFTA. The Liberals were at the front with those warnings. In fact, they were warning themselves. They made promises that they would not sign onto NAFTA, which they did shortly after winning that election.

Today Canadian industries are very fragile. Industries like shipbuilding, in particular, need attention from their government. Canada has been known worldwide for the quality of our shipbuilding, but other countries have worked hard to protect their shipbuilding with massive subsidies to aid their development, such as with Norway. Canada has lagged and has not had the comprehensive strategy to protect this important industry.

At committee, the New Democratic Party tried to protect this industry with no less than 16 motions, which were turned back by the chair with the aid of the Liberal Party members present. For the information of the members present today, shipbuilding is exempted from NAFTA.

At committee, the Shipbuilding Association of Canada made it clear that shipbuilding must be removed from the Canada-EU trade agreement. This agreement would reduce Canadian tariffs on ships from 25% to zero over 10 to 15 years. If we allow this to happen, we will lose our market altogether.

Members also need to know that the United States has always protected its shipbuilding industry ever since the Jones bill of 1920. That legislation protects the U.S. capacity to produce commercial ships. The Jones act requires commerce between U.S. ports on inland waters to be reserved for ships that are U.S. built, U.S. owned, registered under U.S. law and U.S. manned. In recent years the United States has implemented a heavily subsidized naval reconstruction program. All of this is to the direct benefit of its shipyards and its U.S. workers.

Where has Canada been? Canada can and must do the same thing. Canada must separate shipbuilding from this free trade agreement.

Finally, the shipbuilding sector must be completely excluded from the agreement, as I have said. The government should immediately put together an enhanced, structured financing facility, along with an accelerated capital cost allowance for this industry. An important component would be a buy Canadian strategy.

We have heard this buy Canadian strategy at a number of levels. We heard it first when the United Steelworkers made representation to the Congress in the United States on the buy American plan.

Within the free trade agreements to which we are now party, there are provisions that allow for a buy Canadian strategy. They allow for municipalities and provincial governments to buy Canadian. There are some limitations to that, but the Conservative government does not seem to want to entertain this option at all. In fact, the so-called free traders of the world raise their arms in concern when it happens, but that could be the very foundation for the salvation of not only shipbuilding, but our manufacturing sector altogether.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member, and I was quite intrigued. He referred to what was supposedly said and discussed in committee. The member was not in committee. I vice-chair the committee. I am surprised how he came up with this information.

He referred to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and took us back well over 20 years. He spoke about how bad trade was with these free trade agreements. Does he think we should not have signed any agreements? We were doing hundreds of millions of dollars in trade 21 to 25 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, today we do on an average day $1.8 billion to $2 billion, which creates jobs.

The most important thing he talked about was shipbuilding. The stakeholders came before our committee, and he was not at committee, and gave us suggestions on how we could make this work. For example, he talked about SFF, the structured financial facility, and the ACCA, the accelerated capital cost allowance. If the government were to incorporate the two, it would become a viable situation for our shipbuilding industry.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, as I said in my remarks, I do not think free trade has been free for Canada at all. The hon. member asked what we should have been doing in initially.

Back in the time of that original free trade agreement, we had proposals for sector by sector management, managed trade. That is what the auto pact was. People of the day, who were concerned about free trade, said that we should have looked at the individual sectors and modelled after the auto pact. I think that strategy would have served Canada better. I am sure within this place many free traders believe the entire opposite.

Simon Reisman, who negotiated on behalf of Canada, was a proponent of selling water to the United States, yet he was on our side. He was part of a compact, a group that was prepared to sell water to the United States.

From my perspective, we were sunk from the very beginning on that agreement.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the historical perspective of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek about these trade agreements really informs the debate on Bill C-2.

One thing that strikes me is that since 1924, every free trade deal that has ever been negotiated by the Americans has excluded shipbuilding and marine services. The Americans have always understood how important shipbuilding and marine services are to their economy and to their sense of national purpose, and the industry is very important.

It is very interesting to hear these notions of what free trade is all about and that somehow it is about enhancing the economy and protecting jobs. We can see, in this case, the Americans have actually carved out shipbuilding because they want to protect it. This is very relevant to the debate today.

Would the member comment on that?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly see the relevance between all the trade agreements from the very first one.

The member might have noticed in my remarks that I referred to the Council of Canadians. It was part of my initial activism. I was the very first president of the Hamilton chapter of the Council of Canadians, and that was where that foundation was built. That understanding came from there.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand and talk on behalf of Canadian workers. I do so with a heavy heart. I do not understand why we have to think of making this exemption, to take the shipbuilding industry out of this agreement. It would stand to reason that members from all parties would largely support protecting Canadian industry, regardless of which political spectrum we represent.

However, I will pursue this and explain why I believe the shipbuilding industry should be taken out of this agreement. I have a letter written to my colleague, the MP for Burnaby—New Westminster, from the Shipyard General Worker's Federation of B.C., which states:

On behalf of these members, I am writing to urge that the government reconsider signing EFTA as there will be many seriously negative consequences for the shipbuilding industry.

At the very least, we request that the shipbuilding industry be exempted from EFTA...

I have a letter, which I find disturbing, that has been written to members of the Liberal Party on behalf of 700 Halifax shipyard workers, asking that party to support us in making this exemption. It states:

In every free trade agreement since 1924 United States of America has seen the importance of this strategic industry to its sovereignty yet we in Canada fail to put policies in place to even protect our shipbuilding industry, although the conservative government would like the people of Canada to believe that a 15 year phase-out of the 25% tariff on shipbuilding would put us on a level playing field with the European trade association this is pure fantasy...

This is according to Jamie Vaslet of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Canada.

Mr. George MacPherson, president of the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of B.C. basically has stated:

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 25 years is estimated to be worth $40 billion. Under the proposed FTAs with Norway and Iceland, and the planned FTA with Korea and then Japan, these Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. In these terms, this government plan is an absolute outrage.

The only thing missing is the political will of this government. We fully support the position of Mr. Andrew McArthur, member of the board of directors of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, and the CAW who made a strong case before the committee.

First of all, the shipbuilding sector must be excluded from this agreement. Then the federal government must immediately establish a structured financing mechanism with accelerated capital cost allowance.

Over the last 20 years we seem to have had a tendency in our government to forget about the workers and those Canadians who depend on various professions when we sign agreements. We are looking right now at an example, the shipbuilding industry. I believe this is a symptom of our attitude as a country towards all industries in Canada.

I would like to talk a little about agriculture. As we speak, there is a movement on the part of the World Trade Organization to put pressure on Canada to bring about the end of the Canadian Wheat Board by ending its ability to borrow at government rates and by requiring Canada to eliminate single-desk selling by 2013. The Wheat Board is supported by western farmers in Canada and has been getting good prices that enable farmers to make a living in these troubled times. Regarding that same agreement, I was told by representatives of the Canadian dairy federation that each dairy farmer stands to lose $70,000 if modifications are made to supply management at the World Trade Organization.

That is not acceptable. We saw it when we signed under NAFTA and the free trade agreement with the United States. We have seen over the last 20 years that cattle ranchers are making less than half of what they were making before the free trade agreement was signed in 1989. We have seen thousands of vegetable producers devastated in Ontario and British Columbia because they are no longer to compete with cheap produce coming in from the United States. Before the free trade agreement, we had in-season tariffs so that a vegetable producer on the Niagara Peninsula could make sure that he or she had a market and was able to make a living.

We do not have any more of that because of these free trade agreements we are signing. As I said earlier, shipbuilding is symptomatic of the attitude we have somehow developed in Canada, the attitude that we have to give away everything. Americans have not given away their shipbuilding industry. Americans have protected their energy under NAFTA, while we have given away our energy under NAFTA. We cannot even decrease our exports of oil and gas to the United States without proportionately decreasing domestic consumption.

We have signed a chapter in NAFTA that allows foreign corporations to sue our Canadian governments, with the result that our tax dollars go to trying to defend our governments, whether provincial, federal or local, against these suits.

It is time for us to realize and determine the direction that we want to take as a country. A very positive step in this direction would be to get this shipbuilding clause out of this agreement so that it becomes a fair trade agreement and an agreement whereby we can protect Canadian jobs.

I would like to go further. I would like to say that all of us here in the House should start encouraging the idea of giving preference to Canadian procurement when we are buying military vessels or airplanes or food for Canadian institutions. It is ludicrous that we have to bring up the topic that we have to either support our industry or support our farmers, that somehow we have slipped along this path and it does not really matter anymore.

In conclusion, as many of my colleagues here have mentioned, I think that taking this shipbuilding clause out of the agreement would signify that we are ready not only to start protecting our shipbuilding industry but also to set a precedent for the future, so that no country would be allowed to put pressure on us to get rid of our jobs as we sign these agreements.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about giving away, and we do not give away. I want to remind him briefly that the member for Outremont was willing to sell Canadian water. That is just for the record. He is on the record saying that.

Last Thursday we had members of the shipbuilding industry before our committee again. They said that with certain adjustments and certain restructuring, we can be competitive. It is not something that is going to happen overnight. I am glad he mentioned that it would take over 15 years.

Does the member think that we can just walk away from any trade agreements? I will give an example. We procrastinated in signing the Central America Free Trade Agreement. The Americans did sign, and they are benefiting. Today we are out of that picture. Is he telling us that we should just not sign agreements with anybody and stay esoteric as a nation? Is that what he is really advocating?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we need is some backbone in this country. What we need is to stand up for our workers and sign an agreement that is fair. The American Congress does it all the time. It has done it with shipbuilding. It continually hammers us with agriculture. Other countries have supported their shipbuilding industry, to the extent that Norway, a major competitor, will be coming in and supplying ships to our country if we do not start doing something to stand up for our industry.

We can have trade, but we have to stand up for Canadians first.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, right on to the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. I think he nailed it on the head. We are not opposed to trade agreements. Our concern is with what we give away and whether those trade agreements are fair.

I have just been reviewing some of the media reports on this story. One of the big things that happened about a month or so ago is that for the first time since 1976, Canada posted a trade deficit, meaning that we bought more from foreign suppliers than we sold to foreign customers. That deficit was $458 million.

Here we have a trade agreement that is going to do in our shipbuilding industry when we could actually be producing things. We could be manufacturing important resources and products here in our own country and, hopefully, supplying them to others, yet we are going to be signing off on a bill that is going to go in exactly the opposite direction.

I think the member for British Columbia Southern Interior has got it exactly right: our job here is to stand up for Canadian workers, to support these industries and to make sure they do not get signed away on a slip of paper, even if it is up 15 years. The reality is that this is a rotten deal, and we are hearing this from the workers themselves.

I would like to ask the member to give us more information on these trade agreements and how bad they are for Canada.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as an answer I have a quotation from Mr. Andrew McArthur, chair of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada. At the standing committee, he said, “The position of the association from day one is that shipbuilding should be carved out, carved out from EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government, 'We do not carve industries out.' ”

Why do we not carve industries out? Why are we so timid that we cannot look at an agreement and say that we will take this and we won't take that, and that if one party does not like it, we will deal with somebody else? As I said, the Americans do this all the time.

We have done this in agriculture. We have done this in softwood. We have sold out our softwood industry. Now we are doing it in shipbuilding, and I think it is a shame. I think it is a shame that everybody does not stand up here to support carving this out of this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from Scarborough Centre knows full well that every single representative from the shipbuilding industry, whether owners, manufacturers or workers, asked for this carve-out.

I want to ask the member for British Columbia Southern Interior why he thinks the Liberals would ignore every single witness, all of whom unanimously said to support the NDP and vote for the carve--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior. Please give a short answer.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that. I always believed that the Liberal Party stood up for Canadian workers and stood up for Canadian families, and I do not quite understand why he would not support keeping Canadian industry viable.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Equalization Payments; the hon. member for Halifax, Housing; the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Pay Equity.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House in support of the motion by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to strike out clause 38 from the Canada-Europe free trade agreement.

It may come as a surprise to the House that a landlubber such as the representative from Edmonton--Strathcona would care about the shipping industry, but let me share with the House today the long historic background my family has with this industry.

Let me share with you that first of all we allowed the decimation of the fish stocks on our east coast, and now the fish stocks are disappearing on our west coast. Entire communities have lost their revenue source.

Now former fishers and fish plant workers must leave their communities and commute to the northern area of my province to toil in the tar sands to feed their communities.

Now we witness, with the support of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, the demise of the historic nation-building shipbuilding industry and the jobs once provided by this historic sector. We witnessed every representative of the shipping industry, whether workers or owners, coming to the parliamentary committee and begging for the support of the members of the House for the continuation of their industry. No support was given to them, except from the members of my party.

Shame on the official opposition members. They are supposed to stand up for Canadians. The promise of the Conservative Party to stand up for Canadians disappears when it comes to speaking for Canadians' benefit in yet another free trade agreement.

Shipping and shipbuilding, next to the coureurs des bois, have been the key to building the very foundations of our nation. My family's roots, beginning around 1610 in Mosquito Point and Carbonear, were based on the shipping industry. My ancestor, Gilbert Pike, was a buccaneer. Their ships attacked my ancestor's ships, and they moved to Newfoundland and became very active in the fishing industry.

My family depended on the shipping industry to bring in the supplies so that our community could survive and to ship the cod out to the European community. It was very critical to trade. If not for the shipbuilding industry, the entire community of Carbonear would not exist. The most famous person in Newfoundland, Sheila NaGeira, is my ancestor.

I say to the House at this point in time that we are talking about the demise of one of the founding industries of our country. How can the other members of the House sit by and allow this industry to disappear?

It may be unknown to other members of the House, perhaps even those from my city, that one of the most important founding industries in my own city of Edmonton was the historic shipbuilding industry on the banks of the North Saskatchewan River. It was one of the most important industries that founded our city and kept our city going. They built both sailing ships and barges that plied the rivers, developed the north, fed the fur trade industry, and supported the aboriginal and the trapping industries and the gold rush.

If it were not for that industry, the city of Edmonton would not have developed into the burgeoning municipality it is today.

The shipbuilding industry has come to the members of Parliament pleading for the support of their own elected officials. I ask my colleagues to please stand up for shipbuilders and for those who work in that industry, to please stand up for Canadians.

One of the other nations that will be party to this agreement, the Canada-European agreement on free trade, has stood up for its industry. Norway stood up for its shipbuilding industry and now has a burgeoning industry. Our southern partner, the United States of America, has stood up for its shipbuilding industry. What is wrong with our country? What is wrong with our elected officials?

We have the members of the shipbuilding union and the shipbuilders themselves taking the time away from their families and their jobs to come to Ottawa to plead with members of Parliament: “Please, we are all for free trade. We are all for selling our products overseas and entering into this very important agreement, but stand up for our side of the trade”.

Are we going to be a country only of buyers, and not sellers? We need also, though, to keep in mind, as the hon. member for the Northwest Territories regularly reminds me in the House and outside, that we have to look to the future. What about the Arctic trade?

The members across the floor keep talking about how they are going to build development in the Arctic. What the heck do they think we are going to use when we are protecting and developing in the Arctic? We need ships. Should those ships not be built in Canada? Do we not have the expertise and wherewithal to develop and build those specialized vessels that not only Canadians, our Coast Guard and those who ply our oceans will use, but we could sell those specialized ships to people around the world who are chomping at the bit to come into Arctic waters?

In the presentation by Dr. Vincent, renowned polar expert, last week to parliamentarians, he pointed out that Canada has an opportunity, both in the Arctic and the Antarctic, but for the Arctic by virtue of geography it is ours to claim. Why are we not claiming this piece of the industry and developing and building the very ships that will ply the Arctic so that we can ensure they are safe and do not cause environmental harm.

The member said that our opportunity for marketing was In the Antarctic. We could also be marketing specialized ships to ply the Antarctic and support the researchers.

I am standing today, as are the other members, in support of this recommendation to strike clause 38, which means that we will be speaking on behalf of Canadians when we sign onto this trade agreement.

I had the privilege of working for the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. That organization was formed as part of one of the side agreements to NAFTA. I am very proud to say that I contributed in a positive way to free trade in North America.

However, we need to ensure we stand up for the important sides of free trade and that we remember the interests of Canadians not just the interests of major corporations or people who might want to sell Canada wares or might want to sell Canadian ships. We should be thinking in terms of the workers in Canada in this time of economic constraint. We should be thinking, first and foremost, of supporting Canadian industries and Canadian workers.

I rest my case. I think the request of the hon. member is eminently reasonable. It speaks on behalf of Canadians. It is about time the official opposition of this House spoke up on behalf of Canadians.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who sits on our committee and who has done a tremendous job in terms of putting the point forward on shipbuilding, was at the meeting last Thursday when the representatives said, first, that if the industry were properly structured, and second, if the structural financial facility were combined with the accelerated capital cost allowance that would really make things happen for the industry. It would be viable, strong and it could compete.

If those two things were in place, would the New Democratic Party support this?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer I would have to profess that it is inappropriate for me to rely on hearsay. I cannot specifically speak to the remarks passed on to me by the hon. member as I did have not the opportunity to participate in that discussion.

However, I am well aware, from reading the written record, that every intervenor who came forward to speak as a witness spoke in favour of striking out this clause.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation on this very important issue. I want to go back to some of the discussion about the future of Canadian shipbuilding and the future of developing the Arctic and the kinds of vessels that are required there.

Taking the situation where there is no protection in Canada for the development of new technology that has to be employed on these ships, what company would invest in Canada? What company would put the effort into Canada when it could be undercut by so many other countries around the world for the same type of technology, the same type of advanced work that is required to build the types of vessels that will be used in the Arctic in the future?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good point. Who else but Canada should put the needs of Canadians and our shipping as a top priority?

As an environmental lawyer with 35 years experience, I am extremely concerned about the plight of our Arctic and this drive to exploit it as fast as possible without ensuring we have the protections in place. We need only look back to the devastating spill on the west coast of British Columbia where shipbuilders gave little attention to environmental protection and every attention to plying their trade, with Canada suffering the effect on our wildlife, our oceans and the fishery.

It is absolutely incumbent upon Canada to ensure we are putting a priority on the development of shipping that will ply the trade either in our Great Lakes, in our Arctic or along our riverways.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, quite some time ago, the agriculture committee made a number of recommendations. I believe the member was with us when all members unanimously voted on food security recommendations. We submitted them to the government and were told that on some we had to be careful because of trade obligations.

I would submit that if every member of the House were asked whether they thought we should have a viable shipbuilding industry in Canada and would they support Canadian workers, I submit that every member would say yes. If that were the case, what pressures does my colleague feel there are to shift the focus? Why is there a policy not to take this out of this agreement but to exclude Canadian workers? What is happening?

Since we agree that we should support industry, workers and families, what pressures are there that caused the federal government to make this shift?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I cannot imagine what influences there could be that would have any level of credibility to the members of Parliament in the House that they would put ahead of the needs of our Canadian shipping industry and the workers who work in it.

When we are making decisions on such momentous matters as to whether we should sign on to a free trade agreement and what the terms will be, surely we must be thinking, first and foremost, of the interests of Canadians and the jobs that can be created for the future benefit of Canadians. I cannot imagine what on earth members would be thinking that they would not support the amendment proposed by the hon. member.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by quoting a couple of witnesses who came before the committee because they were referenced here when I was in the House today. I, like the hon. member, was at the committee when they were there.

In reply to a question about his belief as to whether this was a sellout of the shipbuilding industry and should it be a carve out, one witness, Mr. Andrew McArthur, said:

If it's not a sellout, it's getting close to it. It certainly doesn't enhance the survivability of the industry. It jeopardizes it. It would be pretty hard to say it's an absolute sellout, although it's getting close.

That was said by an industry representative who talks about his multiple years in the industry. In fact, the gentleman has had experience on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, originally being from my homeland of Scotland and knowinf the shipbuilding industry there as well. He goes on to say:

It's not only EFTA that concerns us. The ground rules may be set.

I repeat that, through EFTA, the ground rules could be set because we are negotiating with Singapore and South Korea. Once we set those ground rules, if we get the same with all these other countries, the industry could be in very tough conditions and could only survive on government contracts.

This side of the House and the other side of the House know what happened to those government contracts. I believe there was a sense that there would be two new supply ships built for the Canadian navy. I could ask my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, if he were here, if he had seen those two supply ships in Halifax lately and I think the response would probably be no, since they have not been built. Part of the reason that they were not built was that the government said the bid was too expensive. That is from our yards. Of course the bid may have, in the government's estimation, been too expensive but it is because the shipyards are not producing at maximum level. By their own records, they are producing at about one-third capacity, which means they need to retrofit the yard to do a vessel of that size and they need to find workers. That multiplies the effect of what the cost will be when we bid the job because we will need to find those workers and, indeed, enhance the yard so that it can produce the product.

All those things contribute to the cost and the fact that the cost was so high. One could argue whether the cost was really that high when Canadian taxpayer money would be building Canadian ships, Canadian sailors would be on those ships and those ships would be made by Canadian workers in Canada who would be paying Canadian taxes to the Canadian government. The government would then be able to circulate that money back into the economy through other measures and other programs. More important, inside the community where those Canadian workers live, they would now be putting money back into the economy because they would be earning a wage and not be collecting employment insurance, which comes out of the fund and which could be used for other folks.

The multiplier effect is enormous. When we look at the cost of something and think that it is a little bit higher, a little bit higher than whose, begs the question. Is it Korea? Was that the government's intention? If Canadian yards are too expensive, it will send those Canadian vessels for the navy to Korea. Is part of the master plan to get EFTA in place and then simply negotiate the next shipbuilding contract with Korea? We will see what the industry and the workers representatives have told us at committee that the industry cannot survive.

Let us take a step back and see what is inside those yards. The people who work in those yards have very specific skills. Most of those skills are only adaptable to the yards that build those vessels. This is a highly-skilled workforce and building vessels is fairly labour intensive. An investment in a yard today produces jobs today as well, and, from those jobs, we produce apprenticeships, which is retraining.

I know the government is fond of talking about its action plan, about money for retraining and about money for jobs. This is the opportunity to take that rhetoric and simply write a cheque. The government should procure those vessels from Canadian yards, put those workers back to work and allow them to take on apprentices. Today the average age of a yardworker across the country is 53.

Albeit for someone such as me, who is just a little north of 53 years of age, to say that is getting on, by the same token, it does not take that much longer before those workers will retire. Without replacing those workers through an apprenticeship program, we will see the demise of the yard, because the labour component will disappear across this country. That would be a shame not only for those communities and those workers but for this country, which has the largest coastline in the world.

We really are a maritime nation, albeit some of us do not want to believe that from time to time. My own riding of Welland, of course, is named after the Welland Canal, bordered by two lakes and a river. It is split in half by the Welland Canal. It is hard for us to understand that we are a maritime nation when we live in the centre of Ontario, but indeed we are surrounded by water.

In my riding, from time to time we can actually watch the ships go across the bridge. It is really a tunnel for us but a bridge for the boats. For those who have never had the experience of heading down that tunnel and seeing a boat go across the top, it is the strangest feeling when it is experienced for the very first time.

To lose that ability to build those vessels in this country would be tantamount to criminal negligence.

We need to understand what the industry is saying to us. I would think my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House, who tend to be friends of that group, would understand that, and if they do not, certainly the Liberals would, because the Liberals were on this file before the Conservative government was.

What the industry has said from day one is that they need a viable industry in this country to build ships, and we need to help them establish that. They are willing to do their part. In fact, the industry and the workers in the marine units have done that. What they are saying to the government is, “Allow us to do what other nations around this world are doing, just like the Jones Act did for the U.S. Let us carve out shipbuilding. Let us have the same opportunities that Americans have and we will be able to compete.”

Not only that, but we would have the sense of security in this country that we are actually going to build naval vessels in Canada for Canadian sailors. It seems to me that is the very least we owe the women and men in our armed services, to understand that when they get on that vessel, it is Canadians who have produced it for them, it is Canadian quality that went into it, and it is Canadian security that provided it for them.

Not only that, but Canadian taxpayers are looking to us to spend their money wisely. They entrust us with their money and they expect us to spend it wisely. I have said this in my other career as a municipal councillor: There is no wiser decision we can make as people entrusted with their money than to spend it on them, to invest it in Canadians, who give it to us. Unwaveringly they say, “Here it is,” and they provide it to us.

It seems to me that what we really need to do is have a carve-out. We look at the tariff program and say we can build it over a number of years. The industry is saying that will not let it survive. The Norwegian industry, which is the one that really we are going to compete with here, is an industry that spent the last 20 years being subsidized by the Norwegian government, so indeed it could end up going to the marketplace. Why is it that we cannot do the same thing?

We are not asking for any more than that. Carve it out. Carve it out so that we have an opportunity to do the same things the Norwegians have done. It seems the fairest thing to do. If the Norwegians thought it was good enough for Norwegian citizens, the least the Canadian government can do is say it is good enough for Canadians.

Why should we be second-class world citizens when it comes to looking after ourselves? Why would we want to put an industry and our workers in jeopardy when indeed we do not have to do that?

We have this opportunity here, and I would look to my colleagues on this side of the House, especially the Liberals, and say to them that they should rethink their position on the carve-out. They should rethink the perspective of what they are doing, which is selling out shipyard workers from coast to coast to coast in this country and decimating an industry that has been here for hundreds of years.

The first folks got here by ship. Whether they happened to be the aboriginal nations or not, one can talk about a land bridge, but a lot of folks actually sailed to this country. To think that somehow we do not have that industry anymore, it make one want to weep, to be honest, especially someone such as myself who came here as a new Canadian with my parents.

My father came here to build ships. As a legacy to my father, because he has passed on now, the least I can do is stand in this House and say that I stood for shipbuilding in this country. That is what brought my family to this place and I will not let him down.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP member for Welland for his very fine remarks. It has been really wonderful to hear some of the historical references just within our own caucus, from the member for Edmonton—Strathcona as well, about the history of shipbuilding and how important it is to us in this country and our families through the generations.

We talk so often about being from coast to coast to coast. As the member pointed out, we are a maritime nation. One of the really important points he made was that we should be looking at new apprenticeship programs. We should be looking at upgrading our shipbuilding industry and trying new technologies.

I wonder if the member could talk about that, because I know he is from the labour movement, and what it would mean in terms of training programs for a younger generation to be part of the shipbuilding industry, to carry it on into the new green economy.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that, as I have heard over the years from young people not just in my own riding but throughout the Niagara region, what is lacking is apprenticeship programs. There are programs in the colleges where students get a minimal amount of training, but ultimately what they need to have—and the terminology might be somewhat archaic—is a master-indentured worker program where, as an apprentice, they would work for a master tradesman or tradeswoman.

They need to actually have a place to do that, because they cannot serve an apprenticeship without a place to be. One of those places would be in a shipyard. There is an immense amount of trades programs inside shipyards, whether it be in the welding area, whether it be in the steel fabricating area or the rigging area, or whether it be as an electrician. The number of skills is unparalleled in most other industries.

In fact, the shipyard workers will say quite openly that nearly all the workers who actually work inside a yard are from apprenticable programs and skilled workers. It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is simply invest in it. We would generate not only jobs for today, but jobs for tomorrow, because those apprentices will be taken up in the system and we will be retraining the youth for those jobs of tomorrow with skills that can be taken elsewhere, can be taken into the fabrication of towers for wind turbines in the green economy, can be taken all the way across in varying degrees.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Welland talked about the Welland Canal. I remember that people used to leave New Brunswick to work there and we heard a lot about that.

In the Maritimes, we do not have to do that. We live by the water. It is the same for Newfoundland and all the Atlantic provinces.

Would the member agree that the government does not have respect for our workers? We have jobs that we could provide here in this country. We had Saint John Shipbuilding, but it is gone. Those workers did a good job for our country, but now those jobs are gone.

When I say the government does not respect the workers of our country, right now we have people leaving the Atlantic provinces to work in Alberta on the oil rigs. They are getting laid off, but foreign workers are staying because they are cheap labour.

Does the member agree that the government does not have respect for the workers of our country?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for the question and the comments. There is no question that if the government really cared about workers it would invest in them. What flabbergasts me is that the shipyard workers and the shipyard owners themselves, the Irving family of shipyards, is telling the government to invest in the yards.

I can understand the Conservatives looking at Mr. Risser, who represents the CAW marine unit, and saying, “No, I do not think so; you are a trade union.” But the shipyard owners, the business conglomerate of the east coast of this country that owns the shipyards, are saying to the government, “Carve it out.” We need to carve it out.

Not only do the Conservatives, as my colleague has said, have disdain for the workers in those yards, they seem to have disdain for the shipyard owners. That astounds me, because ultimately this is an easy investment. We need those supply vessels. We need those Coast Guard vessels. We need them now. In fact, some would say we needed them a year or two ago.

Minister Flaherty says he wants to put money out there. Write the cheque.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

I remind members that they are not to refer to their colleagues by their given names but by their titles. In any event, the member's time has expired.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-2. I particularly want to acknowledge the tireless work of two members from the New Democrats.

The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, of course, is a very familiar voice in this House and has called consistently over the years that I have been here for a shipbuilding policy. The reason we are speaking today in this House is because both the Conservatives and the Liberals have failed on that account.

I also want to particularly acknowledge the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. It is with his very good work that we are here today to oppose vehemently the inclusion of shipbuilding in Bill C-2.

I want to turn to some of the work that the member—

I was going to say “the minister”. That would be an improvement, if we had here a minister from Burnaby—New Westminster.

I want to refer to some of the work that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has done in connection with identifying some of the issues around shipbuilding. When he tabled a dissenting opinion, what he said was that Canada's shipbuilding industry is not operating anywhere near its maximum capacity and lacks support from the federal government.

Canada is the only major seafaring nation without a strategic plan for its shipbuilding industry. Unlike Canada, Norway has used its period of tariff protection to invest heavily in an expanded shipbuilding industry, making it competitive and efficient. It was thus able to phase out its government subsidies by the year 2000.

Because the shipbuilding industry has been worn away for so long by a lack of interest from the federal government, by the time the tariffs are dropped in 15 years, if no aggressive policy is put in place, there will be little left in Canada other than foreign shipbuilding firms.

The major concern, of course, is that this trade bill reduces tariffs on ships from 25% to zero over a period of 10 to 15 years, depending on the type of products, and nothing happens for the first three years.

Why does it matter?

I want to draw members' attention to a news release from 2007 that was titled, “No celebrations Friday for BC shipyard workers”. It talks about the fact that BC chose to build ferries in Germany. What we see is not only the fact that we could have had the capability to do it here, but as this particular article states,

While BC Ferries holds a $60,000 party in Germany for 3,000 people on Friday, there will be no celebrating the launch of the first of 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, says the BC Shipyard General Workers' Federation.

By investing in shipyards in this country, we not only create direct and indirect jobs, we not only generate significant amounts of dollars in new investment, but what we always fail to calculate when we are looking at costs of shipbuilding are the returns to government. Those workers pay taxes, and successful businesses pay taxes. That needs to be factored into any kind of equation when we are talking about support to our shipbuilding industry.

When the committee was hearing testimony on this, there were a couple of industry people who came forward and talked about the importance of shipbuilding and why we should exempt shipbuilding from this particular agreement.

George MacPherson, the president of the B.C. Shipyard General Workers' Federation, at the standing committee on trade, on March 3, 2009, said,

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 25 years is estimated to be worth $40 billion.

Andrew McArthur, from the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, said,

The position of the association from day one is that shipbuilding should be carved out from EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government that we do not carve industries out. We raise the question of the Jones Act in the U.S., which was carved out from NAFTA. We are not allowed to build or repair for the Americans. The Americans have free access to our market. So industries do get carved out. I'm sure there are numerous other examples.

So we have industry and labour arguing for this.

I want to touch on a couple of companies on Vancouver Island.

In my very own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have the Nanaimo Shipyard Group. This shipyard has been in business since 1930 and has been in the same location, in the Newcastle Channel. It has over 10,000 square feet of covered area. This company mainly carries out refit and maintenance on DND, Coast Guard, and BC Ferry Corporation vessels. It also carries out work on deep-sea cargo vessels, fishing vessels, tug and barge fleets, yachts, fish farming service vessels and other coastal vessels. We can see that it has a wide range of experience in terms of the kinds of repairs it does.

Point Hope shipyard in beautiful Victoria was first established in 1873. Some have said it was the first shipyard in B.C. In fact, the ways were of wooden construction. It has a very significant history. It had written a letter to a number of ministers and talked about its long history, but it also pointed out their capabilities. It said:

Point Hope's capabilities extend to the construction of complete steel and aluminum vessels up to 1,500 tons and 60 meters in length.

It went on to talk about the fact that it was ISO certified. It was also applying for additional ISO certifications so that it would meet environmental standards. It said:

We are a key participant in Canada's defence and industrial marine sector providing significant employment and revitalization in the core of the City of Victoria. Point Hope is a success story and a model for the industry and has the capabilities and resources to continue to grow and expand.

We should be standing up for our shipyards. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster says that we should stand up for Canada. The shipyards and labour have some solutions. The Nanaimo shipyard has written to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates saying that it is the owner-operator of a small to medium-sized enterprise engaged in shipbuilding and repair. It employs approximately 100 to 150 people in four locations, Halifax, Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Victoria.

The shipyard talks about the fact that so many of the small and medium-sized enterprises have either gone bankrupt or been forced out of the industry. It has asked why the Government of Canada, in the context of a larger shipbuilding strategy, does not have a policy that carves out some work for the small and medium-sized enterprises. It has pointed to the example of what happens in the United States.

The United States has something called a small business administration program. I will not go through all of the details on this, but it is a really good example of how the U.S. government has created categories for contract opportunities reserved exclusively for small and medium-sized businesses. There is a whole procedure that small and medium-sized businesses can access.

In case members do not think there is not widespread support from shipyard workers in industry, I want to quote from some letters.

One letter is from the Shipyard General Workers' Federation of British Columbia, dated March 11, 2009. This is written to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but it feels so passionately about this that it wanted to ensure some of its words were said in the House. It says:

The Shipyard General Workers Federation represents approximately 2,000 skilled members who work in the shipyards, marine manufacturing and supply industries, and in the metal fabrication shops in British Columbia's coastal communities.

In its letter, it is requesting that, at the very least, the industry should be exempted from EFTA. It says:

We urge the government to recognize and act in the interest of this vital and strategic sector and develop a comprehensive industrial strategy that has as its' objective the long term stability and viability of a shipbuilding and marine fabrication industry on both the East and West coasts.

In the Pacific Northwest, which includes Victoria and Nanaimo, we know that between the major retrofits that used to be available through Point Hope and some of the other shipyards, we also have a significant number of small pleasure craft. I do not have the exact numbers, but it has been rumoured that in the whole base, including Washington and Oregon, there is up to a million small pleasure craft. When we are talking about a shipbuilding industry, we are not only talking about large-vessel building. We are also talking about the smaller pleasure craft. There is a whole range of abilities there.

A national shipbuilding strategy needs to look at that range of abilities. The fact that we have the longest coastline in the entire world, that we literally do go from coast to coast to coast, could be a significant economic driver in many of our communities. It used to be.

In the words of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, we need to remember shipbuilding. It was one of the founding industries in our country. When I talk about coast to coast to coast, I am not ignoring the inland waterways, which the member for Welland rightly brought up. However, I want to focus on the west coast for now.

We have the ability to rebuild that industry. We still have infrastructure in place. I urge the members in the House to not support this bill, carve out shipbuilding and develop that national shipbuilding strategy.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan because I know she believes very passionately about this issue. She is from a shipbuilding community.

As she was speaking, I was thinking of the ferries going back and forth between Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo and from Tsawwassen to Swartz Bay. She is right on when she talks about the travesty of B.C. ferries being built in Germany, and the celebration over there. There was no celebration in B.C., because B.C. workers, very skilled experienced workers, were out of jobs.

One of the most important elements we are debating today is the need for a shipbuilding strategy across the country that incorporates the elements of training a younger generation.

In terms of our context on the west coast, B.C. ferries is so much a critical part of our transportation system. Without it, we would not exist in our coastal community.

Could she talk about what that means in terms of her community and how it would generate economic activity if we had a national shipbuilding program, if it were carved out, and a strategy to train a new generation in this time-honoured skill of shipbuilding in the Nanaimo area?

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

Madam Speaker, my riding is heavily dependent on ferries. We have ferries that go from Nanaimo over to Vancouver, but we also have ferries that go to the smaller islands, Thetis, Kuper, Gabriola. It is the heart of our community. I am very proud of the fact that Nanaimo Shipyard still continues to exist in downtown Nanaimo.

We need to ensure that Nanaimo Shipyard continues to exist. We need to ensure that, first, there is a procurement strategy, a buy Canada strategy, that would ensure shipyards, like Nanaimo Shipyard, have access. We are watching these smaller shipyards being squeezed out of the bidding game because of the way that some of these procurement contracts are being bundled. That is one aspect of it.

The second aspect is it heartbreaking to watch ferries being built overseas. We have a highly trained, highly skilled workforce in British Columbia. The other day I referred to Jim Sinclair from the B.C. Federation of Labour, when I talked about the deindustrialization of the province of B.C. I talked about this in the forestry context, but we can see this in the context of shipbuilding as well.

I would argue that there needs to be an investment in shipbuilding. There needs to be an investment in maintaining that infrastructure. There needs to be an investment in the skills and the training to ensure we can attract new workers into the industry. We need to set some goals and targets to say that we will take our place in the world as a very proud shipbuilding nation. We have the capabilities to do that.

We need to exclude shipbuilding from this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, as I always do, I listened with a lot of interest to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. She brings good sense and practicalities to the House. It is important to her voice.

I found it particularly interesting when she talked about the B.C. marine workers. The B.C. marine workers are saying that the government should carve shipbuilding out of this agreement. They see this as a shipbuilding sellout.

We also had a softwood lumber sellout that cost thousands of jobs in British Columbia. The B.C. Conservatives voted for the softwood sellout. Now they are trying to push through the shipbuilding sellout.

My question for the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan would be this. With these B.C. Conservatives simply wanting to sell out British Columbia every chance they get, what are they really good for?

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

Madam Speaker, I think there was a song that said “absolutely nothing”.

I appreciate the member raising the issue of the softwood sellout. Not only is my riding a forestry one, but it used to be a strong shipbuilding one. We have seen that industry eroded.

I spoke earlier about the deindustrialization of British Columbia. This is just another example of it. What we have is a failed forestry policy, as one saw mill and one pulp and paper mill after another closes or goes into curtailment. Particularly in coastal British Columbia, we are seeing that deindustrialization around forestry. Now we are going to watch the same thing happen with shipbuilding.

If we care about our industrial base in the country, we need to invest in it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-2. First, let me pay tribute to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for carrying this debate on behalf of our party.

I come from a shipbuilding province, but I do not want to be parochial about this. We are a shipbuilding nation. My part of the country has been building ships for hundreds and hundreds of years for the fishing industry, going back 400 and 500 years.

We are building ships now. We have a modern shipyard in Marystown that is capable of terrific work. It was selected, in fact, for the joint supply ships for the Canadian navy, one of the two final bidders that were ready to roll and go to build these ships. What happened? At the last minute, or 72 hours before the election was called, the government cancelled the contract. The Canadian navy was about to issue a contract that was worth some $2.5 billion, which would have provided work, if Marystown was the successful bidder, and lot of people in my neck of the woods had every reason to believe that it would have been, to build those ships for six, eight or ten years of work and another fifteen or twenty years to provide the maintenance of them.

While Newfoundland and Labrador is part of the historic fishing, maritime, shipbuilding, boat building nation, we cannot forget that shipbuilding is a modern 21st century industry today. It is not part of the rust belt. Yes, ships are built of iron and steel, but they are also built with the most modern telecommunications and navigation facilities. They are built to rigorous standards. It is an industry of the future, requiring the highest degree of skill, technology and knowledge. It is a knowledge-based industry as well as part of the industrial base of our country.

It is something that requires the support of government to keep us in the game. What has happened is that other countries such as Norway have done that for their industry, for their people, for their prosperity and for their participation in the future of industry in the world, but we have not done that for ours. That is the reason why this should be out of this deal.

There are other problems with this deal too. The premier of my province has mentioned some of them. We are not using this opportunity to negotiate a free trade agreement to ensure that we remove the tariff, for example, from shrimp, which has been crippling the shrimp industry in the east coast for many years. This non-tariff barrier is being promoted now in the European Union by an attempt to ban seal products from a humane, controlled industry in the east coast.

We see no effort by the Government of the Canada to use these negotiations as an opportunity to extend our fishing jurisdiction outside the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We still have to deal with an ineffective regime there.

Therefore, there other disappointments, but the big one, for which we are looking for support from both sides of the House, is our shipbuilding industry. We are trying to get some sense into the government, but we are also hoping that others on this side of the House will support our efforts. We are looking to the Bloc Québécois members who may be supportive, but we are also looking to the Liberals. So far I have not heard the Liberals participating in this debate and saying how they feel about this.

That was not always the case. I have in my hand a report that was produced, with the support of Brian Tobin, a former premier of Newfoundland and former industry minister. It is called “Breaking Through: The Canadian Shipbuilding Industry”. This report came out with a whole series of recommendations produced through a consultation process led by a number of individuals called the National Partnership Project Committee. Part of that was the president of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, Peter Cairns, Les Holloway, the executive director of the Marine Workers Federation, Philippe Tremblay from the Fédération de la métallurgie CSN and Peter Woodward from the Woodward Group of Companies. They made a very good presentation with a lot of recommendations for the shipbuilding industry, which would have assisted this industry. However, we have not seen those recommendations implemented.

I would ask the Liberals, both nationally and from my own province, to support the amendment that we put forward because it would be important, not only to our own province of Newfoundland and Labrador but to the whole country. We have heard of the importance of shipbuilding on the west coast. We know it is important in the Thunder Bay area and in the province of Quebec. We see shipyards struggling to maintain their place in the modern world.

One important recommendation for this shipbuilding project was to ask the Government of Canada to eliminate the peaks and valleys of procurement for the navy and the Coast Guard through more effective forward planning and thereby keeping order books and employment levels more consistent over the long term.

That is extremely important because we do need to maintain a significant plan and a significant capital investment. According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen a couple of weeks ago on the estimated demands and needs for the navy, it stated:

One area that could provide significant employment for domestic firms in the coming decades is federal shipbuilding. With the navy's warships and Coast Guard vessels rusting out and in need of replacement, there is an estimated $40 billion to $60 billion worth of work over the next 20 years.

Where this work will take place is the question marine workers across the country are asking. With the cancellation of the joint supply ships project back in August, concerns were being raised that the government had plans to go overseas, to go offshore. It went through a tendering process and then it gave up on it.

Now we see the government supplying the Canadian Forces without contracts. It is buying helicopters from the United States without any contracts. There is not even an opportunity for a competitive bidding process. That is shocking. The government acquired C-17s and C-130J transport planes from the U.S. with no contracts and no competitive bidding.

There is a concern that the new search and rescue aircraft will go to a non-competitive bid. Canadian companies have no opportunity to participate because the Canadian Forces, apparently, have their eye on a particular Italian plane manufactured in the U.S. and there does not seem to be any plans to even have a competitive bid for that.

What is going on? Have we lost our way? Every country in the world, when it comes to procurement for their army, navy and air force, look to their domestic industries, except Canada. What is wrong with us? Is there something that I do not know about? Maybe members opposite could tell us what is wrong with us. What is it about us that we cannot build our own ships to ply the seas and look after our air forces, transport and so on? Maybe members opposite have the answers. Maybe there is something going on that I do not know about, but we seem to have lost our way.

For some reason, a bunch of Liberals seem to be going along with the government. I do not understand that. The shipbuilding industry is a modern, 21st century industry in which we should be participating. Why we are not doing so, is absolutely beyond me.

In the minute I have left, I would ask members opposite to get up on their feet during questions and comments and explain to the House and to Canadians why they are not protecting, supporting and expanding the ship industry in Canada. Perhaps some of the Liberals could tell us why they do not care either.

What is the plan for the $40 billion to $60 billion that will be spent by the government alone on the shipbuilding industry over the next coming decade? That could make a big difference to the economy of parts of this country, mostly coastal areas that have been struggling over the past many years for all sorts of reasons, some having to do with the fishery. Why is it that we cannot ensure that this kind of work is being done in this country?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I want to support the point the member made about giving Canadian companies the right to bid on the search and rescue planes. I just want to make another point in that respect, which is that we definitely need those planes.

As members know, I have been pushing for those planes for years and the contract is finally going out, which is good, and I applaud the government for that. However, there is still no commitment to put any planes north of 60. I just came from committee a few minutes ago where the government said that it was based on the fact that there were not as many incidents. It is basing it on risk management.

There is more risk in the north. One is more likely to freeze to death. We need the high tech equipment more quickly. There is no reason those planes should be down near our southern border. Down south there are a lot of other types of people and planes and more chance of rescue. I cannot agree with the government on that point and I will continue to make that point.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments on the shipbuilding industry and how the Liberal Party is working hard to help that happen. I do happen to agree with him on the air search and rescue. There does need to be a level of competency and a quick response.

The same kind of commitment to building that he is talking about in the aerospace industry needs to be applied to the shipbuilding industry. That is something on which we are looking for their support and we hope we will get it.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a number of comments over the last little while and I thank my colleagues for that. We have now heard from our colleague from the east coast, our colleague from the west coast, and I myself earlier who lives in the central part of this country, about shipbuilding. All of us engage with our communities and our residences around shipbuilding.

I have a question for my hon. colleague from St. John's East. What sort of impact do we see happening, especially in a place like Marystown?

I had the good pleasure to visit the yard in Marystown the last time I was in Newfoundland. I congratulate my colleague for his representation here and on the beauty of Newfoundland. What does it mean to Marystown and those workers in that community if this shipbuilding industry is carved out from EFTA? What will it mean for them, for those workers, for the community and for Newfoundland in general?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question and it applies to other shipyards as well, of course, but in particular in the Burin Peninsula, the shipyard in Marystown has been there. As most people, who know about that industry, know, shipyards often lurch from contract to contract with gaps in between.

We saw, for example, a fully occupied workforce in Marystown but once the contract was gone they all disappeared to find work somewhere else. They go off to Alberta or to New Brunswick, wherever there is a project, and getting a workforce back together for a contract is sometimes difficult to do.

A long term contract, such as the joint supply ships, would have given the industry a steady workforce for a long period of time, which would make a world of difference not only to those individual workers but for the whole Burin Peninsula and that whole community. That is the importance of having the kind of ongoing, planned procurement approach that we are calling for here today.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador for a very instructive speech. I learned a great deal.

Perhaps the member could help us answer one question. At what point in Canadian history does he think we made this conscious choice to abandon the shipbuilding industry as some smokestack industry that we no longer want any part of?

In my own union alone, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, we used to have 35,000 members who worked for the Burrard Dry Dock Company in Vancouver alone and produced one ship a week in support of the convoy to keep Great Britain alive during the second world war. We were building a ship a week with 35,000 members of my union.

At what point and by what pretzel reasoning did they abandon that kind of domination of the industry and forego it to other countries?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, maybe it has something to do with this synchronized problem that we have in the world, that all of a sudden the ideology overtook the government of free enterprise, no controls, no support of its own industry, just let it go loose and see what happens, laisssez-faire, descended in a synchronized way--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues, particularly my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for the work he has done on this trade deal, the Canada-European free trade agreement, and the many free trade agreements that the present government and previous Liberal government have inflicted on the people and communities of Canada.

I say inflicted because I and members of my caucus have profound concerns about the CEFTA as we did with the first Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, the Canada-Colombian Free Trade Agreement, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the Korean free trade agreement and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which is not secure, will not create prosperity and is far from being a partnership. It is, indeed, a one-sided proposal that will compromise Canada's sovereignty with regard to water, airline safety and our independence in terms of foreign policy, culture and technological products.

The Canada-European free trade agreement, conceived by Jean Chrétien more than nine years ago, advanced by Liberal-Conservative trade minister, David Emerson, and now reintroduced by the current trade minister, presents a profound concern for Canada's agriculture and shipbuilding industries.

Evidence provided during industry committee hearings clearly demonstrated a key concern with the CEFTA related to the treatment of Canada's shipbuilding industry, which was abandoned by successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

Canada has the longest coastline in the world and yet it has no strategy for our shipbuilding industry. When the tariffs in the CEFTA come down in 15 years, Canada's industry will be unable to cope with Norwegian competition. The Canada-European free trade agreement is yet another of the Conservative government's hastily concluded bilateral trade agreements and highlights its piecemeal approach to trade that lacks a coherent, fair trade vision and policy.

Canadians are entitled to expect their government to support Canadian jobs. That point was made by Andrew McArthur, a member of the board of directors of the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, and the CAW, which made its case before the committee. It said that the shipbuilding sector must be excluded from this agreement and that the federal government should immediately help put together a structured financing facility and an accelerated capital cost allowance for the industry.

In addition to this testimony, was the concern expressed by Mary Keith, spokeswoman for the Irving shipbuilding conglomerate, about the Canada-European free trade agreement. She said:

...is a devastating blow for Canadian shipbuilders and marine service sectors.

The government of Canada is continuing its 12-year history of sacrificing Canadian shipbuilding and ship operators in the establishment of free trade agreements with other nations.

That is at the heart of the efforts made by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to amend Bill C-2 at report stage. The shipbuilding industry is at a critical point.

As was pointed out by Mr. Andrew McArthur and Mr. George MacPherson at the international trade committee on March 3, they said:

The Canadian shipbuilding industry is already operating at about a third of its capacity. Canadian demand for ships over the next 25 years is estimated to be worth $40 billion. Under the proposed FTAs with Norway, Iceland and the planned FTA with Korea and then Japan, these Canadian shipbuilding jobs are in serious jeopardy. In these terms, this government plan is an absolute outrage.

Imagine that, $40 billion and it will not benefit Canadian workers.

The position of the association from day one has been that shipbuilding should be carved out from the EFTA. We have been told categorically time and again by the government that it does not carve industries out. We have mentioned the fact that the Jones act in the U.S. was carved out from NAFTA and now we are not allowed to build or repair for the Americans but the Americans have free access to our market. So industries do not get carved out.

Unfortunately, and apparently, that only happens in the United States.

New Democrats have proposed that Bill C-2 be redrafted by the government to exclude shipbuilding. We hope the Liberals from Atlantic Canada will see the wisdom of this amendment and support the hard-working men and women across the country who build the ships.

Bill C-2 simply must change. This is not, as I have already indicated, the first time that a Liberal-Conservative trade deal has left Canadian workers and industries in ashes. We have seen it over and over again in communities like mine, in London, Ontario, and the smaller centres of southwestern Ontario. Free trade agreements, be they the FTA, NAFTA, or the Korean free trade agreement, have robbed families of their livelihood and taken away their future.

NAFTA was supposed to bring prosperity to Canada. Instead, we have seen industry after industry abandon the workers who made them successful and the communities that paid for the infrastructure that allowed them to prosper. They have abandoned them in favour of jurisdictions that sacrifice environmental and safety standards and permit their employees to earn only substandard wages. They have done that despite the fact that Canadian workers are the best and most skilled in the world.

For example, a detailed study of productivity levels in North American auto assembly confirms that Canadian auto factories are the most efficient on the continent. The Harbour Report, the leading survey of auto productivity, indicates that average labour productivity is more than 11% higher in Canadian auto assembly plants than in U.S. plants and about 35% better than in Mexican plants. I dare say that is true of shipbuilders, too.

The Navistar truck plant in Chatham and the Sterling truck plant in St. Thomas are two tragic examples of the exodus of profitable and efficient plants that have completely closed down. They closed at a tremendous cost to families and communities. I have met with the workers from those plants and their families. The consequences of those job losses are devastating, because hopes, opportunities, dreams and futures are destroyed.

NAFTA is not the only trade deal that threatens our communities. The government is still in negotiations with South Korea to put in place a free trade deal that is profoundly unbalanced. It tolerates a trade deficit of over $3 billion at a cost of thousands of jobs. Korea has been allowed to keep its domestic markets closed to Canadian vehicles, and the promises by Koreans to remove non-tariff barriers are unenforceable.

In 2005, Canada imported $5.4 billion in goods from Korea, while it exported only $2.8 billion. Sixty-seven per cent of that trade deficit was automotive. Canada imported 129,376 light-duty vehicles with virtually no reciprocal sales of vehicles from Canada. This is not free trade nor fair trade. It is the kind of trade deal, like the FTA, NAFTA, the Colombia trade agreement, the MAI and the SPP, that robs our families and communities of jobs.

I have a couple of letters that I want to quote from. They are from people who are very concerned about this trade deal.

The first letter is from Robert Vance, who writes that he is very concerned and disheartened. He is a shipyard worker. He writes:

It is shameful to think that although other countries including those involved in the European free trade agreement strongly support their shipbuilding industry, while we as Canadians do not.

One of the most surprising things to me as a shipyard workers is that all stakeholders in the industry including owners, operators and unions from coast-to-coast have emphasized the need for this support during the many committee meetings that were held on the use of free trade talks.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party of Canada did not feel it necessary to support these workers and backed up the Conservatives, instead.

It is up to the government and all parliamentarians to protect Canadian jobs and industries. That includes agriculture and it includes shipbuilding, as well as those in manufacturing and the auto sector. We must protect Canadian jobs and industries for the sake of our communities, for the sake of our workers, for the sake of this country.

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

Madam Speaker, the member pushed the fact that we need to carve the shipbuilding industry out of the trade agreement.

We know what it means to rush into a trade agreement. We only have to look at what happened with the softwood lumber agreement.

In my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing we are in the process of retrofitting a ship, so I know what it takes. In order to retrofit that boat, we are going to need skilled labour, such as electricians, plumbers and technologists, not just people who actually build boats.

We have a shortage of skilled labour. I wonder if the member could elaborate on how Canada could lose a lot of opportunities to get new skilled labour online.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. These new industries require all kinds of talented tradespeople. Unfortunately, we are falling behind in terms of skilled tradespeople.

The current crisis with employment insurance underscores that, inasmuch as in order to qualify for employment insurance, people must have a certain number of hours and many people cannot possibly manage to get those hours. At the same time, they are being shut out of the skills training associated with employment insurance. It is a double whammy. They do not qualify for EI and they cannot support their families. They need the skills training to get the jobs that would allow them to support their families, but they cannot get that either because they cannot access the employment insurance that should be available.

Only 40% of the people who contribute to employment insurance in this country are able to enjoy that benefit. What about the other 60%? That is 60% of Canadians who are hard-working, who simply need a government that understands that some training would help them to find those all-important jobs.

If we supported our manufacturing and shipbuilding industries, we could put those young skilled tradespeople to work.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, although my hon. colleagues does not live near a lake or a river in London, nor does she have a shipyard in her riding, shipyards and shipbuilding are high tech operations. Looking at a bridge on a new ship today one would think one was in the Apollo spacecraft that went to the moon. That is how advanced they have become. It is not an old wheelhouse with a big wheel that someone has to turn four times to make the ship move. It is so advanced and high tech.

Does my colleague from London—Fanshawe see opportunities for other businesses and industries in her riding of London to outfit those ships? It is similar to the auto industry. There is an assembly plant, but feeder plants are needed to feed the materials which eventually will make up the ship. A shipyard is a place of assembly. Does the member see opportunities in a place like London to help build ships?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed London is on the Thames River and we are very proud to have Prevost which is a naval institution. We are very happy about that connection, be it a long distance to the sea.

As I indicated in my remarks, we have very productive workers. In addition, we have the University of Western Ontario and Fanshawe College. They are able to help us with providing the research and development and the workers of the future.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:36 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 11 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again here today to speak to BIll C-2, which should lead to the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the states of the European Free Trade Association. The Standing Committee on International Trade has already studied it at length. We have heard from a number of witnesses and we are ready to debate it here today at this stage.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it is generally in favour of this agreement. We in the Bloc think that it is a good agreement, especially for the Quebec economy, because there are attractive economic opportunities for us in the countries that are signing it. I will not spend any more time on why we support this agreement, since this has already been explained in previous speeches by some of my colleagues and myself, during the debate at second reading.

In my last speech I also spoke about shipbuilding and its place in this agreement, and I will take advantage of this opportunity to clarify my position on this matter. First of all, I must say that I am aware of the concerns the representatives of the shipbuilding industry in Quebec have about the implementation of this agreement.

The future of our shipyards is a matter of vital importance to Quebec, particularly its eastern part, where a sizeable portion of the economy depends on the economic spinoffs from the shipyards. I feel it is absolutely vital for Quebec's shipbuilding industry to remain healthy and able to develop in the years to come. For that to happen, the government needs to finally accept its responsibilities and invest in this field.

It must be understood that the difficulties being experienced by the shipyards and the marine industry in general did not just crop up today, and the blame must not be laid on the adoption of an agreement whose impact will not be felt here for many years to come. On the other hand, we must not miss our opportunity to make a major change of direction in our marine policy. We can state that there is no real marine policy in Canada at this time, and that could cause real trouble in future years if action is not taken now.

There is no denying that there will be more competition. We have concerns about competition from countries like Norway, where the marine sector has been heavily subsidized for many years. That said, we must start immediately to implement measures to help this industry become more modern and more competitive. We know that the major problem, the real problem, is that for years the shipbuilding sector has suffered, and still does, from a flagrant lack of government support. It is time the needs of Quebec and Canadian shipyards were paid attention to.

According to the agreement in question, there will be a tariff phase-out on the most sensitive shipbuilding products, for up to 15 years in certain cases. After that period of adjustment, no tariff protection will be allowed, and ships from EFTA countries including Norway will appear on the Canadian and Quebec market and compete on an level playing field with our own. This would not pose a problem if we were not so far behind.

According to the witnesses we heard in committee, if our borders were opened to our competitors tomorrow morning, our shipyards would simply not survive. That would be a very bad thing, because our shipyards are essential on a number of levels—economic, strategic and environmental.

One question comes to mind today: what will our shipbuilding industry look like in 15 years?

We are convinced that if the government finally assumes its responsibilities, as I was saying earlier, and decides to recognize that establishing a true marine policy is of the utmost importance, this industry will surely progress and be in an excellent position with respect to its future competitors.

Obviously, we do not believe that the government will take any action at all without pressure from those concerned. Therefore, in the hope of obtaining some movement by the government on this issue the Bloc Québécois presented the following important recommendation to the Standing Committee on International Trade before the free-trade agreement takes effect:

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

That was the only recommendation made in the report. The Conservatives never see any problems with their policies, the Liberals, as usual, failed to propose any recommendations, and the NDP, in its predictable opposition to free trade, opposed the agreement altogether. The Bloc Québécois recommendation, which finally received the committee's support and was included in its report, meets the expectations of many shipbuilders in Canada and Quebec. Even though they have no hope of seeing their sector excluded from the agreement, they do expect the government to act quickly and forcefully.

We see in the report that, according to representatives of shipbuilders and marine workers:

...without combined access to the structured financing facility and accelerated capital cost allowances, the impact of the agreement would be devastating to the industry and would lead to job losses. In their view, this additional government support was critical if the Canadian industry was to survive increased competition from Norwegian producers.

Some will say that Norway has announced that it has stopped subsidizing its shipbuilders and that that will enable Canada to compete on a level playing field with that country. But what are we doing to make up for all the years when there were no subsidies here, while Norway was achieving the high level of competitiveness it enjoys today, thanks to generous government support? Quite simply, there needs to be a dramatic shift in the federal approach to the marine industry, which means abandoning the laissez-faire policy the Liberals and Conservatives have followed to date.

I am happy that we are holding this debate on the trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association, because it reveals how fragile our marine industry is in the face of foreign competition and forces us to take a stand on these issues quickly. It is not the agreement that is bad, but our policy. That is why a change of direction is imperative. In 5 or 10 years, it will be too late. We must act now. With a few targeted measures, our shipyards can become modern, productive, financially healthy and extremely competitive. The biggest problem to date has been the lack of political will to change things, and it is high time that changed too.

Of all the aspects of this free trade agreement, this one has concerned me the most. The other aspects of the agreement, including agriculture, seem to be well handled and in line with Quebec's interests.

I would just like to add, as some of my colleagues have already pointed out, that this free trade agreement may open the door to a future agreement with the European Union. We must seize the opportunity when it arises and, more importantly, be ready to compete.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Workers in Quebec have said very clearly that the Bloc should support the NDP amendment. Workers in Lévis and at the Lauzon shipyards have very clearly said that they want the Bloc Québécois members to support the NDP amendment.

Perhaps they can be forgiven for the softwood lumber agreement, the softwood sellout that has cost Quebeckers so much. Even Guy Chevrette had said we should sign the agreement. At present, no one in Quebec, no one in the entire shipbuilding sector, is asking the Bloc members to vote in favour of this agreement. Quite the opposite, and the consensus is very clear. The Quebec industry wants the Bloc members to support the NDP amendment.

It seems that the orders are coming from the Conservatives. I find this disappointing. I know the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques fully understands what is at stake, but the Leader of the Bloc Québécois—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I must interrupt the hon. member in order to give the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques the opportunity to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, as my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have said repeatedly during the debates on Bill C-2, we think this free trade agreement is an excellent agreement. We have all been very clear. However, we must make sure it is accompanied by a real, vigorous policy in order to ensure that Quebec and Canada can be very competitive in the coming years, to be able to compete with countries like Norway.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

A recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred until the end of government orders today.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-2.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #28

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion lost.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you would find agreement to apply the vote on the previous motion to the motion currently before the House, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party will be voting in favour.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc are in favour of the motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members are very pleased to vote against this motion.

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

Vote #29

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 5:56 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.